This presentation was developed by General Motors Corporation Global Purchasing Supply Chain. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced reproduced in any form, or by any method, for any purpose, without written permission of General Motors Global Purchasing Supply Chain.
GM
1
Global Supplier Quality M I S S I O N : To b e l ea d er s o f a n en t e r p r i s e a p p r o a c h our suppliers
achieve
to ensure
l a u n c h a n d q u a l i t y e x c el l e n c e.
GM
2
BIQS
Focus – ONE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE GLOBALL GLOBALLY Y
• Common Principles • Common Methods • Common Processes
GM
3
BIQS 1 Nonconforming Material / Material Identification
GM
4
Nonconforming Material / Material Identification Are all material including the NC and suspected identified properly by tagging or by location ? IDENTIFY STOCK
Part remo ved from the line/process/ department
Identify all parts that are removed from the li ne/process/department • Tag or Mark each part or co ntain er so parts are clearly identified. Ensure the Tag or Mark is rob ust and must require effort t o remove. • Tagging good stock is just as important as tagging bad stock to reduce mishandling.
QUARANTINE “ BAD” STOCK
Nonconforming material handling/ Containment
Quarantine Suspect/Nonconforming parts from goo d parts in all areas of the Plant or Warehouse to pr event mishandling of parts. Place parts in a locked area or wrap parts with caution tape, again so they are CLEARLY IDENTIFIED.
GM
IDENTIFYING “BAD” STOCK Nonconforming parts MUST be Clearly Identifi ed. (Examples- Tag parts with red tags, permanently marker o r paint parts Red). Do not use stickers as they fall off in plant environments. A LOCK BOX or locked area is also acceptable for Identifying BAD parts.
IDENTIFYING “ GOOD” STOCK Conforming parts need to be identified with a Green tag if it’s a fully finished part that is GOOD. Parts that are not FINISHED also must be identi fied wit h a IN-PROCESS tag stati ng where in the pro cess the part was removed (example: Removed Operations 10, Ready for Operations 20).
5
Nonconforming Material / Material Identification All Sup plier s are respo nsib le for en su ri ng no n-con fo rm ing mat eri al d oes no t r each th e cust om er. COMMUNICATE If ANY GM facility is at risk of being presented with nonconforming material, inform all key GM contacts (SQE,SQA) immediately, at ALL potentially affected facilities globally
Nonconforming material identified
Complete FIX PERMANENT root cause and solution activities.
Break -Point
IDENTIFYING STOCK See Material Identification slide
Ensure compliance with the following material control process Audit (Slide 4) and containment worksheet.
CONTAIN AT YOUR FACILITY/YOUR TIER SUPPLIERS FACILITY(S)
ROBUST MATERIAL CONTROL
RECALIBRATE
Initiate containment with the assistance of the following checklists
Containment checklist
Dept. Containment W/S
Update PFMEA & Control Plan
ROBUST CONTAINMENT
Complete Fast Response problem solving at the facility, Read across to other facilities, and put together lesson learnt
Conforming m aterial flow with robust processes in place
Identify robust containment process, and obtain appropriate approvals from GM SQ and Engineering.
Work with key GM customer contacts to initiate containment at their facility(s) if potentially affected.
CONTAIN AT GM FACILITY(S) NOTE: Provide daily updates to key GM contacts on current issue status!
CLOSURE GM
6
Nonconforming Material / Material Identification Containment Work Sheet should cover all potential location
Both Good and Bad material should be identified such as by
C O N T A IN M E N T W O R K S H E E T D E P A R T M E N T :
D E P A R T M E N T C O N T A I N M E N T O W N E R :
D A T E :
G .H a l l
L a b o r a t o r y
0 6 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 3
1 0 0 6 6 0 4 4
P R O D U C T N A M E /N U M B E R : P R O D U C T N O N C O N F O R M A N C E :
B u r ro n fla n g e P R O D U C T C O N T A IN M E N T S C O P E ID E N T F IY A L L A R E A S W H E R E S U S P E C T P R O D U C T C O U L D B E L O C A T E D
L O C A T I O N
R e c e iv in g L a b o ra to r y
P O T E N T I A L Q T Y .
S U S P E C T P R O D . F O U N D ?Q T Y ?
V E R I F I C A T I O N R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y
P . S .
5 0 0
P .S m it h
6
K . C .
6
T .B r o w n
W I P S t o ra g e A r e a s
1 0 0 0
O u t s id e P r o c e s s in g -( P la t in g )
1 0 0 0
S c ra p B in s
A R E A V E R I F I E D
5 0 0
4 2
P . S .
1 0 0 0
P .S m it h
C . J .
1 0 0 0
C .J o n e s
4 2
C .J o n e s
K . C .
R e w o rkA r e a s
0
B . T .
0
C .J o n e s
S h ip p in g D o c k
0
K . C .
0
C .J o n e s
H e a tT r e a te r
0
P . S .
0
C .J o n e s
A tC u s to m e r
0
B . T .
0
C .J o n e s
I nT ra n s it
0
B . T .
0
C .J o n e s
S e r v ic e P a rts O p e r a tio n s
0
P . S .
0
C .J o n e s
2 5 4 8
C .J o n e s
T O T A L F O U N D
2 5 4 8
S E G R E G A T E S U S P E C T P R O D U C T T O ( lo c a tio n ,a sf e a s ib le ) : S O R T M E T H O D ( e g .v is u a l,g a g e ,m a t in g p a r t) : S O R T C R I T E R I A ( c le a rp a s s / fa l i s ta n d a r d s ) : I . D .M E T H O D C O N F O R M I N G ( e g .m a r k ,t a g ,s ig n ) : I . D .M E T H O D N O N C O N F O R M I N G ( e g .m a r k ,t a g ,s ig n ) :
Tag
2 5 4 8 p c st o C o n t a i n m e n tA r e a V i s u a l fo rb u r r s M a x B u r rp e rs t a n d a r d W h it e p a in td o tn e a rd e fe c ta r e a M a r kd e fe c tw it h r e dp a in t .
Or & and
Location
NC material from containment should be isolated to avoid being used .
Material identification should be easily identified .visual tools such as colored bins ,foot print , tags ,.etc might be used . GM
7
GM 8
GM 9
Nonconforming Material / Material Identification
• Containment Worksheet does not list all the potential locations • Containment Worksheet exists but not used • Containment without standardized work • Reintroduction not clearly identified (is at or prior to point of removal) • Hidden rework processes • Breakpoint communicated before defect really understood • Customer not notified…but then finds problem !!
GM
10
BIQS 2 Layered Process Audit
GM
11
Layered Process Audit (LPA) • LPA is an effective tool to assure compliance to standardized procedures at each workstation such as SW , CNC compliance , E.P verification . • LPA process is owned by management who assure effective implementation of LPA in all levels and use the LPA process for Continuous improvement . • LPA should have daily activity by team member /leader . • Management should participate on audit activity on go and see on shop floor on frequent basis ( Ex: monthly base ) . • Customer specific and quality focus checks from FR issues should be reviewed by all layers including management . • Top Management ensure effective corrective actions and counter measures. (Example of LPA Plan )
GM
12
Layered Process Audit (LPA)
Ø Pick the station to be audited based on the LPA schedule
Ø Follow LPA Check sheet Ø Immediately inform all Team members
about the audit
results. Ø Record all deviations on LPA Check sheet and Countermeasure sheet. Ø Assign target close date & champion Ø Implement suggested countermeasures as soon as possible.
Ø Follow-up on open items, make sure to close by target close date. Ø Elevate problem to higher level after target Close date. Ø Perform Management review.
