Hello folks, 1st time posting. I'm looking for information and suggestions on problem solving methods & Mistake proofing. This is my 1st attempt at QS, done ISO twice, and I need a little help, please.

"If it moves train it. If it doesn't move calibrate it. If it isn't written down...it never happened!"

thanks

thanks Marc. I'll start searching. I'm just in the process of writing the Procedure manual, so I am trying to make sure I know what I am talking about when I write the procedure. What I was really looking for was examples of what would cover these requirements.

Beware what you put in a procedure. What techniques do you currently use?

that's part of the problem, we don't really have anything in place at the moment. So any suggestions would be helpful

"If it moves train it...if it doesn't move calibrate it...if it isn't written down it never happened!"

thanks

You might want to look through the pdf files directory and check out the 8-D and APQP files. You have the typical tools - fishbone, etc. I think there is also a brief poke-yoke file there too for some ideas.

I did forum searches on "poke yoke" and "poke-yoke" and "problem solving" and came up with lots of matches (search all forums). I do recommend that you read http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000026.html

If you have more specific questions, come back to this thread (or ask in any of the threads the search leads you too) and we'll answer them.

Poke-yoke and problem solving are pretty broad spectrums to cover. Do you have a specific type of problem you are trying to solve?

Tim, how do you currently solve your problems? Because maybe it's possible to easily update your current problemsolving to an problemsolving method! Don't you use a method like brainstorming? Because brainstorming is also a problem solving method.

You should use others. For example, we use brainstorming, an own developed 7-step method, the fishbone-diagram and sometimes with very complex problems we use the 8D problemsolving method.

Greetings,
Martin

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
Beware what you put in a procedure. What techniques do you currently use?

Darned keyboard! Hit a button inadvertently, so here I am as someone else I suppose.

Good advice. In my experience, people read the QS9000 manual and begin adding all the suggested methods to their own procedures. Typically later, organizations find the two or three techniques they like, use them exclusively and forget the rest. The Quality Program becomes muddled or inaccurate.

I would suggest determining those tools which you currently use, add those to your procedures if they are missing. Don't get over zealous if you can help it.

Regards,

Kevin

Edited for html format.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 24 June 2000).]

I think that the biggest mistake companies make in implementing a quality system is not to ask the question "DOES THIS MAKE GOOD SENSE FOR OUR BUSINESS?" before adding any process, procedure, or work instruction to their business. Some companies make their quality systems a burden to maintain. That should not be. A good quality system helps the company continually improve their business processes.

You got that right, The key is to audit the company and build your procedures based on that. after that make it QS compliant. most companies allready have a lot of systems in place to ensure quality which are also compliant to QS

If you take it the other way around, it means that you will find yourself changing a lot in the daily processes giving you much resistance, from the people whom are to use it.

So this is the flow I use:

Step1: Describe company procedures
Step2: Compair it with QS standards
Step3: Alter procedures
Step4: Implement differences
Step5: Audit to verify implementation.

If some one disagrees or has a different oppinion please share........

That's almost exactly the approach I take. The only time it creates a bit of a difficulty is if 2 departments do things differently (both compliant), and in the process of implement a Quality System, you also want to become consistant. Then someone has to change and things get a bit more complicated.

Good point Laura. Consistency reduces variation, which in turn reduces waste.

When possible, the groups should collaborate and create a suitable replacement together.

Regards,

Kevin

And its good to point out the waste reduction to organizations that think the ISO/QS is a bunch of "wasted paper"!!!!!!!!!

Thank you folks for your help, I enjoy the reading very much & the input & ideas are great. I check the board daily (3 or 4 times) just to see what the chat is about. Our goal date is mid Dec. so I will keep everyone up to speed on our progress. Thanks again

"If it moves train it...if it doesn't move calibrate it...if it isn't written down it never happened!"

tim banic

Well the best of luck tim of getting certified. I noticed we did drift away abit on the Mistake proving & problem solving methods, sorry about that.

To reply on waste of paper if I need to pursuade a company I just pull out the AIAG survey on benefits of implementing.

If those figures don't impress a management team, nothing will.

And once again It will not work if the employees don't accept the system.

Yeah I've read the survey (wheres 1999?)and financial benefits. Its tosh.
If a)we all need to get QS, and b) theres a global slump in automotive production,wheres the additional sales coming from? Are the AIAG really going to suggest QS is anything other than a huge sucess?
Whats it like in the real world? What about a quick survey of contributors, or has this already been done.

Originally posted by Paul Morrow:
If a)we all need to get QS, and b) theres a global slump in automotive production,wheres the additional sales coming from?It's not a matter of additional sales or decreasing sales of vehicles. It's a matter of dog fighting over any available possible sales to the auto makers. If vehicle sales decrease and need for parts decreases the fight will just increase in ferocity. Competition forces the 'weak' suppliers out.

Originally posted by Laura M:
The only time it creates a bit of a difficulty is if 2 departments do things differently (both compliant), and in the process of implement a Quality System, you also want to become consistant. Then someone has to change and things get a bit more complicated.It's nice to be 'consistent', however many times the client's systems are well established and work well without problems. It often makes as much or more sense to let them continue to do what they've been doing all along rather than insist that one or the other change.

Is Mistake Proofing the same as Poke-a-yoke? I'm trying to understand how to meet the QS requirement for 4.14.1.2 and would appreciate any guidance... I went to the website referenced above but it goes into detail of how to do poke-a-yoke ?!
How do I incorporate this into our CAR system? How have others met this requirement?
Thanks in advance for any comments.

Poka-yoke is Japanese for fool-proofing or mistake proofing. Look at Shigeo Shingo's book"Zero Quality COntrol: Source Inspection and the Poka-yoke System, ISBN 0-915299-07-0. It will make more sense then.

some of the problem solving method we use include Evolutionary operation of processes (EVOP), Overall equipment effectiveness, Theory of constraints, Design of Experiments, Value analysis/Value engineering, Bench marking, Brainstorming. Web serches using these keywords will yield tons of information.

I find this site useful in helping people get a better understanding of mistake-proofing (poke-yoke) in terms of things they use and see everyday:
*** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***
It's a bit of a slow loader, but the everyday examples of mistake-proofing seem to help people understand the concept.

Be careful here. Most of the problem solving methods stated below are all good tools but they were or are techniques recommended for continuous improvement in QS-9000. QS requires disciplined problem solving methods. Books have been written about the subject. TOPS (Team Oriented Problem Solving), by Ford, utilizing the 8D is one, Kepner-Tregoe is another methodology.

For mistake proofing, to put it simply, just think of what you could do to ensure that someone will do a job correctly, even if they are half-asleep. e.g. square peg and round holes, 100% automated checks after the manual operation, color-coding, etc. Use of lock out/tag out is really mistake-proofing for safety.


Originally posted by DICKIE:
some of the problem solving method we use include Evolutionary operation of processes (EVOP), Overall equipment effectiveness, Theory of constraints, Design of Experiments, Value analysis/Value engineering, Bench marking, Brainstorming. Web serches using these keywords will yield tons of information.