Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory

Delphi 5-Why's - Is this like an 8D Of Problem Solving?

Raffy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
Hi!
I just recently hired to a TS16949:2002 Company, and one of the task was been given to me, is about the Delphi 5-why of Problem Solving? :( I don't have any idea, what is this really? :eek: Is this like an 8D Of Problem Solving?
Any information would be appreciated.
Thank you very much in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy
 
D

dokes

#4
The Delphi method appears to be a much simpler, easier to use version of the GM Drill Deep & Wide (DDW).
 
#6
JSW05 said:
And both are complicated versions of "Use Common Sense."
Yep. There's a lot to be said for common sense. Too bad more OEMs don't possess even a little. Life in the automotive supply chain can be VERY stifling.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#7
Wes Bucey said:
Yep. There's a lot to be said for common sense. Too bad more OEMs don't possess even a little. Life in the automotive supply chain can be VERY stifling.
Being an OEM QE My mantra for suppliers is: Use the default requirements unless you have a better idea. I'm always open to suggestions, and more than once a supplier has protested the basic requirements and suggested what was (for that particular supplier at least) a different method that made good sense. On the flip side, I've also heard lots of whining from people who were obviously just being lazy.
 
#8
JSW05 said:
Being an OEM QE My mantra for suppliers is: Use the default requirements unless you have a better idea. I'm always open to suggestions, and more than once a supplier has protested the basic requirements and suggested what was (for that particular supplier at least) a different method that made good sense.
You realize how rare that attitude is, don't you?
On the flip side, I've also heard lots of whining from people who were obviously just being lazy.
I never think of it as "lazy" - merely frustration at extra labor which is uncompensated. The fact remains many nonconformances have instantly recognizable causes (even down to the "root" level) and the formal investigation is a redundant effort. It is frustrating to be "commanded" to perform "busy work" as seen in the eyes of the supplier.

I think, as buyers, we tread on dangerous ground when we prescribe "how" a business operation of a supplier should proceed, rather than focusing on getting a conforming product or service. We buyers become "lazy" ourselves when we demand the "proof" of finding the root cause of a nonconformance be presented to us only in a manner which fits our own neat little checklists. It may seem like only a short step from demanding shipping labels fit a template to demanding the internal processes of a supplier be reported to us in a prescribed format.

If we need some sort of assurance that a supplier has cured a glitch in his process, why does it have to be on our form? There is a big difference between:
  • "Here's a suggested process which has been helpful for others."
    TO
  • "You must use this process and form or suffer any of a variety of penalties, up to, and including, cancelation of the order!"
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#9
Wes Bucey said:
You realize how rare that attitude is, don't you?
Yes, but I have an advantage in that most of my working life has been spent in job shops, and I have firsthand experience in dealing with OEM SQbots. The problem with most OEM SQEs is that they don't understand that in most job shops, the salient imperative is KEEP THE MACHINES RUNNING and that almost everything else is considered a bothersome obstacle. Once you understand this, you can deal with it.

Wes Bucey said:
I never think of it as "lazy"
Mainly because you're not as cynical as I am, although I prefer to dress it up a bit and call it pragamtism
biggrin-a1.gif
. I understand the frustration part of it, and I feel the pain, even now. But there is a measure of laziness out there too, especially intellectual laziness--not wanting to take the time to become better educated--better equipped--in the tools of the trade.
 

Raffy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#10
Thanks

Hi, :thanks:
Was the 5Y would really solve the problem. To date, in our end, one of our company recommend that we should use the 5Y and be integrate it in our specs. And the my department said that 5Y is very tedious and much more complicated. It takes more time to adapt. What we are using now is the 8D of Problem Solving. And now, this is Delphi, as far as I know is part of the Root Cause Analysis and not a complete package for a Problem Solving Tool. :eek: Basically. haven't try this yet. I think, I have to try this first myself....and I would be back again on this thread for the updates.
Thank you for the information that you've all provided.
Best regards,
Raffy :cool:
 
Top Bottom