004drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 6.0

Deep & Wide Process
Spills are not acceptable.
Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Date: To: Subject:
March 2, 2004 All General Motors Outside Suppliers in North America 2004 Spill Prevention Communication
General Motors is continuing its quest to be the Global Leader for automotive products and services, and specific to our business, initial quality and reliability by 2005 and 2006 respectively. We can only become successful with you, our Outside Suppliers. Therefore, in compliment to General Motors Zero Tolerance policy, the following enhancements are effective immediately: Those Outside Suppliers that had a Quality Spill in 2003CY or 2004CY will require completion of Drill Deep & Wide and Quality System Basics Workshops. Those Outside Suppliers that GM categorizes as Critical will require completion of a Drill Deep & Wide Workshop and may require completion of a Quality System Basics Workshop.
For those Outside Suppliers categorized as Spill or Critical, any Quality PRR (Quality, Warranty, Customer Satisfaction) that results in a Controlled Shipping Level 2, will require a Quality System Basics Workshop or Audit.
All Outside Suppliers on Controlled Shipping Level 2 must complete a Drill Deep & Wide Analysis on PRRs issued during the last 8 weeks as well as on any open PRRs regardless of issue date. The purpose is to ensure corrective actions are implemented and verified across the organization. All PRRs need to have Drill Deep Worksheet and Read Across Matrix completed and attached to the PRR for closure.
Please reference GP5 and the following Drill Deep and Wide folder in SupplyPower:
https://www.gmsupplypower.com/apps/supplypower/NASApp/spcds/CDSRetrieval?lob=quality&subnav=library&togglefolder=16162
In case of questions please reference the above, contact your respective Supplier Quality Engineer, or email your questions to melissa.burkett@gm.com . Sincerely, Michael J. Wolf WWP Executive Director Supplier Quality & Development
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
What Do Customers Want?

Gotta Have Products
Emotional and compelling designs Rich value-transmitting interiors The best powertrains Competitive technology Superb quality and reliability
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
J. D. Power Accomplishments
J.D. Power Initial Study 2003 Calendar Year Report
Retained 3rd Spot in Survey
Closed Gap to # 1 Toyota by 17%

Won Three Best in Segment Awards 14 Models in Top 3 of Their Market Segment
Note: 44 % of GMs production volume was in launch in 2002
GM had the Top 2 Plants Gold (Oshawa # 1) and, Silver (Lansing Grand River)
APPEAL Study October 2003
Cadillac EXT & GMC Savana Top Honors in their segments
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
PR/R's
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Dec02 Jan03 Feb03 Mar03 Apr03 May03
NAVO 2003 Results

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03 Dec02 Jan03 Feb03 Mar03 Apr03
50% Improvement CYTD
Spills
5% Improvement CYTD
May03
Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03
Sep03
Oct03
Nov03
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Dec02 Jan03
PPM's
3
Stockouts

2 1
0 Feb03 Mar03 Apr03 May03 Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03 Dec02 Jan03 Feb03 Mar03 Apr03 May03 Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03
35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Dec02 Jan03 Feb03
Discrepant Parts
Downtimes

2 1
0 Mar03 Apr03 May03 Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03 Dec02 Jan03 Feb03 Mar03 Apr03 May03 Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03
=W30
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Supplier 6 Panel
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Supplier Box Chart
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Spill Data for GM Suppliers

Number of Spills
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000 2001 2002 Year 2003
149 87 41 290
0
2004
Our success depends on your performance!

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0 Revision 5.0 03/08/04 8
Spill Impact
Impact to GM in 2003
Vehicles repaired
Cost Recovery Man Hours
39,902
$4.59M 30,463
What was the impact for your organization?
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
2004 CY Launches
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
10
Recurrence Prevention Model
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
recur
Recurrence Prevention
verb
occur again: to happen or appear once again or repeatedly
recur [ri kr] (past recurred, past participle recurred, present participle recurring, 3rd person present singular recurs) intransitive 1.
2.
3. 4.
MATHEMATICS be repeated indefinitely: to occur as an infinitely repeated digit or series of digits at the end of a decimal fraction
return: to return to a subject in speech, writing, or thought (archaic or literary) resort: to turn to something as an option after considering or trying other options (archaic or literary) Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
[Early 16th century. From Latin recurrere, literally to run back, from currere, (see CURRENT).]
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
12
SQ Recurrence Prevention Model

