Problem Reporting & Resolution What are the Key Steps of the Problem Reporting &Resolution Process?

 Step 1 Problem Identification 1 Give a detailed description of the problem and its impact

Step 2 Suppliers Initial Response & Containment 2 Actions required to ensure that the customer is protected from receiving further nonconformances Response required within 1 Business Day

 

Step 3 Delphi Accepts or Rejects Initial Response 3 Reply required within 1 Business Day

Step 4- Supplier Determines the Root Cause 4 Detailed investigation of what caused the problem. Delphi prescribes 5 why as the tool to determine root cause

Step 5 Supplier Develops Corrective Action/Solution 5 Actions taken to eliminate the root cause
1 November 6, 2001

PRR Training

Problem Reporting & Resolution What are the Key Steps of the Problem Resolution Process?


Step 6 - Supplier Implements and Verifies the Corrective Action

Detail of dates and plans for implementation and verification that the corrective action is effective Supplier Final Response required within 15 calendar days Supplier may submit an Extension request New

Step 7 - Delphi Accepts or Rejects Final Response

Reply required, including Extension request, within 2 business days

 Step 8 - Supplier Provides Verification Evidence

Data, gate charts, pareto charts, or others as requested

 

Step 9 - Delphi Evaluates Verification Evidence

Accepts or rejects response based on the verification evidence

Step 10 Delphi Closes the PRR 10Full PRR cycle within 30 calendar days!!!
2 November 6, 2001

PRR Training

Supplier Problem Identified Owner(Delphi) Issues PR/R Major Disruption, Repeats, Customer Impacted no Supplier Initiates Containment & Provide details

PRR Response Flowchart

SQ involvement also based upon plant requests yes Involve SQ, PC&L, Other Stakeholders as appropriate Start

1 business day Owner Provides feedback to Supplier reject 1 business days 15 calendar days

Owner Reviews Suppliers Response accept Suppliers Final Answer including 5 Why
Extension Request

Owner or SQ Provides feedback to Supplier Owner (with SQ for MD, Repeats, CI) reviews RC, CA, and Implementation Plan All accepted After Implementation, Supplier will provide at Delphis request 15 days of Verification evidence Any item rejected

2 business days

Timing based on agreed upon Implementation Date

Owner reviews Data accept Owner closes PRR

3

reject

PRR Training

30 calendar days 2001 November 6,

PRR Responsiveness
 The new PRR process was designed to reduce the cycle time from PRR issuance to closure  The new PRR system (Covisint Problem Solver) will monitor PRR responsiveness of the Supplier and Delphi  Supplier response requirements: Initial Response - 1 Business Day Final Response - 15 Calendar Days Extended Request - As approved by Delphi  Delphi response requirements: Suppliers initial response reply- 1 Business Day Suppliers final response reply - 2 Business Days Final Closure - 30 Calendar days if no extension
4 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Problem Reporting & Resolution

Guidelines for Effective Problem Solving

Become familiar with the situation and the related systems Provide a sufficient amount of detail Be clear and to the point Be sure you eliminate the opportunity for misinterpretation Documentation! Communicate, communicate, communicate Avoid using acronyms (e.g. PCP= Process Control Plan)
5 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 Why Analysis

Effective Root Cause Analysis

6 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-WHY TRAINING AGENDA

Where

does 5-Why Fit within the PRR process of 5-Why

Understanding Quick

5-Why Exercise as a group Sheet

Critique 5-

Why Examples Up/Discussion

7 November 6, 2001

Wrap

PRR Training

5-WHY

Where does it fit within the PRR process?

 After

a supplier has submitted an initial response and containment plan (Step # 2 in the PRR process), a detailed Step investigation is necessary to determine what caused the problem. Step # 4 (Supplier determines the root cause) requires a 5-Why analysis to help in identifying the root cause of the problem. back to one of the elements within the Purpose of a PRR to facilitate problem resolution, 5-Why is the prescribed tool for determining the root cause of the problem to facilitate problem resolution.
8

 Going

PRR Training

November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis Three Paths

5-Why:

Specific problem:

Why did we have the problem? Why did the problem reach the Customer? Why did our system allow it to occur?

