01 - Fast Response - Oct13
01 - Fast Response - Oct13
FAST RESPONSE
“Going From Reactive to Proactive”
This presentation was developed by General Motors Corporation Global Purchasing & Supply Chain and PSA Supplier Development.
All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or by any method,
for any purpose, without written permission of General Motors Global Purchasing & Supply Chain or PSA Supplier Development.
PURPOSE: SCOPE:
• Immediately address quality failures • Assembly Area
• External / Internal • Manufacturing Operations
• Defines the process to be followed • Shipping / Receiving
• Defines method of displaying • All Operations
important information as a visual
management tool, supporting status • Other Support Functions
at a glance.
• Applies discipline in responding to
RESPONSIBILITY:
issues through a systematic approach.
• Defines method to provide fast
• Ownership
• Operations Manager
response to operator
• Contingency Plan for All Situations
Criteria of Requirement
1 – page 8-10
2- page 8
3 – page 6-7
4 – page 9
5 – page 7
6- page 7
Auditor Hints – page 11
• Manufacturing Concerns:
– Production schedule vs. quantity produced:
• Significant deviation could affect to shipment to customer
Criteria of Requirement
1 – page 13-16
2 – page 13
3 – page 17
4 – page 18-19
Auditor Hints – page 21
Owners shall be responsible for assuring all problem solving and exit criteria are met in
a timely manner through:
Owner shall report progress to the team during each of these steps:
Define The
Identify The
s3 Root Cause 5-Why (Example)
s1 Problem
Transfer Technical Root
s3 Cause to DRILL DEEP
Contain The (System RC; 3x5 Why)
s2 Problem
Implement Permanent
s4 Corrective Actions
Verify Effectiveness
s5 Of Actions
Identify The
s3
Cause
Institutionalize
s6 Throughout The Organization
Next Report Out Date Target Timing, Status, & Date Green
Y
G
Initiated but not complete
Complete
24 H 7D 14 D 34 D 35 D 40 D N/A Not Applicable
Forecasted Closed
Field Rep Ranking
Customer Closed
Lessons Learned
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
(Institutionalized)
Layered Process
Program/Product
STATUS (RYG)
Proof/Detection
Who Answered
Containment -
Standard Work
Date Opened
Implemented
PFMEA / CP
Root Cause
Concern # /
Who Called
OVERALL
Breakpoint
By Owner
Customer
Validated
Identified
Updated
ITEM #
Owner
Audits
Name
Error
Date
date
Issue Description Action Plan / Countermeasure
G G G G G G G Y Y
1/10 PRR Hood Brkt Material Contaminated F. LaFeve 2/21 Need operator approval and training completion Y
1/11 1/18 1/24 1/24 1/25 2/13 2/15 2/20 2/20
1 Amore Mason 312869 24241198 for Work Instructions across shifts 2/19 25-Jan
Internal Radio Spt.
G G G G G G G
1/15 CAR 08- Brkt Burrs B. Adams CLOSED NA NA G
1/15 2/16 2/10 2/20 2/10 2/17 2/20
2 Sykes Jones 626 15891477 2/24 21-Feb 18-Feb
Hinge
G G G R G R R R
1/21 PRR Assy Parts mislocated on assembly McIntosh 2/22 N/A PLL Program Logic for Error Prevention device R
1/22 1/26 2/1 2/17 2/21 2/17 2/21 2/24
3 Kurtz Arnold 313123 21119878 to reprogrammed by 2/21. J. Busch - M.E. 3/2
FORD Seat Brkt
G G G G Y Y Y Y Y
1/22 NCR MNOP- Mixed Parts J. McGrath 2/22 Need to confirm LPA results and Process Y
1/22 1/24 1/27 1/27 2/21 2/20 2/20 2/20 2/21
4 Ferrer Stelzer 4219 13456-AF Documents updated. LL System input. 3/3 2-Feb
Internal Hinge
Paint dots found on loose & mis- G G G G R G G
LPA not Validated on 3rd shift. - J. Biden to
2/3 CAR 08- Assy J. McGrath 2/23 N/A NA R
built parts 2/4 2/7 2/8 2/8 2/23 2/28 2/8
5 Dowdall Mehall 632 21119878 confirm Cor. Act. By 2/22 3/15
Need Corp. Office approval on P.O. to obtain
G G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
2/14 PRR ICS Supt. Loose 7mm bolt on front cover B. Adams 2/21 vendor intallation of Torque Monitor Upgrade. Y
2/15 2/7 2/21 2/21 3/14 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/14
6 Singh Patel 313517 99923889 Bob D. to obtain authorization. 3/26
Containment - Breakpoint
Error Proof/Detection
identifying opportunities for
Lessons Learned
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
(Institutionalized)
Implemented
Instructions
validation of corrective action
Validated
through Layered Process Audits and
prevention of recurrence through
error proofing and Lessons Learned
institutionalized shall also be G G G G G G G Y Y
documented. 1/11 1/18 1/24 1/24 1/25 2/13 2/15 2/20 2/20
• Evidence of each criteria should be reviewed by the Owner at the Fast Response
Meeting (Leadership approval to close/green status).