Problem on part
Why did the planning process not predict the defect?
P1
Why?
P2
Why?
P3
Why?
Issues
P4
Why?
Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect?
Pn
Predict Corrective Action
M1
Why?
M2
Why?
Predict Root Cause
Other Products
M3
Why?
M4
Why?
Why did the quality process not protect GM from the defect?
Q1
Why?
Mn
Prevent Corrective Action
Q2
Why?
Prevent Root Cause
Q3
Why?
Q4
Why?
Qn
Protect Corrective Action
Protect Root Cause
Build the Base

Supplier Identification
Drill Deep
(3x5Why)
(FMEA, PCP) (Error Proofing, STW) (Error Detection, Responsiveness)
Drill Wide
(Read Across)
Identify Metric & Threshold Predict
Identify Issues Identify same Process Implement Lessons
Prevent Protect
Toolbox Application
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
13

Spills
Deep Investigation (Drill Deep analysis) Wide Implementation (Read Across)
Emerging
Prevention should start here
Launch Issues
Emerging Current Issues
Functional Build Issues
Plant Issues
Supplier Process Issues


Spills
Spills / MD Repeat EIs

Critical Suppliers for Potential Spill
Emerging Launch Issues
Emerging Current Issues
Functional Build Issues
Chronic Suppliers Plant Issues All Suppliers Supplier Process Issues

Supplier Quality Model

Check/Act
Predict
Planning process informational content in FMEAs and CPs -
Plan
Protect
Quality process containment detection & & responsiveness -
Prevent
Manufacturing process standardized work and error proofing -
Do
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
16
Drill Deep Visual

Defect on Part
P1
Why?
P2
Why?
P3
Why?
P4
Why?
M1
Why?
Pn
M2
Why?
Predict Root Cause
M3
Why?
M4
Why?
Q1
Why?
Mn
Q2
Why?
Prevent Root Cause
Q3
Why?
Q4
Why?
Qn
Protect Root Cause
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
17
Read Across Matrix (Drill Wide)
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
18
Identify issues (PRRs, Scrap, FTQ, etc.)
Identify same products/processes
Implement Lessons Learned
Check Implementation
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
19
Deep & Wide Workshop
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Spill Prevention Workshop

Purpose:
Process to teach the supplier the purpose and method of deep investigation of known quality issues
and wide implementation of lessons learned in order to prevent spills.
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
21
Prework:
Teach key person at the supplier the Drill Deep concept Select 25 PRRs or quantity issued in the last 12 months SQE and Supplier complete the Drill Deep for 25 PRRs Choose 3 to teach Drill Deep and read across in workshop (representative failure mode and good for read across) Complete an initial read across for selected PRRs Complete the root cause matrix (including the other 22 PRRs)
Roadmap
Workshop:
Go through the presentation material Work one Drill Deep in detail and review two Drill Deep with team Review the read across for all three PRRs Group the root causes for all PRRs Complete the 4 root cause pareto charts (predict, prevent, protect & key findings) Start the systemic issues read these across Confirm the workshop deliverables were met and review follow-up items
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
22
Workshop Flow Chart

PRR List / Issues (25 or 12 months)
Perform Drill Deep Analysis on all Issues

Implement Corrective Action for individual PRR and Read Across
PREDICT Root Causes Group & Pareto All Root Causes
PREVENT Root Causes
PROTECT Root Causes
Key Findings Root Causes Group & Pareto All Root Causes
Group & Pareto All Root Causes
Group & Pareto All Root Causes
Implement Corrective Action for Systemic Issues and Read Across
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
23
Workshop Agenda
Activity Introduction / Attendees Workshop Presentation Drill Deep & Wide Analysis Training Perform Drill Deep Analysis Lunch Read Across Training Develop Read Across Matrix for selected PRRs Review Root Cause Matrix for balance of PRRs Root Cause Paretos Develop Initial Systemic Read Across Review and Agree on Follow up Items Presenter SUPPLIER GM SQE GM SQE ALL GM SQE ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL Time (minutes) 10 30 30 60 (more if required) 45 15 30 15 (more if required) 45 60 15
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
24
Workshop Deliverables
Excel Sheet with every PRR listed with the 3 root causes and the key findings Drill Deep Analysis sheets completed for every PRR Read Across Matrix completed for 3 PRRs 4 Pareto Charts Predict Prevent Protect Overall Summary of Key Findings Systemic Issue Action Plan
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
25
Workshop Follow-Up
Review Completed Read Across for individual PRRs Review Completed Systemic Issue Read Across Regular review of PRR Read Across and Systemic Read Across Matrix for Implementation
Completion
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
26
Drill Deep Training
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
27
Drill Deep Analysis