Problem not detected:

System failure:

9 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis Process

PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 5-Why Funnel
G R A S P T H E S I T U A T I O N
PROBLEM IDENTIFIED (Large, Vague, Complicated) Problem Clarified

Basic Cause/Effect Investigation Where in the process is the problem occurring? Go See the problem.

q
Area of Cause Located Point of Cause (PoC) Why? 1 Cause Why? 2 Cause Why? 3 Cause Why? 4 Cause Why? 5

C A U S E

I N V E S T I G A T I O N

5-Why Analysis Investigation of Root Cause

Why did we have the problem? Why did it get to the customer? Why did our system fail?

q
Root Cause

q
Corrective Action

q
Lessons Learned
10 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis Chart

Corrective Action with Responsibility Define Problem Use this path for the specific nonconformance being investigated A Date

Root Causes

WHY?

Use this path to investigate why the problem was not detected.

WHY?

WHY?

WHY?

WHY?

A Use this path to investigate the systemic root cause

WHY?

WHY?

C
Ref. No. (Spill, PR/R) WHY? WHY?

B
Date of Spill WHY?

Customer

WHY?

Product / Process

Delphi Location

Content Latest Rev Date

WHY?

C
Problem Resolution Complete Communicate to Customer Date: Process Change Break Point Date: Implement System Change Date:

Lessons Learned:

11 November 6, 2001

PRR Training

Generic Information for 5-Why Example: Regular 5Cola Soft Drink vs. Diet Cola

Quick 5-Why Exercise as a group 5The plant received a PR/R from a customer. (We use 5-Why Analysis to answer every PR/R.) The PR/R states that the customer received Regular Cola in the right container (same for both products) with the Diet Cola label. The order called for Regular Cola. The plant has two identical lines that are capable of running either of our two products. The lines are located immediately beside each other. The only differences in the products are the syrup and the labels. The plant runs both lines 24 hours per day. There are three shifts that run 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The date code indicates that the defective product was manufactured at 3:03 p.m. Defective product has been contained and sorted.
12 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Bottling Process Flow for 5-Why 5-

BOTTLES

WATER

SYRUP

B O T T L I N G
13

LIDS

INSPECT

LABELS

PRR Training

November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis Cola Example Chart

Correcti e ction with Responsiility Us t is t f r t s cific nonconfor nc being investigated Wrong La!el. "
WHY

Defi e 

r lem     2
WHY

Root C

Changeover " Use t is at to yt e investigate problem as not detected. Operator not certified. (
WHY

WHY

Not following procedure. &

WHY

No for'alized procedure. ) (
WHY

No for'al certification procedure. Use t is pat to investigate t e systemic root cause Operator dependent process; no supervision. Relying of operator to follow up procedure. 2
Ref. No. ( p ill, PR/R) WHY

x pected to be covered with "on-thejob" training.

No for4al process of o nitoring adherence to procedure. 5 2 4

WHY

PRR Training

@8

998

o ns L

r ned:

14 November 6, 2001

Proble

Resolution Complete

Communicate to Delphi Date:

Process Change Break Point Date:

Product / Process

Delphi Location

Content Latest Rev Date

WHY

Date of

p ill

a ilure not included in original P5ME .

WHY

Budgetary constrains.
WHY

WHY

   

Re ular Cola with Diet Cola Lael.

C B

C
Implement y stem Change Date:

Date

0 0

% #% # $ #

5 Why Critique Sheet



General Guidelines:

A.) Dont jump to conclusions!; B.) Be absolutely objective. C.) Dont assume the answer is obvious. D.) If you are not thoroughly familiar with the process yourself, assemble a cross-functional team to complete the analysis.