shall be established in order to Guideline Target Timing, Status, & Date Green
24 H 7D 14 D 34 D 35 D 40 D
Operator Instructions
Lessons Learned
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
(Institutionalized)
Layered Process
Proof/Detection
Containment -
Standard Work
Date Opened
Implemented
PFMEA / CP
Root Cause
Breakpoint
Yellow, or Green.
Validated
Identified
Updated
Owner
Audits
Error
The default when a problem is first
opened is Yellow until it’s timing is
exceeded, RED, or Completed, G G R R R R R R
1/21 2/22 N/A
GREEN. 1/22 1/26 2/14 2/14 2/16 3/6 3/7 3/7
In the example above, the date the problem was opened is 1/21.
• Containment was achieved within 24 hours.
• Root Cause was identified within 7 days.
• Corrective action was not implemented within 14 days so it is RED with the
expected date to be GREEN shown as 2/14.
This Red status should show details in a action/status comment column explaining
the next step.
Error Proof/Detection
OVERALL STATUS
Actual Closed Date
Lessons Learned
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
(Institutionalized)
Implemented
Breakpoint
Instructions
Validated
(RYG)
Action Plan / Countermeasure
G G R R R R R R
N/A R
1/22 1/26 2/14 2/14 2/16 3/6 3/7 3/7 PLL Program Logic for Error Prevention device to
reprogrammed by 2/14. J. Busch - M.E. 2/21
Overall Status = R, Y, or G
Worst Condition of any single Item at the left
Forecast Closed Date should be 30 days as a target. The maximum should be 40 days.
Auditor hints
Prior to the audit check the last customer complaints focusing to the open ones.
Prior to the FR meeting ask if there are any significant internal issues.
Check the board if it contains above described external and internal issues.
Follow an issue from FR Tracking Board through the exit criteria confirming actions are
in place & all the relevant documents have been updated.
Check few statuses if they are rated well based on their timing, judge few N/A items
whether they do not need to close the
Criteria of Requirement
1 – page 23-24
2- page 25-30
3 – page 31-32
4 – page 32
Auditor Hints – page 33
Problem
Team Leader
Responding
Needs help
Team Member Call Support
Group
Leader Support
Decision
Mgr Support
Decision
The diagram shows the span of support within the organization. The significance of the inverted triangle
is that the Team Member is at the top, supported by the entire organization underneath. When the
Team Member needs help, he calls for support, and support comes from the Team Leader. For
complicated problems, the Team Leader calls for support from the Group Leader, and so on down the
span of support.
Global Purchasing and Supply Chain
Manufacturing
Team Member
Team Member
Group Leader
Maintenance
Quality Team
Team Leader
Engineering
Production
Production
Production
Member
Tasks - Escalation Process
Follow Standardized Work
Actively watch out-of-standard situations
If an abnormality or defect is discovered that cannot be immediately corrected, call for
support, and continue with the rest of the cycle until support arrives
Support Team Leader (TL) with problem solving
TL hears description of problem and takes responsibility for the problem
TL begins immediate correction of the problem
TL releases the andon when he has determined a correction can be made. TL begins
problem solving with support of TM
TL calls for support to Group Leader if problem cannot be solved quickly
Support TL if he is not able to countermeasure the problem, and get the line running
as soon as possible
Call additional support as needed (i.e. maintenance, quality, engineering,…)
Work with TL to make sure root cause is identifed and countermeasures implemented
Monitor downtime, identify problem areas and work with all available resources to
eliminate problems
Criteria of Requirement
1 – pages 40-60
2 – page 35
3 – page 54-55/59-60
4 – page 38-39
5 – pages 44-53
Auditor Hints – page 62
Organizations shall have a defined process for Problem Solving including a standard for
documenting tools used for root cause identification and elimination.
WHAT IS A PROBLEM?
• It is the GAP between the current situation and customer satisfaction.
Standard
Discrepancy
LEVEL Actual
TIME
Global Purchasing and Supply Chain
Growing
Definition:
• A structured process that
identifies, analyzes, and
eliminates the discrepancy
between the current P
situation and an existing
standard or expectation,
and prevents recurrence
of the root cause.
