Considering the emphasis ISO 9001:2000 puts on improvement, this forum appears strangely quiet. Let's get it going. I want to discuss tools and techniques, so let's do a little web based brainstorming here.

To start things off:

I briefly mentioned using mindmaps instead of fishbone (Cause and effect) diagrams in another thread. I consider mindmaps to be great tools. Now I'm out fishing for new ideas.

1. Can you provide me with more examples on creative use of mindmaps?

2. How about other good tools and techniques? Come on now, I know there is bags of good stuff to find among the cove dwellers. What are you using, and how?

/Claes

Claes

We use FMEA, as described in the QS9000 Manuals, a very useful tool to quantify the risks once you have brainstormed and come up with your fishbone's.

M Greenaway said:

Claes

We use FMEA, as described in the QS9000 Manuals, a very useful tool to quantify the risks once you have brainstormed and come up with your fishbone's.

Hi Martin,

Yes, I agree. FMEA is an absolutley brilliant tool. And while we're on about FMEA: Lets say we're looking at 8.5.3 in ISO 9001:2000: Preventive action:

When the key processes have been identified, I'd say that they form a great input for process FMEA's, and the resulting actions would indeed be true preventive actions. Has any of you used them as such?

/Claes

Jim Wade said:

----X----
Technique: if you have problem, figure out what it is before you start solving it; get the opinions of others involved in the problem and its eventual solution[s]. Get the problem written down and agreed by those 'stakeholders'.
----X----

Absolutley right. All too often we start taking action without knowing or agreeing on what the true problem is...

More? Come on now, the rest of you...

/Claes

How about throwing a pinch of DOE into the improvement tool soup?

What no FMEA ?:(

WLMEC ??

Aaargh... I fell for that WLMEC trick too. We've been had, martin...:bonk:

Ok... Assume we're considering a new product.
What techniques / tools would you use?

/Claes

Thats why I had never heard of it ;)

In resolving quality issue, we use Pareto chart. Our team have mix opinion as to which issue should be address first. ....the highest in the Pareto (normally take longer time to resolve) or the vital few (which can be resolve much shorter time). Let say the highest in the Pareto cause 20 dpku and this takes time to resolve versus 5 vital few which add-up 15 dpku and take much shorter time to resolve. Question is which issue should be the priority? In generall people will for for the highest Pareto but if we go for the vital few will ISO auditor question why we choose the vital few and not the highest in the Pareto?

How about an oddball thought:

Even when something goes wrong we mostly know why, before any corrective action. The largest portion of corrective action is documenting what you already know and trying to make it sound good to an outside source.

Is it possible that corrective actions can be gotten rid of and all such activities be turned into continuous improvement activities?

We use FMEA's and control plans to determine preventive actions for each possible error. Does it not follow that even if a customer CAR is issued that we already what went awry?

If we already know, should we not go into the continuous improvement process as a methodology of making the customer happy?

It keeps them happy, shows proactivity, and makes auditors giggle with glee that continuous improvement is so important.

Like I said, just a thought to promote some more discussion.

Al...

Not so odd at all, Al... Considering how hard it is to get people to work in true preventive mode... Why not? Any new angles should be carefully examined...

/Claes

pancreas said:

How about an oddball thought:

Even when something goes wrong we mostly know why, before any corrective action.



Maybe it's not 'oddball', Al, but it's certainly an interestingly reactionary thought!

So do you believe that those who preach the virtues of corrective action (discovering and removing the root causes of a problem, rather than fixing an assumed cause - or simply fixing the problem itself) are misguided?

Also, how do we tell the difference between the case where we 'know why' from the case where we need to take corrective action before we 'know'?

It appears we have drifted away from the initial question.

Whether we call them tools or techniques they need to be used within the scope of a process. My thoughts on a continuous improvement process consists of six steps: 1) Identification and selection, 2) Gather an analyze data, 3) Set goal 4) Generate solutions and select best 5) Develop and execute plan 6) Evaluate the implementation. Many of the tools mentioned can be used in each of the six steps You choose the tool that seems appropriate based on teh specific situation.

Comments, improvements, etc.

Claes,

Your question is really very interesting.

If we are looking to ISO requirements, we have to accomplish “few issues”, if we compare with the literature and practice in this field.

I had long discussions in my company about how to combine what we are doing currently and how to keep ISO documentation as simple as possible.