What is the intent of the Drill Deep analysis?
Why did the planning process not predict the defect? Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect?
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
28
Drill Deep Analysis

How is the Drill Deep analysis structured?
Supplier Quality Model
Problem on part
Predict
Check/ Act
Planning process informational content in FMEAs and CPs
Plan
Protect
Quality process detection & responsiveness
Prevent
Manufacturing process standardized work and error proofing
P1
Why?
P2
Why?
P3
Why?
Do
P4
Why?
5 Whys
Pn
M1
Why?
M2
Why?
Predict Root Cause
M3
Why?
M4
Why?
Q1
Why?
Mn
Q2
Why?
Prevent Root Cause
Q3
Why?
Q4
Why?
Qn
Protect Root Cause
5 Whys
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Action plans
Drill Deep Analysis

Key Points:
Drill Deep Analysis is not used to understand what failed but rather why the system failed. Therefore, the technical root cause (i.e., the Red X in suppliers process) should be known before the Drill Deep Worksheet is completed. 3 x 5 Why <--> Drill Deep Analysis
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
30
Drill Deep Worksheet

GM Form 1927-84
Date:
02/24/04
Issue title: Product XYZ Fuel Tank Rollover Valve Assembly Customer concern: Loose parts found in Product XYZ fuel tanks. PRR# 30011223-989898. Defect on part: End cap not fully seated into window on valve.
P1 P2 P3
5 Whys RPN number was not determined properly in PFMEA. Occurrence and detection ratings were not determined properly.
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Predict
Planning process inf orm at ional cont ent in FM EAs and CPs
P4 P5 Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology. Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed. No detection error-proofing for "end cap fully seated". Re-train employees and implement a layered audit of planning process. J. Smith 03/31/04 FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented.
P-RC
J. Smith
03/15/04
M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect?
M2
Prevent
M anuf act uring process st andardized w ork and error proof ing
M3
M4
M5
M-RC Q1 Q2 Q3
Prot ect
Qualit y process det ect ion & responsiveness
Q4 Q5 Q-RC K1 K2 False sense of security in error proofing prevention of positive stops in tooling. Engineering change management execution. PPAP / PTR execution. Insufficient error-proofing incorporated into valve assembly. Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. Develop regular change control meetings with entire team. Develop Supplier Change Request audit process. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented. J. Smith J. Smith J. Smith 03/15/04 03/31/04 03/31/04
What are the key findings based on this quality issue and the above 5 Why analysis?
K3
J. Smith
03/31/04
K4 K5
J. Smith
03/15/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
31

Enter date as:
Date: 02/24/04
MM/DD/YY
Insert title of quality concern - be short and descriptive.
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
32

Date: 02/24/04
Describe the problem the customer experienced; i.e., viewpoint of GM operator at the Assembly Plant. Include PRR#, PRTS#, 24hr CDP# as applicable. Examples: Operator could not install O2 sensor on exhaust system; Operator found loose parts in Product XYZ fuel tanks, etc. Adjust row height as necessary.
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
33

Date: 02/24/04
Describe the nonconformance on the part. Example: End cap not fully seated into window on valve; O2 sensor bung missing on exhaust system; No weld on terminals in relay; Cold weld on brake pedal bracket, etc. Adjust row height as necessary.
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
34

Only add a corrective action next to each "Why" if applicable. Keep in mind that the last "Why" needs a corrective action with an owner and a completion date. Also, there can be more than one corrective action for a root cause and the corrective action should include some form of verification or "Check". Adjust row height as necessary.
5 Whys M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed. Re-train employees and implement a layered audit of planning process. J. Smith 03/31/04 Corrective Action Owner Due Date
M2
Prevent
M3
M4
M5
M-RC
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
35

Insert owner for implementing each corrective action.
5 Whys M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed. Re-train employees and implement a layered audit of planning process. J. Smith 03/31/04 Corrective Action
Insert due date for implementing each corrective action.