Step 1: Problem Statement Is the analysis being reported on the problem as the Customer sees it? Step 2: Three Paths (Dimensional, Detection, Systemic) -Are there any leaps in logic? -Is this as far as the Whys lead? Can you still ask one, two, three more whys)? -Is there a true cause-and-effect path from beginning to end of each path? Is there statistical data/evidence to prove it? ---Can the problem be turned off and on? -Does the path make sense when read in reverse from cause to cause? (e.g.We did this, so this happened, so this happened, and so on, which resulted in the original problem.) -Do the whys go back to the actual error? -Does the systemic path tie back to management systems/issues? -Does the dimensional path ties back to issues such as design, operational, tier-n management, etc? -Does the detection path ties back to issues such as protect the customer, control plans, etc? Step 3: Corrective Actions -Does each corrective action address the root cause from a path? -Is there a separate corrective action for each root cause? If not, does it make sense that the corrective action applies to more than one root cause? -Is each corrective action possible to implement? -Are there corrective actions that affect the Customer or require customer approval? How will they be communicated to the Customer? -Is there evidence and documentation to support the validity of the corrective actions? -Are the corrective actions irreversible? If not, are there corrective actions in place that address containment?
15 November 6, 2001

PRR Training

5 Why Critique Sheet (cont)



Step 4: Lessons Learned -How could this problem have been foreseen? -How will this information be implemented: a.) on the line or in the plant? b.) at the point of detection? c.) cross-functionally at the Supplier? d.) other product/plants? -Are there lessons learned for the Customer?

Step 5: Overall -Do there seem to be big holes where ideas, causes, corrective actions, or lessons learned are being avoided? -Where things are missed or not documented? -Do the corrective actions address what are the actions the supplier owns? -How many iterations has the supplier gone through so far in preparing this 5-why (It doesnt happen on the first try!) -Who prepared the 5-why?

16 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Generic Information for 5-Why Real Example: 5O Ring Seal

The plant received a PR/R from a customer. (We use 5-Why Analysis to answer every PR/R.) The PR/R states that the customer received Mixed/Foreign Material in Shipment. The supplied part is an O Ring seal for oil filters. A cutting operation produces the part to specified size. As the raw material (cylindrical component) goes through the cutting operation, the irregular end-cuts are removed from the station.
Cutting Station

Matl Flow
17 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis: O Ring Example, Initial Response.

Corrective ction with Responsibility Use t is pat for t e specific nonconformance being investigated End-cut misloaded on to "good" exit conveyor. G
WHY

Defi e rD lem End-cuts mixed with good parts. F F F A 1. 100 % visual containment before packing. 2. Dock audit each lot. 3. Posted quality alert at cutting station. End-cut not properly removed from cut station. G
WHY

Root C

ses

Use t is pat to investigate yt e problem as not detected. Operators not able to detect. Q
WHY

Operator failed to remove. P

WHY

Operator mistake. Q
WHY

B 1. Posted quality alerts at cutting and packing operations. 2. Modified operator instructions to include the quality alerts. A

Parts not 100% inspected (2 PPM issue). Q

WHY

Mixed end-cuts not identified in PUMEA. V

WHY

Low frequency problem (2PPM). V

Ref. No. ( pill, PR/R) WHY

12340000 V W
Date of pill WHY

11/30/00 V
Product / Process Delphi Location Content Latest Rev Date WHY

"o" ring seal

Flint, MI.
Communicate to Delphi Date:

Lessons Learned: PFMEA(Y) TO INCLUDE END CUT REMOVAL.

18 November 6, 2001

PRR Training

Problem Resolution Complete

11/28/00

Process Change Break Point Date:

WHY

Use t is pat to investigate t e systemic root cause

Audit and PC.

Produce millions of "O" rings per year.

WHY

C 1. Added "improper end-cut removal" to the PXMEA. B

C
Implement ystem Change Date:

Date

R R

I HI H H

C B W

12/01/00

12/01/00 12/01/00

12/01/00

12/01/00

12/01/00

5-Why Analysis: O Ring Example, Initial Response Path A

Define the Problem End-cuts mixed with good parts.
Use this path for the specific nonconformance being investigated.

Corrective Actions

A
1. 100 % visual containment before packing. 2. Dock audit each lot. 3. Posted quality alert at cutting station.

End-cuts misloaded on good exit conveyor. End-cuts not properly removed from cut station.

Root Cause
Operator failed to remove. Operator mistake.