GM
13
Layered Process Audit (LPA)
HEADER: Enter the System Name Product line or an area of the Plant 1. Molding 2 . P ai nt /C oa ti ng 3. Assem bly 4. Warehouse/Shipping Section #1: COMMON Work Station Questions
Section #2: UNIQUE Quality Foc used Questions
Section #3: COMMON Manufacturing System Questions
GM
14
Layered Process Audit (LPA) LPA Check sheet example 2
GM
•
Customer FR Focus questions is audited by all levels .
•
Management is checking LPA results and issues closing for all levels ( LPA is owned by Leadership.)
•
Classification of questions shows status ( audit results are clear and N items has action plan) . 15
Layered Process Audit (LPA) (Example) DEPT._________________ 100%
LAYERED PROCESS AUDIT RESULTS 50
47 43
90%
43
80%
40
70%
35
60%
30
27 24
23
50% 20
40%
•
45
16
30%
25
22 19
20
16
14
15
20%
10
10%
5
LPA results for all levels are summarized on monthly basis for continuous improvement .
0
0% JAN
FEB
MAR
% IN COMPLIANCE: # OF ITEMS ON ASSESSMENT: # OF ASSESSMENTS TOTAL # OF ITEMS ASSESSED: # OF ITEMS IN COMPLIANCE: NON CONFORMANCES NON CONFORMANCES Safety Missed Audi ts 5S Related Product Voice of Customer Systemic Gage Calibration Poke Yoke
APR
MAY
JAN 88% 20 20 400 353 47
10 10 2 10 6 9
JUNE
FEB 68% 15 9 135 92 43
8 8 7 4 4 7 5
JUL
MAR 95% 20 28 560 533 27
5 3 7 3 2 1 6
AUG
APR 96% 30 15 450 434 16
2 2 3 2 2 2 3
SEP
OCT
MAY JUNE 97% 84% 20 10 20 10 400 100 386 84 14 16
NUMBER OF 1 3 2 1 3 2 2
ITEMS 1 4 2 1 4 2 2
NOV
JUL 95% 20 20 400 380 20
DEC
AUG 95% 25 20 500 477 23
SEP 94% 20 20 400 376 24
NOT IN COMPLIANCE 1 1 1 5 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 3 2 2 2 5 6 7 5 7
GM
OCT 95% 20 20 400 381 19
1 1 2 1 2 2 2 8
NOV 95% 20 20 400 378 22
1 1 3 1 2 2 2 10
DEC 89% 20 20 400 357 43
1 10 2 10 10 2 2 6
16
Layered Process Audit (LPA)
• Mixed with product or process audit (1/month) • Audit list is not flexible (once fixed) • Containment activity is not in LPA • Deviations corrected during audit are not documented (NC) •
“Daily ticking activity” but no real audit
• Result of 5 minutes instead of complete shift • Workstation not being checked in different shifts • Corrective actions not defined/followed (best is a hand written action plan) • Stayed on daily level, not layered • No management follow up • Only applied to manufacturing not across entire organization
GM
17
BIQS 3 PFMEA BIQS 4 PFMEA – Risk Reduction & Annual Review
GM
18
PFMEA & Risk Reduction •
PFMEA Should be available for all part numbers /processes .
•
PFMEA should Cover all processes including material handling , packing & labeling .
•
PFMEA should cover the rework , Bypass processes .
•
Each Failure mode has one Severity number .
•
Each failure Mode might have more than one cause .
•
Each cause has its RPN number .
•
S,O, D numbers should be taken based on PFMEA tables references .
(Example: PFMEA AIAG 4 th edition tables)
Severity Tables
Occurrence Tables GM
Detection Tables 19
PFMEA & Risk Reduction (Example: PFMEA )
Handling Failure modes are considered
Failure mode might have multiple causes
Failure mode has one S number
Severity of scrap is 7 or 8 as per AIAG tables
Visual inspection D number is 7 or 8 as per AIAG references Each cause for each failure mode has it’s own RPN number .
GM
20
PFMEA & Risk Reduction
• •
Reduce the risk of a initial quality failures
•
Error proofing past quality failures
•
Ensure that Failure Modes have proper controls (prevention/detection) and work properly
• • • • •
Assembly Area Manufacturing Operations Shipping / Receiving All Operations Other Support Functions
•
Ownership
•
•
•
•
Engineering Manager
•
Operations Manager
Contingency Plan for All Situations
GM
21
PFMEA & Risk Reduction
Cross-functional teams shall review PFMEA’s periodically.
Risk Reduction through review of past quality issues.
Reverse PFMEA is an on-station review of all failure modes included in PFMEA to verify that all failure modes have proper controls (Prevention controls controls or Detection controls) and that they are working properly.
GM
22
PFMEA & Risk Reduction (Example (E xample of ri sk r educti on.) •
The use of an RPN threshold is NOT a recommended practice for dete determ rmin inin ing g the the need need for for acti action ons, s, so it also also will ill depe depend nds s on Sev Severit erity y rank rankin ing. g.
•
For example, if the customer ap app plied an arb rbiitrar ary y threshold of 100 to the follow owiing, the su sup ppli lie er wou oulld be requ quiired to tak ake e act ctiion on the ch cha aract cte eri risstic B wi witth th the e RPN of 112.
•
In th this is ex exam ampl ple, e, th the e RP RPN N is hi high gher er for ch char arac acte teri rist stic ic B th than an ch char arac acte teri rist stic ic A. Ho Howe weve verr, the priority should be to work on A with the high ghe er severity of 9, althou oug gh its RPN is 90 wh whiich is low ower er an and d bel elo ow th the e th thrres esho holld.
•
There is no specific RPN value that requries mandatory action. i.e; PFMEA is a live document..
GM
23
PFMEA & Risk Reduction
Priority Level Level Based on Severity Zone (Severity vs. Occurrence) and Detection Level (Severity vs. Detection) Priority Level Level 1: Highest level of risk, should review for potential risk reduction activity Priority Level Level 2: Medium level of risk, next group to review for potential risk reduction activity Priority Level Level 3: Lowest level of risk, risk reduction activity not necessary. Detection • Seve Severi rity ty Zone Zone:: comp compar arin ing g the the seve severi rity ty and and occu occurr rren ence ce numb number ers s • Dete Detect ctio ion n Zone Zone:: comp compar arin ing g the the seve severi rity ty and and dete detect ctio ion n numb number ers s 10 e 9 c n e 8 r r u 7 c c 6 O 5 4 3 2 1
3 1 1 1 3 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
3 2 1
1 1
3 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 2
2 1 1 1
1 1 1
3 3
2 2
1 1
2
1 1 1 1 1
2 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3
1
1
1 1 1
3 3 2 2 1 1
3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 2
2
3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Severity
24
GM
10 9 n 8 o i t 7 c e t e 6 D 5 4 3 2 1
3 2 1 1 3 2
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
3 2 2
2 2
2 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3
3 3 2
2 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Severity
Priority L evel evel ) e t n e o D Z r n e o v i t o c v e t e S e ( D
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
Severity Severity Zone (Sev (Sev over Occ)
PFMEA & Risk Reduction
• PFMEA is a „one man show”. • Scoring is not according to customer guidelines. • Scoring is not consistent. • Primary detection method relies heavily on visual inspection. • Failure modes are missing, not revised at work station. • Internal/external PPM are not used for Occurrence. • Scoring driven by low RPN or set by action limit. • New scoring is not revised after recommended action implementation. • High risk item identified but not controlled by SQ tools. • Management is not involved & does not allocate resources for regular reviews. • PFMEAs not used for continuous improvement - only updated when problems occur. 25
BIQS 5 Bypass Management
GM
26
Bypass Management
1. Risk analysis methods (e.g. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, etc.) are used in the development of processes and products. 2. Processes are validated relative to changes to Design, Man, Machine, Material, Method, and Environment under full volume production conditions. Process Flow
Process PFMEA
Control Plan
STS / SOS / JES
When a process cannot be executed following it’s approved process, bypass management is followed
GM
27
Bypass Management
Any time the process is altered outside the approved documented control plan, suppliers shall establish a Bypass Process Control procedure that:
• Defines the minimum requirements for bypassing an existing manufacturing process. • Defines minimum requirements for verification of the original when exiting the bypass.
