Problem Reporting Resolution What are the Key Steps

Problem Reporting & Resolution What are the Key Steps of the Problem Reporting &Resolution Process? u Step 11 Problem Identification – Give a detailed description of the problem and its impact u Step 22 Supplier’s Initial Response & Containment – Actions required to ensure that the customer is protected from receiving further nonconformances – Response required within 1 Business Day u Step 33 Delphi Accepts or Rejects Initial Response – Reply required within 1 Business Day u Step 4 - Supplier Determines the Root Cause – Detailed investigation of what caused the problem. Delphi prescribes 5 why as the tool to determine root cause u Step 55 Supplier Develops Corrective Action/Solution – Actions taken to eliminate the root cause 1 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Problem Reporting & Resolution What are the Key Steps of the Problem Resolution Process? u Action Step 6 - Supplier Implements and Verifies the Corrective – Detail of dates and plans for implementation and verification that the corrective action is effective – Supplier Final Response required within 15 calendar days New – Supplier may submit an Extension request u Step 7 - Delphi Accepts or Rejects Final Response – Reply required, including Extension request, within 2 business days u Step 8 - Supplier Provides Verification Evidence – Data, gate charts, pareto charts, or others as requested u Step 9 - Delphi Evaluates Verification Evidence – Accepts or rejects response based on the verification evidence u Step 1010 Delphi Closes the PRR 3 Full PRR cycle within 30 calendar days!!! 2 PRR Training November 6, 2001

PRR Response Flowchart Supplier Problem Identified SQ involvement also based upon plant requests Owner(Delphi) Issues PR/R Major Disruption, Repeats, Customer Impacted yes no Supplier Initiates Containment & Provide details Start Involve SQ, PC&L, Other Stakeholders as appropriate 1 business day Owner Provides feedback to Supplier Owner Reviews Supplier’s Response reject accept Supplier’s Final Answer including 5 Why 1 business days Extension Request Owner or SQ Provides feedback to Supplier Owner (with SQ for MD, Repeats, CI) reviews RC, CA, and Implementation Plan Any item rejected 15 calendar days 2 business days All accepted After Implementation, Supplier will provide at Delphi’s request 15 days of Verification evidence Timing based on agreed upon Implementation Date accept Owner closes PRR Training reject Owner reviews Data 3 30 calendar days November 6, 2001

PRR Responsiveness u The new PRR process was designed to reduce the cycle time from PRR issuance to closure u The new PRR system (Covisint Problem Solver) will monitor PRR responsiveness of the Supplier and Delphi u Supplier response requirements: – Initial Response - 1 Business Day – Final Response - 15 Calendar Days – Extended Request - As approved by Delphi u Delphi response requirements: – Supplier’s initial response reply- 1 Business Day – Supplier’s 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 u. Become familiar with the situation and the related systems u. Provide a sufficient amount of detail u. Be clear and to the point u. Be sure you eliminate the opportunity for misinterpretation u. Documentation! u. Communicate, communicate u. 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 u. Where does 5 -Why Fit within the PRR process u. Understanding u. Quick 5 -Why Exercise as a group u. Critique u 5 - of 5 -Why Sheet Why Examples u. Wrap Up/Discussion 7 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -WHY Where does it fit within the PRR process? u After a supplier has submitted an initial response and containment plan (Step # 2 in the PRR process), a detailed 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. u Going 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 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -Why Analysis Three Paths 5 -Why: • Specific problem: • • Problem not detected: • • Why did we have the problem? Why did the problem reach the Customer? System failure: • Why did our system allow it to occur? 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 C A U S E I N V E S T I G A T I O N Area of Cause Located Where in the process is the problem occurring? Point of Cause (Po. C) “Go See” the problem. Why? 1 Cause Why? 2 Cause Why? 3 Cause Why? 4 Cause Why? 5 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? Root Cause Corrective Action Lessons Learned 10 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -Why Analysis Chart 11 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Generic Information for 5 -Why Example: Regular Cola Soft Drink vs. Diet Cola Quick 5 -Why Exercise as a group • 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 “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 B O T T L I N G BOTTLES WATER SYRUP LIDS INSPECT LABELS 13 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -Why Analysis Cola Example Chart 14 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 Why Critique Sheet u General Guidelines: A. ) Don’t jump to conclusions!; B. ) Be absolutely objective. C. ) Don’t 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. u Step 1: Problem Statement Is the analysis being reported on the problem as the Customer sees it? u 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 why’s)? -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, and so on, which resulted in the original problem. ) -Do the why’s 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…? u 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 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 Why Critique Sheet (cont) u 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? u 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 doesn’t happen on the first try!) -Who prepared the 5 -why? 16 PRR Training November 6, 2001

Generic Information for 5 -Why Real Example: ‘O” 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. ÝCutting Station ÝMat’l Flow 17 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -Why Analysis: “O” Ring Example, Initial Response. 18 PRR Training November 6, 2001

5 -Why Analysis: “O” Ring Example, Initial Response Path A Define the Problem End-cuts mixed with good parts. Use this path for the Corrective Actions A specific nonconformance 1. 100 % visual containment being investigated. before packing. End-cuts misloaded 2. Dock audit each lot. on “good” exit 3. Posted quality alert at conveyor. cutting station. 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 Why’s 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 B investigate why the Corrective Actions 1. Posted quality alert at problem was not detected. cutting and packing stations Operators not able 2. Modified operator instructions to detect. to include the quality alerts. Parts not 100 % inspected. (2 PPM issue). Root Cause Audit and SPC. Produce millions of “O” rings per year. • 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 Why’s 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

5 -Why Analysis: “O” Ring Example, Initial Response Path C Define the Problem End-cuts mixed with good parts. Use this path to C investigate the 1. Added “improper end-cut systemic root cause. Mixed end-cuts not identified in Corrective Actions removal” to PFMEA. Root Cause PFMEA. Low frequency problem (2 PPM). • 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 Why’s 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. 22 PRR Training November 6, 2001