• Cross-functional team
approach is applied. D
C
A
Global Purchasing and Supply Chain
Grasp
the
Situation
Grasp
the
Situation
Problem Definition
Containment
Locate Point
of Cause
PoC
Quality Sys /
SQ / Supplier Parts
4 Quality?
Supplier Data
CMM Checks
Manufacturing
2
Correct Fixture Checks
Tool?
Visual Part to Part
Visual Lot to Lot
• The direct cause can be the result of another cause, and so on.
• If we understand this chain, then we can find the root cause and Locate Point of
eliminate the problem. Cause
Why?
Direct Cause
Why?Why?Why? Why?
Cause
Root
Cause
Contain The
s2
Problem
1-4
Identify The
s3
Cause
If Each
YES to
NOD1-4
response
Questions
to
Proceed
D1-4to
Questions
Cause Effect
Requires
Brainstorming
a 5-Why path
Supplier Duns:
Issue Number:
cause is found, determine WHY
the System failed. Ask “WHY”
Other , Specify :
Failure Mode:
****************
**************** M3
**
Prevent
****************
****************
** Manufacturing System -
Error Proofing &
****************
Standardized Work
****************
**
M4
M5
Prevent – Why did the
Quality Assurance
Why did the Quality System not
Protect GM from this
M-RC
Q1
manufacturing process not
Failure Mode
****************
****************
Q2
Q3
prevent the defect?
** Protect
****************
****************
Quality System - Q4
**
Error Detection &
****************
Containment
Q-RC
Quality Control
Quality Planning
A
Predict – Why did the planning
process not predict the failure?
this quality issue?
B
****************
**************** C
**
Cause
• Determine the steps and actions Why?
Why?
needed to implement and timing. Cause
Why?
MARCH Root
Cause
(Example)
Countermeasure
Follow -Up
Problem Solving
Problem Definition
Step 6 - INSTITUTIONALIZE
• Identify similar products and processes which Locate Point of
potentially have or may produce the same failure mode. Cause
PoC
• Add failure mode and corrective action to Lessons
Learned database.
Why?
Direct Cause
Send a copy of this Problem Solving Report to other Cause
Why?
Departments/Plants with the potential of experiencing this
Why? Cause
problem.
Why?
• Implement the solution across the organization. Cause
Why?
Drill Wide - analysis of opportunities of system deficiencies and corrective actions that
encompass all GM parts, manufacturing processes, and other plant locations.
Implement Permanent
s4
Corrective Actions
Verify Effectiveness
s5
Of Actions
Institutionalize
s6
Throughout The Organization
Criteria of Requirement
1 – page 64
2 – page 66
3 – page 65-67
4 – page 66
5 – page 65
Auditor Hints – page 68
All documentation that will support continuous improvement should be entered into a
Lessons Learned system. (e.g. Master PFMEA, Problem Solving, Read Across)
Auditor hints
Ask people for examples how they are using Lessons Learned system.
Check 6th step of problem solving (Institutionalize) via examples of point FR4. Check
Drill Wide Matrix or 7&8th step of 8D of last customer complaints.
Criteria of Requirement
1 – page 70
2 – page 71-72
3 – page 73
4 – page 74
5 – page 75
6 – page 76-77
Auditor Hints –page 78
OVERALL STATUS
Part & Part Number
Forecasted Closed
Repetitive Issue?
Corrective Action
Next Report Date
(Institutionalized)
Lessons Learned
Layered Process
Proof/Detection
Program Name
Containment -
Time to close
Standard Work
Date Opened
Implemented
PFMEA / CP
Root Cause
Breakpoint
By Owner
Customer
Identified
Validated
Updated
ITEM #
Audits
Owner
(RYG)
Error
date
Issue Description Action Plan / Countermeasure
16/04
22/04
23/04 1 - Delay in the root cause identification
Bracket 29/04 Item in CSL
1 4/15/13 Cruze GM Lack of nut Yes Carlos G G G G G G G G G 25-May 25-Jun 70 G
93345678 29/05 2 - Lead time to import a sensor from Japan - 30 days
19/06 Keep item in CSL
20/06
25/06
Andon - Report
50
45
40
35
30
Quantity
25
20
15
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Prior to audit check number of last 12 month PRRs. If higher than 24 (do not count line
accumulation ones) or trend is significantly negative, special PRR reduction team has
to be established.
Check last customer complaints whether due dates kept. If not reasons for delay,
actions need to be addressed.
Check red items percentage, evaluate actions addressed to eliminate roadblocks.
Evidence of periodical review of average closing time for each exit criteria and set
action plan for any deviation.
Prev. Requirement