Format MM/DD/YY.
Owner Due Date
M2
Prevent
M3
M4
M5
M-RC
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
36

Perform the 5 Why to the right. The first question to ask and answer to begin the Prevent 5 Why is the following: Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Example: Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the end cap not fully seated into window on the valve? Enter each why below. Insert a row for each additional why if applicable.
As a sense check, read the Whys backwards to make sure that the analysis make sense.
Adjust row height as necessary.
Why?
5 Whys M1 Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed.
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Why? Why?
M2
Prevent
M3
Why?
M4
Why? Why?
M5
M-RC
Re-train employees and implement a layered audit of planning process.
J. Smith
03/31/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
37

Perform the 5 Why to the right. The first question to ask and answer to begin the Prevent 5 Why is the following: Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Example: Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the end cap not fully seated into window on the valve?
5 Whys M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed.
Enter each why below. Insert a row for each additional why if applicable.
As a sense check, read the Whys backwards to make sure that the analysis make sense.
Adjust row height as necessary.
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Therefore. . . Therefore. . . Therefore. . . Therefore. . .

M2
Prevent
M3
M4
M5
M-RC
Therefore. . .
J. Smith
03/31/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
38

Also, keep in mind that the technical root cause (i.e., Red X in suppliers process) should be captured in the Prevent 5 Why as shown below.
5 Whys M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect? Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed.
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Does not have to be 5 Whys - ask as many Whys as necessary. Prevent

M2
M3
M4
The last "why" is the underlying Root Cause. Please add a corrective action, owner, and date to the right.
M5
M-RC
J. Smith
03/31/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
39

Similar question can be asked for the Predict portion: Why did the planning process not predict the defect? Example: Why did the planning process not predict the end cap not fully seated into window on the valve? Why?
Why? Why?
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
5 Whys RPN number was not determined properly in PFMEA. Occurrence and detection ratings were not determined properly.
Corrective Action
Owner
Due Date
Therefore. . .
Therefore. . .
Predict
P-RC
Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology.
FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented.
J. Smith
03/15/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
40

Similar question can be asked for the Protect portion: Why did the quality process not protect GM from the defect? Example: Why did the quality process not protect GM from the end cap not fully seated into window on the valve? Why?
Why did the quality process not protect GM from the defect? No detection error-proofing for "end cap fully seated".
Why?
Q1 Q2 Q3
Therefore. . .
Prot ect
Q4 Q5 Q-RC False sense of security in error proofing prevention of positive stops in tooling. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. J. Smith 03/15/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
41

Are there any other key findings? Review the 5 Why analysis above to uncover any common themes and document them to the right. A corrective action, owner, and date needs to be added for each key finding. Adjust row as necessary.
K1 K2
Engineering change management execution. PPAP / PTR execution. Insufficient error-proofing incorporated into valve assembly. Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology.
Develop regular change control meetings with entire team. Develop Supplier Change Request audit process. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented.
J. Smith J. Smith
03/31/04 03/31/04
K3
J. Smith
03/31/04
K4 K5
J. Smith
03/15/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
42

Date: 02/24/04 Issue title: Product XYZ Fuel Tank Rollover Valve Assembly Customer concern: Loose parts found in Product XYZ fuel tanks. PRR# 30011223-989898. Defect on part: End cap not fully seated into window on valve. Why did the planning process not predict the defect? P1 P2 P3 5 Whys RPN number was not determined properly in PFMEA. Occurrence and detection ratings were not determined properly. Corrective Action Owner Due Date
Predict
P4 P5 Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology. Cylinder did not travel to full insertion. Positive stops were not adjusted correctly for the new, low permeation family insert. Control Plan was not updated to indicate recalibration for new family insert. Manufacturing was not aware of a new family insert. Poor communication between Product Development & Manufacturing on design change. Supplier XYZ Launch Planning System was not followed. No detection error-proofing for "end cap fully seated". Re-train employees and implement a layered audit of planning process. J. Smith 03/31/04 FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented.
P-RC
J. Smith
03/15/04
M1 Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect?
M2
Prevent
M3
M4
M5
M-RC Q1 Q2 Q3
Prot ect
Q4 Q5 Q-RC K1 K2 False sense of security in error proofing prevention of positive stops in tooling. Engineering change management execution. PPAP / PTR execution. Insufficient error-proofing incorporated into valve assembly. Inadequate knowledge of FMEA methodology. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. Develop regular change control meetings with entire team. Develop Supplier Change Request audit process. Re-evaluate prevention error-proofing process and implement detection error-proofing process. FMEA training plan to be developed and monthly FMEA layered audit review to be implemented. J. Smith J. Smith J. Smith 03/15/04 03/31/04 03/31/04
K3
J. Smith
03/31/04
K4 K5
J. Smith
03/15/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
43
Drill Deep Summary