process
Examples when a Bypass Process may be required:
• Torque gun failures • Any back up operation outside the normal process flow • Error Proofing or gaging that are turned off ( Error proofing /detection for Failure modes with Severity 9 & 10 not recommended to be bypassed.) • Any temporary rework to bring part back to specification
GM
28
Bypass Management
The Process Bypass Control procedure should incorporate the following:
• The process methods/controls defined for bypassing an existing manufacturing process are approved by the Operations Manager (process owner), the Engineering Manager and the Quality Manager. • A list of processes approved for bypass are maintained through Document Control Process.
the
• The PFMEA and Control Plan include the bypass process. • St andardized Work Instructions are established for the bypass process. • A form of communication is posted at each active bypass point. • Bypass process should be covered in LPA and FR to ensure PFMEA , CP ,SW , setting process during and after bypass .
GM
29
Bypass Management (Example)
This document is a record that documents: • breakpoints of entering and exiting the by-pass process • identifies tooling, inspection, and audit requirements
GM
30
BIQS 6 Error Proof Verification
GM
31
Error Proofing Verification
.
Objective: Function & use of error p roofing devices are verified on a scheduled basis based on risk.
What is Error Proofing? • A method of implementing a fail-safe mechanism to detect or/and prevent errors in a process fr om producing defects that severely or adversely impact customers and results in waste during manufacturing, assembly, or testing.
When is Error Proofing Implemented?
• When an operation, process, or test has been assessed for risk and the severity for not pr eventing the error has been determined to be too high. • This is based on Severity (impact of a failure on the customer), Occurrence (how often failure can occur), Detection (an assessment of how well current process can detect failure).
What is Error Proofing Verification? • Periodic checks to make sure the error proofing is doing what it should. • It is a simple test to ensure it is functioning properly.
How is Error Proofing Verified? • You must induce a fault to see if the error proofing system catches it. (Example: scan a wrong part) . • All failure modes in EP device must be verified ( Camera to check presence of 3 component must be verified by inducing the error for missing the 3 component
Who does the check? • Team Member or Team Leader performs the check and records the result on the Data Collection Sheet.
How? • Cross functional team using risk analysis to define where to apply error proofing. • A list of all Error Proofing devices (which includes location) is available. • The method and frequency of the error proofing verification is defined and documented in the st andardized work (TIS). • Error Proofing Masters parts are clearly identified. • All Error Proofing Devices are checked for function (failure or simulated failure) on a scheduled basis (beginning of shift , start of operation, or start of test). • Records of verification are available (Data Collection Sheet). • A reaction plan shall be developed for each error proofing device and posted at the workstation in the event the error proofing device fails. • The reaction plan shall be understood by the team member and contain: the com munication process, containment, corrective actions, the defined temporary checks during the malfunction of the error proofing device, and is incorporated in t he standardized work (TIS and Data Collection Sheet.).
Why? • We count on the error proofing system to catch the problem. • We cannot afford to build or test parts, components, or assemblies with a non-conformity. • The data generated from testing is critical to the development of our products.
THE BUILT-IN QUALITY MOTTO Do not Accept, Build, or Ship a Defect
GM
32
Error Proofing Verification
• Assures error proof/detection devices are working as intended. • Prevents nonconforming product from being made or transferred. • Establishes a history for each device; indicates when preventative maintenance or repair is needed. • Instills discipline within the process.
ü Error proofing devices shall be verified at least once per day. ü Error Proofing device locations shall be documented. ü Have reaction plans to device failures ( e.g. CNC ) Verification results shall be recorded. ü Leadership shall review verification results. ü If Error proofing device is designed for more than failure mode , verification should be done for all failure modes .
GM
33
Error Proofing Verification (Example)
Error detection device check presence of 5 items ( 5 failure modes.)
Sensor for gasket 1
Sensor for gasket 2
Sensor for lamp 1
Sensor for lamp 2
Sensor for gasket 3
Defected sample missing all items. Test pass if 5 sensors give negative results. GM
34
Error Proofing Verification
• Not all the error proofing devices are verified • Verification documented as completed but not actually performed • Result of verification driven by Master status (Bad Master = NOK result) • Frequency of verification is not reviewed • Reaction plan is not defined / followed in case of verification failure • Verification failures not escalated so no action taken • Containment not implemented when error proofing disabled • If error proofing device malfunctions, all parts should be rejected • Error proofing disabled - too many parts rejected or considered false fails
GM
35
BIQS 7 Gage Calibration Calibration / Measureme Measuremen nt System Analysis
GM
36
Gage Calibration / Measurement System Analysis : —Any device used to obtain measurement, or assess the conformance of a part or characteristic relative to specifications. —A set of operations to bring a gage into a state of performance suitable for its use. —A set of operations that compares and evaluates under specified conditions, the relationship between a gage and a traceable standard —A set of operations to document the results of a calibration, indicating conformance or non-conformance to specifications. – a device used to check check and/or and/or adjust adjust a gage to a specified specified value. value. —A set of operations to verify that the gage results agree with the master.
GM
37
Gage Calibration / Measurement System Analysis
The angle variation of each operator operator measurement must be placed into the R&R table to have the appropriate evaluation. The specification for the study is 1 degree minimum, and 5 degrees maximum.
R&R Study Results
3 inspect inspectors, ors, 10 sampl samples es , 3 trial trials s
GM
38
BIQS 8 Fast Response & Team Problem Solving
GM
39
Fast Response & Team Problem Solving
• The disciplined execut ion of qualit y and production milestones that must be
targeted for completion w it hin a 24 hour, 5 production day and 20 production day period t o prevent reoccurrence of a problem. • To ensure that qualit y issues are immediately addressed through a disciplined
execut ion of qualit y and production milestones. Establishes focused criteria to drive the Fast Response to resolve issues and provide feedback in a meeting structure. Engages and suppor ts team problem solving. • Provides the status of a problem t hrough visual t racking. (Example)
GM
40
Fast Response & Team Problem Solving
EXIT CRITERIA STATUS KEY
ABC Company - Quality Fast Response Tracking Board R Y G
Target Timing , Status, & Date Green
# M E T I
d e n e p O e t a D
d e l l a C o h W
d e r e w s n A o h W
1/10
1
Amore
Mason
Sykes
Jones
1/15
2 1/21
3
Kurtz 1/22
4
Fe rr er 2/3
5
Do wd al l
Singh
PRR 312869 Internal CAR 08626
PRR 313123 FORD NCR S te lzer 4219 Internal CAR 08M eh al l 632 Arnold
2/14
6
g n / i r # k e n a n m R o r e p t s c e u n o R C C d l e i F
Patel
PRR 313517
t c u d o r P e / m m a a r N g o r P Hood Brkt 24241198 Radio Spt. Brkt 15891477 Hinge Assy 21119878 Seat Brkt MNOP13456-AF Hinge Assy 21119878 ICS Supt. 99923889
r e n w O Issue Description
Material Contaminated
Burrs
Parts mislocated on assembly
Mixed Parts
F. LaFev e
B . A da ms
McI ntosh
J . M cGr at h
Paint dots found on loose & misbuilt parts
J . M cGr at h
Loose 7mm bolt on front cover
B . Adams
e t a D r e t r n o w p e O R y t x B e N 2/21
C LO SE D
2/22
2 /22
2 /23
2/21
24 H
7D
14 D
34 D
t t n i e n o m p n k i a a t e n r o B C
e s d u i e a f t C i t n e o d o I R
n o d i t c e A t n e e v m i t e c l e p r r m o I C
n o i t c r t e o e r r / E D f o o r P
s s e c o s r t P i d d u e A r e y a L
n o i t c A d e t e a v i d i t c l a e V r r o C
G 1/11
G 1/18
G 1/24
G 1/24
G 1/25
G 1/15
G 2/16
G 2/10
NA
G 1/22
G 1/26
G 2/1
G 1/22
G 1/24
G 2/4 G 2/15
35 D P C d / t e A a E d p M U F P
s n o k i r t o c u r W t s d r n a I d r o n t a t a r S e p O
40 D d ) e d e n r i z a l e a L n o i s t n t u o i s t s s n e I L (
G 2/13
G 2/15
Y 2/20
Y 2/20
G 2/20
G 2/10
NA
G 2/17
G 2/20
R 2/17
G 2/21
R 2/17
R 2/21
N/A
R 2/24
G 1/27
G 1/27
Y 2/21
Y 2/20
Y 2/20
Y 2/20
Y 2/21
G 2/7
G 2/8
G 2/8
R 2/23
G 2/28
N/A
G 2/8
NA
G 2/7
Y 2/21
Y 2/21
Y 3/14
Y 3/12
Y 3/13
Y 3/14
Y 3/14
N/A
Action Plan / Countermeasure
d e s o l C e d t e a t s d a c e r o F
Need operator approval and training completion for Work Instructions across shifts
2/19
1) Required but not initiated 2) Target Date Missed Initiated but not complete Complete
e t a D d e s o l C l a u t c A
Not Applicable
d e s o l C e r t e a m D o t s u C
Y 25-Jan G 2/24
PLL Program Logic for Error Prevention device to reprogrammed by 2/21. J. Busch - M.E.