I would like to share in this forum our results.

vio

IMO, which tool or technique is used for improvement is important, but of secondary importance. Of primary importance is a culture where there is a TRUE dedication to improvement, not the old familiar lip-service that too many of us are familiar with. Who cares if you have the greatest statistical/problem-solving/DOE/FEMA et. al. gurus on staff if they are not given the support they need to do the work? I'd much rather have a management team TRULY dedicated to supporting CI and a few guys with some process experience and very basic skills and a copy of Jurans QC Handbook.

Sorry -- it has been a bad week and I had to rant.

Claes: My apologies if this veers somewhat from your post intentions. Though I am a fan when appropriate, there will be no new mind-numbing exercises or statistical techniques submitted. Yet, I feel your professional style will appreciate any contribution from any angle, whether or not you agree with it.

I carefully reviewed several of our exceedingly successful QMS’s in Tier One automotive. These organizations showed and maintained long lasting effectiveness, evidenced by all appropriate Key Performance Indicators. I mapped out all the contributing factors and weighed them accordingly. The attached diagram illustrates all the improvement tools exercised in order to become the leader in their respective supply class. Let me know what think. To me, the data is actually quite disturbing.
:frust:

nobox,

WHY does the data you've collected disturb you? :confused:

Because it is so easy, yet, we make it so hard !

Originally posted by noboxwine
Claes: My apologies if this veers somewhat from your post intentions. Though I am a fan when appropriate, there will be no new mind-numbing exercises or statistical techniques submitted. Yet, I feel your professional style will appreciate any contribution from any angle, whether or not you agree with it. ---X---


Actually, it doesn't veer from the intentions of my post. Anything goes, and you do have a point. We frequently make things harder than we have to. I think the stuff you collected on that page is well worth using... Most of it is free, quick and dead simple - which makes it good.

I also agree that we cannot expect to see any truly new methods presented here. There will, howerever, always be novel ways of putting the existing methods and tools to good use. That scope is unlimited, and that's what I'm looking for: good examples. :cool: :D

More good ideas and/or examples anyone? I know you have them... Big or small, let's discuss them...

/Claes

Well, since anything goes... The companies I have been with the last decade or so weren't/aren't big on prevention. More lip service than action. A constant battle to get them to walk the talk.

But, within that context, one of the most effective "tools" (techniques?) I've used was to get management to agree to meet once a day, every day, to look at the prior day's scrap. Once they could actually SEE the bad parts/products sitting there, ready to be loaded into a dumpster, they were shocked. "We gotta DO something about this" was the cry. No kidding! Paper reports of the scrap were not able to get it thru to them like having them actually SEE it, TOUCH it, actualy help me load it onto a cart to take to the dumpster! The DUMPSTER!

Sadly, the shock that this caused wore off in a month or two as soon as another "emergency" (related to shipout $) came up that was "more critical". But within that 1-2 months I got more true management committment to help solve problems than I got the rest of the year, and we did solve a few big problems.

Some would call such lack of dedication to quality and problem solving by management abysmal, and I'd agree, but some of us aren't so lucky. We do what we can do and, after bloodying our head pounding it against the wall for a few years, finally realize we are only making the wall look ugly and making our head hurt, so we go with the flow and just do what we can when we can, making any victory, no matter how small, something to savor.

Originally posted by Mike S.
---X--- one of the most effective "tools" (techniques?) I've used was to get management to agree to meet once a day, every day, to look at the prior day's scrap. Once they could actually SEE the bad parts/products sitting there, ready to be loaded into a dumpster, they were shocked. "We gotta DO something about this" was the cry.
---X---
Some would call such lack of dedication to quality and problem
---X---
any victory, no matter how small, something to savor.

Good job Mike,

Nothing like a bit of shock treatment, eh? The human mind must be taken into consideration, and you did just that: I don't really think it's all about lack of dedication. Most of us (admit it or not) have a problem relating figures or graphs to actual products/money down the drain. Once in a while we need to actually see the reality behind the figures in order to grasp what they really mean.

Then, all of a sudden we see the figures in a new light. I say "we" because to a varying degree we all suffer from the same deficiency... We need visualisation. Well, you gave them visualisation :vfunny: :agree:

/Claes

Interesting thread. Anyone have anything to add at this late date?