Drill Deep Analysis is not used to understand what failed but why
the system failed.
Technical root cause (i.e., the Red X in suppliers process) should be

known before the Drill Deep Worksheet is competed.
+
3 x 5 Why <--> Drill Deep Analysis. t+T+E =S
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
44
Read Across Training
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
46
Read Across Matrix (Drill Wide)
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
47
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
48
Read Across Work Instructions

Record the Supplier Information
Record the GM Owner (I.e. Supplier Process Development Metallic, Chemical, Electrical) or CS2 Provider name and information.
SUPPLIER:
Name: Location: Duns: Contact Name: Contact Phone: E-mail: Eight Week Period: XYZ Corporation Springfield 12345789 John Doe 123-555-1212 john.doe@xyzcorp.com
PQE/SQE:
Name: Phone: GM location / Provider Contact Phone: E-mail:
jquality@gm.com
Jane Quality 321-555-1212
Due Date:
For CS2 provider only
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
49

LEGEND
Mark with an O for the Originating location
Place a letter in each box for each line item that applies
Mark with an X all locations where the defect may occur
O Original Location X Another Location which contains the same process R Repeat Issues N/A Not Applicable Completed & 3rd Party/GM verified Completed & Supplier verified only Not Completed
Mark with an R if the problem was repeated at another location
Color code each box that has a letter in it according to this scheme
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
50

Create one line for each PRR issued Record the PRR issuing location
Part Name & Number GM Assy. Plant
Record the Date the Drill Deep Analysis Was completed
Customer Concern
Defect on Part
5 Why Analysis
Widget Module 22609999
Florida
Knob shy
Knob not secure
1/3/2004
Part Name & Number
GM Assy. Plant
Customer Concern
Defect on Part
5 Why Analysis
Record the Part Name and full Part Number Record the issue as described by the plant
Record the DEFECT on the part
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
51

Record the full PRR number Record the number of non conforming parts Identified on the PRR Identify the Corporate Champion responsible to ensure implementation of the corrective actions
Identify the Type and Status of any Controlled Shipping action initiated as a result of this PRR

Identify all supplier DUNS locations with similar products and processes
Identify all lines within each duns where corrective actions may apply. Also identify new Products to apply Lessons Learned. Use letter code with appropriate color to identify applicable locations and status
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
53
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
54
Root Cause Pareto
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Root Cause Matrix

PRR Predict (Planning Procces)
FMEA - corrective actions ineffective FMEA - corrective actions ineffective Poor validation - design, FMEA - not included Poor validation - design, FMEA - not included FMEA - detection too low
Prevent (Manufacturing Process)

Assembly - not connected Assembly - not connected
Protect (Quality Process)
Key Findings
20030805-000001 1 20030806-000002 2 20030807-000003 3 20030807-000004 4 Include all PRRs 20030811-000005 5 6 20030813-000007 7 20030819-000008 8 20030821-000009 9 20030821-000010 10 20030822-000011 11 12 13 14 20030825-000012 20030826-000013 20030829-000014 20030811-000006
No detection No detection No detection No detection No detection No detection Poor validation - design Poor validation - design Poor validation - design
Assembly - part FMEA - occurrence too low backwards, JI not followed FMEA - corrective actions Assembly - dropped ineffective screw Poor validation - pack, FMEA - not included Poor validation - design, FMEA - not included FMEA - not included Repair procedure not followed Procedure - repair FMEA - detection too low Validation - pack Packaging
Assembly - JI not followed Transfer the Root Causes for Predict, Poor validation - design, Prevent and Protect from the 3x5 Drill FMEA - not included Deep Worksheets to this form.
No detection No detection No detection - occurs after pack No detection No detection Poor validation - pack Poor validation - design
Error proofing fault Packaging
Include any Key Findings
No detection - occurs after pack
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
56
Root Causes Grouped