3/2
Need to confirm LPA results and Process Documents updated. LL System input.
3/3
LPA not Validated on 3rd shift. - J. Biden to confirm Cor. Act. By 2/22 Need Corp. Office approval on P.O. to obtain vendor intallation of Torque Monitor Upgrade. Bob D. to obtain authorization.
21-Feb
18-F eb R
Y 2-Feb R 3/15 Y 3/26
7
Both Customer issues and Major internal issues addressed in the FR meeting GM
) R
= G s L Y y L R a A ( D 0 R S 4 E U V T > O A n e T p S O
41
Fast Response & Team Problem Solving PROBLEM SOLVING FORM Safety
People
Quality
Author:
ü Have a defined process for Problem Solving which includes the core “6 Steps” and a standard for documenting tools used for root cause identification and elimination.
ü Empower everyone in the organization to participate in Problem Solving and Learned.
Lessons
Responsiveness
Date:
1. Problem Description
2. Problem Definit ion
3 Point of Cause
Cost
Problem found
Environmental Lot#/CSN/Julian Date:
Tracking #
(Highlevel vague stateme nt)
Freq:
(Detailedspecific statement)
100%
OneTime
Sporadi c
(Whereproblem is occurring)
Dept:
Shift:
Area:
4. Root Cause Investigation:
1
2
3
User Location:
Other: (specify)
(c ircle)
Immediate Containmen t Activity : Shor t-Term Fix
Person Resp. TargetDate
Status
Breakpoint
(At the point of cause- may usedi agnostic checksheets if available)
1 Std. work followed & employee trained? Yes
No
N/A
3 Correct parts used?
Yes
No
N/A
2 Correct tools/equipment used?
No
N/A
4 Are the parts in specification Yes
No
N/A
Yes
Direct Cause Why
Team Input (ie. TeamMember, TeamLeader)
Why Why Why
ü Establish and institutionalize a system to
Why Real Root Cause
5. Countermeasures /Long-Term Probl em Correcti on:
document Lessons Learned.
(Fundamental Process, Engineering, Toolin g Changes )
Activity :
Person Resp. Target Date
Status
Breakpoint
ü Establish a disciplined approach to problem prevention using Lessons
Follow-Up Verifi cation
Learned.
(Didwe effectively resolvethe problem?)
Countermeasuretrackingworking days defect free
Verification Process (Howdidyouverify thecountermeasureworked?) HasaQualityAlert beenposted? HavePFM EAsbeencompleted/updated? (Failuremodecomprehended)
ü Review the Lessons Learned process to assure implementation.
Old RPN#_____________
Yes Yes
No No
New RPN#____________
S______O_______D________
S______O_______D________
Wasthe Control Planadequate? Wasthe ControlPlan followed? HasError Proofingbeenreviewedandverificationcompleted? Havethejobinstructions,SOS/JES/PQSbeenupdated? (Including"finesse" instru Has JIT Training been completed? HavetheLayeredAuditsbeenupdated? Havethechecksheetsor otherformsbeenupdated? T he r es ul ts /c ha ng es w er e co mmu ni ca e t dt o al lT eam Me mbe rs o n al ls hi ft s
Issue resolved satisfactorily?
YES NO
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No No
Yes
No
N/A
No
N/ A
8
9
10
12 17
2
13 18
3
14 19
15 20
Issue escalated to:
Lessons Learned:
Author(Signature&daterequiredforclosure)
5
7
11 16
*Colorgreenfor norepeat orredif defe ct reoccurs
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ye s
4
6
Issue closed
Couldthecommunicationof thisproblemandits solutionpossiblypreventotherdepartmentsfrom incurringthesameproblem? If YES- checkrelevant boxesandsend acopy of thisformto those departments.
Participants:
1
N/A N/A
Press
Body
Paint
Assembly
Machining
Casting
Supplier
ME/PFA
Yes No
Grou p/ ShiftLeader(Infoonly)
AreaManager/Leadership(Infoonly)
Shift 1 Shift 2 Shift 3 Comments:
Problem Solving Form Example : GM
42
Team Problem Solving
• Fast Response Meeting was started but stopped, because: • It became a problem solving meeting (too long) • No daily issues reported (-> weekly -> wind up) • Issues remained open too long because of no regular feedback • Practical Problem Solving Form or equivalent is not used • No clear definition of what is a „significant issue” • Problem solving in office not at Point of Cause • Missing whys (Drill Deep) to find main root cause • Read across (Drill Wide) is not completed • Lessons Learned database available, but not in use
GM
43
BIQS 10 Quality Focused Checks
GM
44
Quality Focused Checks
•
Find all Quality Checks in JES/ TIS.
•
Is Team Member following all steps in t he JES/ TIS?
•
Does Team Member understand / complete all Qualit y Check(s)?
•
Does Team Member understand st andard(s)? (i.e. push/click/ tug)?
•
Findings noted on Quality Focused Audit worksheet: = Meets Standard = Deviat ion Found N/A = Not Applicable = Issue Corrected
GM
45
Quality Focused Checks LPA is used when to follow Quality focus checks for customer and significant internal issues , also used to follow KPC , Delta …etc. Example 1 : Review LPA sheet example slide no 13
Example 2 :
GM
46
BIQS 11 Standardized Work
GM
47
Standardized Work
• Ensuring operators are consistently performing tasks and procedures the same across all shifts and personnel. • An efficient production sequence. • Identifying value added tasks. • Reduced variation within a process. • Waste reduction, line balancing and quality built in station • Continuous improvement and problem solving • A lean organization • Auditing operator conformance to work instructions (Layered Process Audit ).
GM
48
Standardized Work
• • A user friendly document that provides detailed information on a specific element of work to ensure the successful execution of that element.
• •
To provide detailed training information for new team members.
• To bridge the gap between engineering information and shop floor knowledge. • To provide a written history of that element. •
To provide a baseline for auditing, problem solving, continuous improvement, rebalancing of work and documentation transfer.