Problem definition, is it as the customer sees it? - customer stated mixed/foreign material in shipment. Is the 5 Why response acceptable? - Process of removing end-cut is operator dependent, yet no actions taken for error-proofing this area. Is this as far as the Whys lead? Is the last statement within each path the root-cause? Does the analysis tell the entire story? - Low frequency/intermittent problem, though no actions identified to address issue from ever re-occurring. Actions still dependent upon the hope that an operator finds the problem.
19 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis: O Ring Example, Initial Response Path B

Define the Problem End-cuts mixed with good parts.
Use this path to investigate why the problem was not detected.

Corrective Actions

B
1. Posted quality alert at cutting and packing stations 2. Modified operator instructions to include the quality alerts.

Operators not able to detect.

Parts not 100 % inspected. (2 PPM issue). Audit and SPC.

Root Cause

Problem definition, is it as the customer sees it? - customer stated mixed/foreign material in shipment. Is the 5 Why response acceptable? - Process of removing end-cut is operator dependent, yet no actions taken for error-proofing this area. Is this as far as the Whys lead? Is the last statement within each path the root-cause? Does the analysis tell the entire story? - Low frequency/intermittent problem, though no actions identified to address issue from ever re-occurring. Actions still dependent upon the hope that an operator finds the problem.
20 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Produce millions of O rings per year.

5-Why Analysis: O Ring Example, Initial Response Path C

Define the Problem End-cuts mixed with good parts.
Use this path to investigate the systemic root cause.

Corrective Actions

C
1. Added improper end-cut removal to PFMEA.

Mixed end-cuts not identified in PFMEA.

Root Cause

Low frequency problem (2PPM).

Problem definition, is it as the customer sees it? - customer stated mixed/foreign material in shipment. Is the 5 Why response acceptable? - Process of removing end-cut is operator dependent, yet no actions taken for error-proofing this area. Is this as far as the Whys lead? Is the last statement within each path the root-cause? Does the analysis tell the entire story? - Low frequency/intermittent problem, though no actions identified to address issue from ever re-occurring. Actions still dependent upon the hope that an operator finds the problem.

21 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5-Why Analysis: O Ring Example, Final Response.

Corrective Action with Responsibility lem Use t is pat for t e specific nonconformance being investigated End-cut misloaded on to "good" exit conveyor.
WHY

Date

Mixed/foreign material.

WHY

Use t is pat to yt e investigate problem as not detected.

WHY

Use PC and audits. Problem is 2 PPM.

WHY

WHY

Assumed 2 PPM is good enough. Use t is pat to investigate t e systemic root cause Operator dependent process (end-cut removal) not addressed with error prevention.
WHY WHY

WHY

Few customer complaints.

WHY

Not Considered.

C
WHY

Mixed end-cuts not considered in PFMEA.

Ref. No. ( pill, PR/R) WHY

1. Process design standard now includes end-cut handling best practice. B 2. APQP process to identify and address all customer quality issues and process causes.

12340000
Date of pill

Occasional mixed end-cuts had not been a noteworthy problem.

WHY

11/30/00
Product / Process Delphi Location Content Latest Rev Date WHY

"O" ring seal

Flint, MI.
Communicate to Delphi Date:

C 11/28/00
Process Change Break Point Date: Implement ystem Change Date:

Problem Resolution Complete

Lessons Learned: 1.) Operator dependent process must be supported by error prevention methods. 2.) PFMEA must include all process failure modes and associated causes.

22

PRR Training

g g f f f f

q q

cb

Defi e r

a ` u

Root Causes

A 1. 100 % visual containment before packing. 2. Dock audit each lot. 3. Posted quality alert at cutting station.

12/01/00

12/01/00 12/01/00 12/08/00

End-cut not properly removed from cut station.

4. Add closed end-cut chute with parts pass sensors to single proper end-cut removal, cutting station stops if not. 5. Added lock box to hold end-cuts. Operator failed to remove. 6. End-cuts made larger than "good" Orings; no pass bar installed on exit conveyor to stop any end-cuts.

12/08/00 12/08/00

B
Operator mistake. 1. Added end-cut mishandling to PFMEA. No error prevention/detection inplace. A 2. Added verification of error detection methods to Process Control Plan (PCP), et-up, and Preventive Maintenance (PM) instructions.

12/08/00

12/08/00

12/08/00

November 6, 2001