Predict Planning Process
FMEA - corrective actions ineffective
FMEA - corrective actions ineffective FMEA - corrective ineffective FMEA - corrective ineffective FMEA - corrective ineffective FMEA - corrective ineffective FMEA - corrective ineffective actions Assembly - dropped screw actions Assembly - dropped screw actions actions actions Assembly - JI not followed Assembly - missing parts Poor measurement Poor validation - design Poor validation - design No controls No controls - latent, caused in vehicle Poor design validation Poor validation - design Poor validation - design Poor validation - design
Prevent Manufacturing Process

Work Instruction not followed
Assembly - dropped screw
Protect Quality Process

Measurement/CP
No checks in CP
Key Findings
Poor validation - design
Poor design
Group Like Root Causes and Findings within each No inspection Assembly Key - JI not followed Column. Account for all PRRs
Assembly - JI not followed Poor controls
FMEA - detection too low

FMEA - detection too low FMEA - detection too low FMEA - detection too low FMEA - detection too low FMEA - detection too low
Assembly - not connected Assembly - not connected Assembly - part backwards, JI not followed Assembly - part dropped and mishandled Assembly - tape in wrong position Assembly - wrong part, material handling location wrong
No detection
No detection No detection No detection No detection No detection
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
57
Predict Planning Process

FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive FMEA - correct ive act ions inef f ect ive
Root Causes Grouped

Prevent Manufacturing Process
Work Instruction not followed
Assembly - dropped screw Assembly - dropped screw Assembly - dropped screw Assembly - JI not f ollowed Assembly - JI not f ollowed Assembly - JI not f ollowed Assembly - missing part s Assembly - not connect ed Assembly - not connect ed Assembly - part backwards, JI not f ollowed Assembly - part dropped and mishandled Assembly - t ape in wrong posit ion Assembly - wrong part , mat erial handling locat ion wrong
Protect Quality Process
Key Findings
Poor design Poor design validat ion Poor validat ion - design Poor validat ion - design Poor validat ion - design Poor validat ion - design Poor validat ion - design
Measurement/ CP
No checks in CP No cont rols No cont rols - lat ent , caused in vehicle No inspect ion Poor cont rols Poor measurement

FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low FMEA - det ect ion t oo low
No detection
No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion No det ect ion met hod No det ect ion, no visual cont rols No det ect ion
Machine Set Up/ PM

Excessive solder, no PM Incorrect set up of t est er Insuf f icient solder due t o poor wash Machine cycle int erupt ed
FMEA - not included

FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not FMEA - not included included included included included included included included included included included included included included included
Material Handling
Mat erial Handling - damage due t o rack design Mat erial Handling - nonconf orming product mishandled Poor Mat erial Handling Poor Mat erial Handling Mat erial Handling process not f ollowed
Packaging
Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging
No detection - occurs after pack

No det ect ion - occurs af t er pack No det ect ion - occurs af t er pack No det ect ion - occurs af t er pack
FMEA - not included FMEA - not included FMEA - not included FMEA-not included FMEA - not included
Procedures
Procedure - mishandling Procedure - repair Procedure - repair Procedure not f ollowed Procedure not f ollowed Repair procedure not f ollowed
Visual inspection
Visual inspect ion Visual inspect ion Visual inspect ion Visual inspect ion
FMEA - occurrence too low

FMEA - occurrence t oo low FMEA - occurrence t oo low FMEA - occurrence t oo low
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
58
Predict Planning / Documentation RC RC RC RC RC 3 5 4 2 1
Root Cause Pareto Charts

7 5 4 2 1 RC RC RC RC RC 1 5 2 3 4
Prevent Manufacturing Process 6 4 2 1 1
Insert the Root Cause and the frequency For all Groups from the previous Worksheet
Planning / Docum entation Manufacturing System
RC 3
RC 1
RC 5
RC 5
RC 4
RC 2
The charts will automatically be generated

RC 2 RC 3
RC 1
RC 4
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
59
Protect Quality System RC 5 RC 1 RC 2 RC 3 RC 4 3 2 1 1 1
Root Cause Pareto Charts

Key Findings RC 1 RC 3 RC 2 4 2 1
Repeat, to create the Protect and Key Findings Charts