GM
49
Standardized Work (Examples) JES
SOS
Value added Vs Non value added timing & Station lay out identified to support lean improvement. GM
Symbols for Delta Operations
Team members sign after training 50
Standardized Work • • Standard Operation Sheet is created for customer auditor and not for • training of new operator • supporting Layered Audit • analyzing jobs for improvement opportunity • problem solving
• Hints are missing to describe how to perform a step • Reasons are not defined • Less visualization more description • Gage R&R was not done for attribute gages or not repeated Try t o perf orm operat ion based on current JES.
GM
51
BIQS 12 Process Change Control BIQS 14 Change Control – Production Trial Run
GM
52
Process Change Control
• Changes should be documented utilizing a plant process change form (reference Powertrain PPCR example). • All process change forms shall be controlled through a Document Control Process. • The procedure shall cover both Planned and Emergency changes (Typically temporary modification to process/standard work due to unplanned situations, such as downtime, stockout, authorized customer rework, schedule fluctuations, etc.).
• Maintain a record of all changes that may impact the final product. • Track system changes that may have a negative impact on the process, but not necessarily on the final product quality. • Ensures all key stakeholders are made aware of change requirements and have input to control out of standard conditions.
GM
53
Process Change Control Plant Process Change Request Form Rev. Date: 10/5/07
PLANT PROCESS CHANGE REQUEST
PPCRNO.
(ALL SHADED AREAS MUST BE COMPLETED) SECTI ON 1: BA CK GROUND INFORMA TI ON
CONTACT: EXT. 5-5391
EMERGENCY PPCR?
YES
NO
IF " YES", GIVE COPY TO QUALITY Rev. Date: 10/5/07
Manufacturing Process Bypassed?
PART NAME(S) IMPACTED
IF"YES", COM PLETEManufacturingProcess Backup Worksheet (in S:\ECO\FORMS)
YES MODEL YEAR ANDAPPL ICATION
MFG. DEPT(S) IMPACTED OPERATION / STATION #
(IF EMERGENCY, TIME ALSO REQUIRED)
PLANNED CHANGE DATE
CHECK ANY ITEMSTHATMAYBE APPLICABLE / IMPACTED: SAFETY:
NO
OPPORTUNITY / PROBLEM STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE/EMERGENCY REACTION PLAN:
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE: MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTIONS
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING: PROCESS ROUTING TOOLING AND DRAWINGS PROCESSCONT ROL PLAN ERROR PROOFING
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
TOOLING ENGINEERING: CUTTING TOOLS &DRAWINGS
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE: CNC PART PROGRAM
TOOL ROUTING
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING: WORKPLACE LAYOUT TAKT TIME / LABOR CONTENT DUNNAGE (INTERNAL &EXTERNAL) MATERIAL HANDLING ANDONSIGNALINGSYSTEM
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE: ENGINE SEQUENCING SYSTEM CYCLE TIME (PART TO PART) ERGONOMICS JOB DESIGN (METHOD CHANGE)
JOB INSTRUCTIONS (SWC/SOS/STS/JES) STANDARDIZED WORK VIDEO GAGE/TOOL CHG/COMP. FREQ. VISUAL CONTROLS
PLANT ENGINEERING: ELECTRICAL/CONTROLS RELOCATION/REARRANGEMENTS
CONTACT:
WORK-FIT INSTRUCTIONS
OTHER
PROCESS PARAMETERS PFMEA MACHINEDRAWINGS ( GAGE CHECK SHEET
/
)
PRODUCTION MONITORING GAGE (DRAWING, PLAN) CMM (DRAWING, FIXTURES) FLOATSHEETS PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SIGNATURE: SOFTWARE INST ALL ATION/REMOVAL
WASHER PARAMETERS/CHEMICALS COOLANTS/ FILTRATI ON
FOR QUESTIONSONAS SESSINGENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,CONTACTENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING:
CONTACT:
WHAT IS THE AIM OF THIS CHANGE? WHY SHOULD WE WORK ON THIS NOW? IS THERE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT?
EXPLAI N THE METHOD BY WHICH PROPER OPERATION WILL BE VERIFIED:
PPCRNO.
RESPONSEDUE DATE:
MANUFACTURING: MAINTENANCE
GUARDING
PART #(S) IMPACTED
DATE INITIATED
PLANT PROCESS CHANGE REQUEST
SECTION3: DETERMINEWHICHFUNCTIONALGROUPSNEEDTORESPONDTOTHIS CHANGE
YES
TRAINING: WORK REFERENCE STATION INTEGRATED TASK PROCEDURES OEM / SUPPLIER
CONTACT:
PRODUCTION CONTROL &LOGISTICS: BREAK-POINT REQUIRED DELIVERY ROUTES MATERIALPARTSLIST
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE: NO SIGNATURE: SYSTEM LEVEL JOB AIDS TASK/STATION LEVEL JOB AIDS TRAINING MODULES
CHECKLISTS OTHER
SIGNATURE: MATERIAL PULL SYSTEM ADDRESS SYSTEM
SUPPLIER D UNNAGE SUPPLIER PACKAGING
IS&S: CONTACT:
INITIATOR NAME
INITIATING DEPARTMENT
CHANGE LEADER NAME (if different than initiator)
IS THERE AN IMPACT ON IS&S?
YES
SIGNATURE: NO
QUALITY/ RELIABILITY:
AREA MGR. SIGN. (EMER. ONLY)
GAGES (EQUIPMENT, PROGRAMS)
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
SECTION 2: DETERMINE IF CHANGE REQUIRES PDT/CIT-LEVEL OR PPAP REVIEW AND APPROVAL
CMM'S (EQUIPMENT, PROGRAMS)
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
CHECK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE:
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
STATISTICAL VERIFICATION
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
QUALITY SYSTEM
CONTACT:
SIGNATURE:
CM, P ANEW PARTORPRODUCT(i.e. ASPECIFICPART, MATERIALORCOLORNOTPREVIOUSLYSUPPLIEDTOTHESPECIFICCUSTOMER). CM, P PRODUCTMODIFIEDB YAN ENGINEERINGCHANGETO DESIGNRECORDS, SPECIFICATIONSORMATERIALS.
PPAP (PRELIMINARY REVIEW): CONTACT: SIGNATURE: CUST OMER' S EASE OF AS SEMB LY CUSTOMER' SAUDIT S/ TESTS CUSTO MER' SPRO CESS OR TOOLI NG ERROR PROOFING AUDIT DUNNAGE/PACKAGING CONTROL PLAN (INSP. METH./FREQ.) IMPORTANT: 1. THISSECTIONREQUIRESSIGN-OFFIF ANYOF THEABOVEITEMSOR IFANY OF THE"P" ITEMSFROMSECTION2 APPLY. 2. AFTERCONTACTINGTHE SQA, FOR WARDTHISFORMAND APPAPWARRANTTO THESQA, ASAPPLICABLE. 3. THESQAIS TOSIGNTHIS SECTIONASAPPROVALOF ALL REVIEWEDPRE-IMPLEMENTATIONPLANSFORFULFILLINGPPAPREQTS. ADVISEPRODUCTIONOFIMPENDINGCHANGE? Y ES CONTACT:
CM, P USEOF ANOTHEROPTIONALCONSTRUCTIONORMATERIALTHAN WAS USEDIN THE PREVIOUSLYAPPROVEDPART. CM, P PRODUCTIONFOLLOWINGANY CHANGEIN PROCESSORMETHOD OFMANUFACTUREWHERE, INTHE JUDGEMENTOF TECHNICAL EXPERTS, THE POTENTIALEXISTS TOIMPACT PRODUCTI NTEGRITY(e.g. MATERIALPROPERTIES, SURFACEFINISH ... ETC.).
P
PRODUCTIONFOLLOWINGANY CHANGEIN PROCESSORMETHOD OFMANUFACTURE.
P
CORRECTIONOF ADISCREPANCYONA PREVIOUSLYSUBMITTEDPART.
P
PRODUCTIONFROMTOOLINGAND EQUIPMENTTRANSFERREDTOA DIFFERENTPLANTLOCATIONOR FROMANADDITIONAL PLANTLOCATION.
P
PRODUCTIONFOLLOWINGREFURBISHMENTORREARRANGEMENTOFEXIS TINGTOOLINGOR EQUIPMENT.
P
CHANGEIN SOURCEFORSUBCONTRACTEDPARTS, MATERIALS, DUNNAGE ORSERVICES( e.g. HEAT-TREATING, PLATING, PAINTING, ETC.)
P
PRODUCTRE-RELEASED AFTERTOOLINGHAS BEENINACTIVE FORVOLUMEPRODUCTIONFORTWELVE MONTHSORMORE.
P
FOLLOWINGACUSTOMERREQUEST TOSUSPEND SHIPMENTDUET OA SUPPLIERQUALITY CONCERN.
P
PRODUCTIONFROMNEW ORMODIFIEDTOOLS (EXCEPTPERISHABLE TOOLS), DIES, MOLDS, PATTERNS ... ETC.,
SECTION3 REVIEWFORAPPROVAL PRINTNAME APPROVEDBY:
THISAREA ISFORUSEBYCHANGELEADER'SSUPERVISORONLY SIGN
SECTION5A: TO IMPLEMENT APPROVEDBY:
PRINTNAME
APPROVEDBY:
PRINTNAME
PPAPWARRANTAPPROVED(IFAPPLIC.) THISAREA ISFORUSEBY CHANG E LEADER'SSUPERVISORONLY SIGN DATE (LEADER'SG ENERALSUPERVISOROR SUPERINTENDENT)
INCLUDINGADDITIONALOR REPLACEMENTTOOLING. N O IT EM SA PPL IC AB LE
DATE
(LEADER'SG ENERALSUPERVISOROR SUPERINTENDENT)
SECTION4: OTHERI NSTRUCTIONS/ COMMENTS
THISAREA ISFOR CUSTOMER(MANUFACTURING) USEONLY
C HA NG EA LR EA DY PD T/ CI T AP PR OV ED
SIGN
DATE
(MANUFACTURINGGENERAL SUPERVISOROR SUPERINTENDENT) IFYOUCHECKEDANY "CM" ITEM(S):
1) DONOTCONTINUE TOSECTION3 UNTIL FURTHERNOTIFIEDBY YOURPDT/CITL EADER.
POST-IMPLEMENTATION
2) FORWARDTHIS SHEET TOTHE MANUFACTURINGENGINEERINGCLERK. IFYOUCHECKEDONLY" P" ITEM(S):
CONTINUETOSECTION3. COMPLETEPPAP SECTION(MANDATORY).
IFYOUCHECKEDNO ITEMS:
CONTINUETOSECTION3. COMPLETEPPAP SECTIONAS APPLICABLE.
SIGNATU REBY CHANGELEADER
ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATIONDATE
BREAKPOINT(IF APPLIC.) (USEENG. #ORDATE)
SECTION 5B: FINAL APPROVAL APPROVEDBY:
PRINTNAME
APPROVEDBY:
PRINTNAME
CORRESPONDING GMPT CMP TRACKING NUMBER
THISAREA ISFORUSEBY CHANG E LEADER'SSUPERVISORONLY SIGN DATE (LEADER'SG ENERALSUPERVISOROR SUPERINTENDENT)
THISAREA ISFOR CUSTOMER(MANUFACTURING) USEONLY SIGN
DATE
(MANUFACTURINGGENERAL SUPERVISOROR SUPERINTENDENT)
GM
54
Change Control – Production Trial Run
• Standardized Communication and Documentation • Build Readiness Reviews utilizing a cross functional Team • Quality Reviews before and after the change
• A PTR is a limited , controlled and contained production tryout used to evaluate a change prior to full production implementation. • The PTR confirms the manufacturability of a change within the normal production environment. • The PTR is not a substitute or extension of the product validation process. • A written procedure and flow chart shall define the PTR process and requirements.
GM
55
Change Control – Production Trial Run • A Communication Form shall be used to document each step of the process and to record all approvals and results .
• Change Leader PTR Request and Information • PTR Core Team PTR Decision and Approval to Run PTR • Customer Contacts • Customer / Internal PTR Requirement Decision • PTR Readiness Approval • Internal PTR Valve Review and Approval • Customer Evaluation of PTR
GM
56
Change Control – Production Trial Run
GM
57
BIQS 13 Verification Station (Final Inspection/CARE/ GP12)
GM
58
Final Inspection /CARE/ GP12
– Final inspection /GP12 should be performed before shipping . – Inspection could be 100% or sampling according to risk and part history . – Check list should be clear , updated according to customer feedback and FR issues .
– Point , touch , listen , count methods should be mentioned in the standardized work .
– Feedback to the production line with the finding should be standardized and supported with alarm limits .
GM
59
Final Inspection /CARE/ GP12
Ø Inspection of product (Attribute/Variable) Ø Prioritizing of defects Ø Alarm Escalation Procedure Ø Immediate Responses – Record of Calls for
(Example: VS)
Ø Dock Audit/Containment/Field Rep-Liaison Issues Ø Formal Customer Complaints - Reports Ø Team Performance Data, FTQ & SCRAP Trend Charts (over time), Direct Run, Safety.
help and escalation.
Ø Leadership meeting every shift Ø Meeting Assignments Ø Pareto Analysis, Defects over time Ø Attendees Sign-in Sheet
Ø Team select new problems based on pareto analysis, assignable cause.
Ø Team reports out weekly on status Ø Tracking R, Y, G Reviewed for roadblocks, problem escalation.
GM
60
Final Inspection /CARE/ GP12 (Example)
Defects found at Feedback internal audit or details are communicated containment check points including GP12 from all downstream customers including between departments at the manufacturing site.
Issues that escaped to the Customer and are caught by the Supplier contact
Issues that escaped to the customer and are found by the customer
Any issues escaped to the Customer
GM
61
BIQS 15 Andon System Implementation
GM
62
Andon System Implementation
•Satisfy Your Customer. . .
Do not
Accept Build Ship
a Defect!
Solve Problems Through Teamwork!
GM
63
Andon System Implementation Andon Syst em : • Andon System Could be by alarms , lighting or equivalent . • Andon System help the team member to raise the flag when abnormality occurs . • LPA might be used to check the effectiveness of Andon System .
GM
64
BIQS 16 Alarm and Escalation
GM
65
Alarm & Escalation Defini tion : When a defect is detected, feedback to the appropriate team or individual will be given by using a communication system.
The alarm is raised by using audio/visual signals (e.g. Andon).
The alarm process directs the support functions to: Ø ‘Go and See’ the problem Ø Apply containment to prevent further flow of defects Ø Initiate problem solving GM
66
Alarm & Escalation (Examples)
Limits posted in the station
Specified caution and alarm limits linked with cost of 1 unit .
Scrap board has good 5S and visual management for caution & alarm limits .
GM
67
Alarm & Escalation Implement the Alarm Escalation Process for Commun ication The item detected at the VS is com muni cated to pr oducti on f or co ntainment ( ANDON System). Repetitive items escalate to different organizational levels where they respond to provide additional problem solving support.
ALARM PROCESS FORM Example Occurrence will vary based on process capability Response t ime will be plant specific, recommended plants work to wards a 10 minute target. Plant Management
n o i t a l a c s E
Superintendent / Shift Manager Supervisor (Group Leader)
Responder
R e s p o n s e
Team Leader Team Member GM
68
BIQS 17 Visual Controls BIQS 18 Visual Standards – Communicated and Understood
GM
69
Visual Control & Visual Standards General: • • •
Visual Standards such as Boundary samples , Quality alerts , master parts should be communicated to all team . Visual Standard documents should be controlled . Visual standards should be updated based on FR and customer feedback .