Quality System Key Findings
RC 5
RC 1
RC 1
RC 3
RC 2
RC 2
RC 3
RC 4
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
60
Predict
Planning / Documentation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Prevent
Manufacturing System
0 Work Instruction not follow ed Procedures 5 10 15
FMEA - not included
Material Handling Machine Set Up/ PM
Protect
Quality System
0 5 10 15
Packaging
Key
Key Findings
0 2 4 6 8
20
25
No detection
Measurement/CP
Visual inspection No detection occurs after pack
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
61
Systemic Issues Read Across
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
Supplier Name Location
Systemic Issues Read Across

O X
N/A
Original Product Line and Location Product Line and Location with Similar Process Not Applicable Complete and 3rd party / Verified Complete & Supplier Verified Only Not Completed
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5
Issue
Corrective Actions Champion
Due Date
Predict
Prevent
Protect
Key Findings
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
63
Predict
Planning / Documentation
0 5 10 15 20 25
Prevent
Manufacturing System
0 Work Instruction not follow ed Procedures 5 10
FMEA - not included
The TOP Bar of each Pareto represents the Systemic Issues which 15 will require an initial Read Across
Material Handling Machine Set Up/ PM
Protect
Quality System
0 5 10 15
Packaging
Key
Key Findings
0 2 4 6 8
20
25
No detection
Measurement/CP
Visual inspection No detection occurs after pack
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
64
Supplier Name Location
XYZ Corporation Springfield, ZX
Systemic Issues RA Example

O X
N/A
Supplier identification
Issue
Corrective Actions
Champion
Original Product Line and Location Product Line and Location with Similar Process Not Applicable Complete and 3rd party / Verified Complete & Supplier Verified Only Not Completed
Plant 1 Plant 2
Read Across to Each Plant

Plant 5
Due Date
Predict
Failure Mode Not Included
The highest frequency root cause Departmental Review, Doe 2/30/04 from eachworkshop Pareto chart is transferred here. On-line Include the Key Finding
Cross training matrix Doe 2/30/04
Prevent
Work Instructions not Followed
Protect
No Error Detection
Develop plan to add error detection to new N/Cs
Doe
2/30/04
Assign a Champion and record a due date

Key Findings
Poor Validation/Design Peer Reviews and Standardizes Validation Plan Doe 2/30/04 O x x
Define the Corrective Actions for each Systemic Issue
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
65
Workshop Deliverables
Excel Sheet with every PRR listed with the 3 root causes and the key findings Drill Deep Analysis sheets completed for every PRR Read Across Matrix completed for 3 PRRs 4 Pareto Charts Predict Prevent Protect Overall Summary of Key Findings Systemic Issue Action Plan
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
66
Workshop Follow-Up
Review Completed Read Across for individual PRRs Review Completed Systemic Issue Read Across Regular review of PRR Read Across and Systemic Read Across Matrix for Implementation
Completion
Revision 5.0 03/08/04
67
In Summary
Supplier Performance is Critical to Winning Products!!
Going Forward Drill Deep & Wide is the Way of Doing Business (reference Bulletin 5143 dated March 2nd, 2004) Inputs to Deep and Wide starts with PRRs
The Drill Deep and Wide Process matures with the use of Internal Quality Data
Each of us has a role to play in making You and GM successful


004drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 6.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

004drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 6.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deep & Wide Process

Spills are not acceptable.

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Date: To: Subject:

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

What Do Customers Want?

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Retained 3rd Spot in Survey

Closed Gap to # 1 Toyota by 17%

Note: 44 % of GMs production volume was in launch in 2002

APPEAL Study October 2003

Cadillac EXT & GMC Savana Top Honors in their segments

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

NAVO 2003 Results

50% Improvement CYTD

Jun- Jul-03 Aug03 03

47% Improvement CYTD

40% Improvement CYTD

51% Improvement CYTD

28% Improvement CYTD

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Supplier Box Chart

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Spill Data for GM Suppliers

Our success depends on your performance!

What was the impact for your organization?

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Recurrence Prevention Model

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

SQ Recurrence Prevention Model

Why did the manufacturing process not prevent the defect?

Predict Corrective Action

Predict Root Cause

Prevent Corrective Action

Prevent Root Cause

Protect Corrective Action

Protect Root Cause

Build the Base

Identify Metric & Threshold Predict

Identify Issues Identify same Process Implement Lessons

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop Training 5.0

Revision 5.0 03/08/04

Recurrence Prevention Model

Deep Investigation (Drill Deep analysis) Wide Implementation (Read Across)

Prevention should start here

Emerging Current Issues

Functional Build Issues

Supplier Process Issues