(Examples)
(Product Quality Standard)
Good and Bad Photos
Revision date for document control
GM
70
Visual Control & Visual Standards (Examples) Boundary Samples showing good and Bad borders posted in shop floor .
GM
71
BIQS 19 Process Control Plan BIQS 20 Process Control Plan Implemented
GM
72
PCP & PCP Implemented FLOW DIAGRAM
PCP relation with PFMEA & WI 1
2
PFMEAs
3
4
5
6
POTENTIAL FAILUREMODEAN DEFFECTSANAL YSIS (PROCESSFMEA)
FMEANumber Pag e
o f
Item
Process Responsi bi lity
Prepar ed By
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s)
Key Date
FMEADate (Orig.)
CoreTeam
7
Po r ce s F un c tio n Rq e 9iur m e n e st
Po te n it a F l a ilu re Mo d e 10
SC P toen tai l Effec t s( ) E L oF f aiul e r VA S S
O D R. Po t enita l C a us e ( s /) C EP. Re c om m e nd e d M ce ha insm s ( ) fo C Cu r e nP t ro e c ss Co n to r lTN. Ac t oi n ( s) Failure U E R C
Re s po ns bi i il t y &T a re gt CompletionDate
Action Results Ac tin osS ODR. Ta kn e E C O P. V C T N.
• “ PICTURE” OF PROCESS • SHOWS FLOW OF PROCESS • FOUNDATION FOR PFMEA, CONTROL PLANS, TOOL LAYOUTS, WORK STATION LAYOUTS, ET.
• LISTS EACH OPERATION • CURRENT CONTROLS • ENHANCED CONTROLS FROM RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
PER OPERATION:
• KPCs, KCCs
• INSPECTION FREQUENCY • GAGE & CHECKING DEVICES • REACTION PLANS FOR NONCONFORMING PRODUCT PER OPERATION: • INSPECTION FREQUENCY • GAGE & CHECKING DEVICES • REACTION PLANS OF NONCONFORMING PRODUCT
GM
73
PCP & PCP Implemented Example: (A: PFMEA) failure mode about temperature
Detection method using variable gauge
See Next Page. GM
74
PCP & PCP Implemented Example: (B: PCP) Temperature control using gauge
Frequency of control
GM
Check sheet used to register the records
75
BIQ 21 Process Capability Review GM
76
Process capability Review CONTROL, CAPABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
Voice of the Custo mer (VOC) and Voice of the Process (VOP)
It is often necessary to compare the process variation with the engineering or specification tolerance to judge the suitability of the process. Process capability analysis addresses this issue. GM
77
Process capability Review Four Important Assump tion s for Capabilit y Measures
The process is statistically stable Individual measurements approximate a normal distribution Specifications are based upon customer requirements The sample represents the population
GM
78
Process capability Review Example: GAEf-A23 Rev A
FFCpk Validation I NS P E C T IO N
PROCESS NAME:
A C b ac k u p B o w li n g Gr ee n
ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE
TA RG E T
UP PE R
LO W E R
NUM BE R O F
LE V E L
LIM IT
LIM IT
TRIA LS
500
TRIA L A CTU A L (X-Xbar)^2
TRIA L A CTU AL (X-Xbar)^2
TRIA L
520
480
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
499
501
500
500
500
501
501
500
501
499
50 0
500
500
501
500
501
500
500
500
50 0
21 501
22 501
23 499
24 500
25 500
1.5211 0.5878 0.0544 0.0544 0.0544 0.5878 0.5878 0.0544 0.5878 1.5211 0.0544 0.0544 0.0544 0.5878 0.0544 0.587 8 0.0544 0.0544 0.0544 0.0544 0.5878 0.5878 1.5211 0.0544 0.0544
26
27
28
29
30
500
500
501
501
500
0.0544 0.0544 0.5878 0.5878 0.0544
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
71
72
73
74
75
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ACTUAL (X-Xbar)^2
TRIA L
0
95
0
96
0
97
0
98
0
99
0
1 00
ACTUAL (X-Xbar)^2
0
0
0
0
0
0
FLUID FILL CAPABILITY HISTOGRAPH 35
30
S 25 E C N E R20 U C C O15 F O R E 10 B M U N 5
Series1
0 480
484
488
492
496
500
-5 LEVEL
504
508
512
516
520
GM
79
BIQ 22 Rework Repair Confirmation GM
80
Rework & Repair Confirmation Re-Introduction • All control plan inspections and tests shall be performed. •
A work instruction required to perform rework
•
Customer approval may be required
•
Product removed from the approved process flow should be reintroduced into the process stream at or prior to the point of removal.
•
Reintroduced product needs to be identified.
•
Best practice would suggest that you do not run product more than twice.
NOTE: When it is not possible to reintroduce at or prior to removal: an approved (Quality Manager) documented rework and inspection procedure shall be used to assure conformance to all specification and test requirements.
GM
81 81
Rework & Repair Confirmation Example:
Part with NC label waiting for rework
Rework Performed according to rework WI in the rework table
Rework Approved as per PCP , Green Label attached and part moved to approved green table. GM
82 82
BIQ 23 Feedback – Feed Forward
GM
83
Feedback - Feed forward Requir ed Inform ation mu st b e defined f or all l evels o f th e Organization
Content Variance to standard Containment Breakpoint Countermeasure • •
Timing Immediate Daily Weekly Monthly
Format Common Visual • •
• •
• • • •
GM
84
Feedback - Feed forward Customer/Suppl ier Communi cations Supplier Feedforward changes in product & process Feedforward problems that will affect customer Implement immediate containment - follow up with problem solving & communicate results Deliver products that meet standard
• • •
•
Supplier
Customer • • •
Customer Communicate current standard requirements Provide immediate feedback on any problems Feedback results of supplier problem solving
GM
85
Feedback - Feed forward Example: Quality Alerts should be posted and communicated in the production and inspection areas . Quality Alert
Quality Alert
Work Cell
Inspection Station
GM
86
Feedback - Feed forward Example: Quality performance and VOC is communicated to shop floor Verification Station FTQ feedback
Escalation results feedback
GM
87
BIQ 24 Training
GM
88
Training Traini ng & Development Plannin g • Leaders should utilize annual training plans to develop their employees (including entire staff of manufacturing and support function areas).
§Special consideration should be given for New Hires, personnel assigned to a new role or position and temporary employees.
• Training should exist for employees and be based on a needs assessment (i.e. organizational goals, individual training needs etc.).
•
Use training tools such as: • Scheduling and Tracking • Flexibility Charts (to validate training and assess training needs) • Training Evaluations etc.
•
Training plans should include areas such as: • Health, Safety & Environment • BIQS • Technical Training • Leadership Development • Launch Specific Training (if applicable) etc. GM
89
Training Example:
Indiv idual Job Training
GM
90
Training Flexibility Chart
Example:
GM
91
BIQ 25 Contamination Control
GM
92
CONTAMINATION CONTROL Sources of Contamination
Ø Original material/fluid from the tiered supplier Ø Transfer from supplier container to GM pipe lines Ø Material/Fluid handling at the station Ø Dirt/oil or foreign material on parts/fluids/sealers or dunnage
Ø Incorrect PPE. e.g. cotton gloves instead of lint free Ø System cleaning not completed correctly sediment still in the system such as metal in the vehicle from body shop, or final wash effectiveness insufficient Powertrain.
Ø Incorrect abrasive material, backing or particle size as well as forbidden materials being used (Silicon, lubricating oil). GM
93
CONTAMINATION CONTROL Example: Fluid in Original Packaging ‘Supplier’/ Plant needs to develop Standardized work (checking methods) to Confirm shipped material.
‘Customer’ needs , correct Material which is clean & free from debris/damage. What do they need?
Examples of items checked -Material-Number -Lot-Number -expiration date -seal not damaged Container, hoses and connections Brake fluid samples are taken for water, oil, solids. - Freezing point/correct mixing ratio cooling fluid and washer fluid Are all pipes and air/con assemblies protected against dirt & moisture? -
GM
94
CONTAMINATION CONTROL Component Contamination Daily Sediment checks results should be documented control limits identified on the station
‘Customer’ needs , Material which is free from sediment debris/damag e
PT only
What do they need?
Protectors in place not missing, only removed at point of fit
GM
95
CONTAMINATION CONTROL Original packing and handlin g ‘Customer’ needs, parts which are not dama ge or deformed during transportation & meet original design intent
Packaging styles should be reviewed & bought off by a cross-functional team. No Unprotected Paint to meta l or part to part contact?
GM
96
BIQ 26 Maintenance
GM
97
Maintenance Strategy and Organizatio n
• Scope adressed • • • •
Process Equipment Handling devices / conveyors Facilities ….
Handling devices Buildings Tank
PROCESS
Fork-lift truck GM
Fluides
98
Maintenance Maint enance: types • Corrective Maintenance: • Maint enance performed aft er a breakdown detection • Purpose: Ensure the re-start of the equipment as soon as possible (even w it h
degraded solutions) • Preventive Maintenance: • Maint enance performed according t o predefined frequencies or on t he basis
of predefined crit eria (nb of cycles…) • Purpose: Reduce the probability of breakdowns or the wear of the equipment . Example: Aircraft Maint enance • Predictive Maintenance - Condition Based Maintenance (specific type of preventivemaintenance): • Maint enance based on t he measurement of key parameters on t he equipment • Example: Vibration Analysis on rot ating machines, Fluids analysis,
thermography on electrical equipment. Risk of breakdown
Corrective Maintenance
Condition Based Maintenance
Preventive Maintenance GM
99
Maintenance Total Prod uct ive Maintenance (TPM): Key Princi ples
Total Productive Maintenance
Ø The ent ire organization (from management to maintenance, to engineering, to production operators) Ø Team work! Ø Improved capabilit y of equipment Ø Elimination of waste and reduction of cost Ø Achieving equipment availability and qualit y targets Ø Predict ive, Preventive, Corrective, and Reactive maint enance Ø Optimize t he life of equipment
GM
100
Maintenance Spare Parts Management
• Identification of the critical spare parts • Criteria t o define critical spare parts shall be defined according to
procedure by organization • List update shall be conducted periodically based on maint enance results •
Spare parts storage • Storage conditions: suitable conditions shall be defined (procedure) in
order t o avoid damage • Stock management: min condit ion shall be managed • Inspect ions & verification: periodically t he physical inspections of spare part s shall be defined and perfomed
GM
101
Maintenance Maint enance perfor mance measurements q MTBF MTBF gives inf ormation on t he reliabiliy of t he equipment
Mean Time Before Failure
MTBF =
Operation Time Nb of breakdowns
Time
q MTTR MTTRgives inf ormat ion on t he maintenability of the equipement (maintenance friendly)
Mean Time To Repair/Recovery
Reparation Time MTTR =
Nb of breakdowns
q High equipment effectiveness means High MTBF Low MTTR
GM
102
BIQ 27 FIFO/Material Handling Process
GM
103
FIFO/Material Handling Process FIFO present i n all o perations • Minimize inventory and allows traceability of material. • FIFO present in ALL OPERATIONS (Including repacking, kitting, buffers, WIP, and any staging areas).
• Visual aids support all operations and standardized work. • FIFO rotation – FIFO should occur on a daily basis unless otherwise noted by the plant (in these cases FIFO may occur on a weekly basis).
• Ensure that FIFO is part of layered audit process. • FIFO processes are documented and are part of standardized work. FIFO Material In All Storage Locations Material In FIFO Order
Oldest Material to Operator First Full Full
CMA
Full Full Empty
Empty
Supplier
Overflow
GM
104
FIFO/Material Handling Process Sources of Handl ing Damage
Ø Original packaging from the supplier Ø SPS packaging or other types of re-bin activity Ø Parts handling at the station Ø Insufficient care taking parts from the rack Ø Transporting un-protected components in the product Ø Vehicle protection or lack of protection Ø Tooling/Fixture protection or lack of protection Ø Incorrect or no PPE. i.e. cotton gloves instead of lint free Ø Vehicle parking or storage both inside & outside the plant GM
105
FIFO/Material Handling Process Original packing and handlin g ‘Customer’ needs, parts which are not dama ge or deformed during transportation & meet original design intent
Packaging styles should be reviewed & bought off by a cross-functional team. No Unprotected Paint to meta l or part to part contact?
GM
106
BIQ 28 Shipping Approved Packaging
GM
107
Shipping Approved Packaging Racks and B ins Status
• Racks , containers protect parts from being damaged .
On floor storage with easy access without handling equipment
GM
108
Shipping Approved Packaging What is mi slabeling ?
PARTS AND LABEL DO NOT MATCH Wrong part number
Wrong destination
Wrong sequence
Wrong hand
Wrong engineering Level
Incorrect quantity
Wrong color Mixed parts Partial container
Unreadable bar code Missing label
Mixed containers on pallet Wrong part identification
Foreign parts
GM
109
Shipping Approved Packaging Labeling & Shippin g failure modes PFMEA
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Model
Part Number___________________________ Part Description_________________________
FMEANumber________________________________ Page___________________of___________________
Year(s)/Vehicle(s)________________
Preparedby_________________________________________
KeyDate___________________________
FMEADate(Orig)_____________R ev____________________
CoreTeam________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Action Results C
Process Function/ Requirement
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
S e v
l a s s
Potential Cause(s)/ Mechanism(s) of Failure
D
O c c u
Current Process Controls
r
e t e c
R P N
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target CompletionDate
Actions Taken
S e v
O c c
D e t
R P N
t
1
Operation Description
POTENTIAL FAILUREMODEAND EFFECTSANALYSIS (PROCESSFMEA) Process Responsibility________________
Item_________________________________
KPC
2
KCC
1
3
2 3 PROCESS CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-launch Production Part Number__________Part Description__________
Ø
Part/ Process Operation Machine Number Description Device Characteristics
Labeling should be included in flow diagram, PFMEA and control plan
Ø
Parts are considered as 100% defective if labeling is incorrect
Ø
The labeling step must be considered as critical as a KPC
Methods
Reaction Plan
1 2 3
GM
110
Shipping Approved Packaging
Total Quality is the key to our survi val The design i s rig ht. The raw materials meet spec. The manufacturi ng pr ocess is capable. The part quality is excellent. Why can’t they get the right l abel on t he box?
GM
111
BIQ 29 Supplier Management
GM
112
Supplier Management • Suppliers need to use quality data for sourcing decisions , select new suppliers . • For current tiered suppliers , Tier one should use systematic problem solving tools when issues occurred , also Tiered suppliers issues should be communicated in FR meetings . • Tier one should send structure feedback to tiered supplier performance regularly . • Tier one should establish system and process audit to assure compliance for key and critical suppliers .
Quality Data used for so urcin g decision s Example: Suppli er base bid lis t
GM
113
Supplier Management Effective problem solvin g proc ess For any delivery of parts with deviation, tier 1 validates the formal deviation request of the tier X complaint (refer to Control of Nonconforming Product CNC6). Tired suppliers shall demonstrate a systematic and disciplined approach to problem solving.
Example:
GM
114
