We found this new article on Leadership Styles informative and extremely insightful, enjoy!

Barry Salzberg, CEO of Deloitte, has spent his entire 34-year career in one place, climbing the corporate ladder. From his first unsupportive manager at the New York-based professional services firm to the mentors who helped pull him up through the ranks, Salzberg learned to lead and be led, eventually becoming CEO of Deloitte LLP in the United States in 2007. He has a message for the next generation of leaders: The old leadership hierarchy no longer works.

“Gone is the day of the old command-and-control environment, the climb-the-ladder model in which the employee kept quiet and didn’t say too much, certainly not much beyond what was asked and tasked,” Salzberg told his audience at a recent Wharton Leadership Lecture. “Gone, too, is the densely layered organizational hierarchy [and] dinosaur-like structures that are too slow and lumbering for today’s environment.”

To thrive in an ever-changing world, companies must actively commit to cultivating younger leaders throughout the organization, and encouraging older leaders to pass on what they know. “Leadership now needs to be the norm, not the exception,” he noted. “No longer is leadership about a few exceptional leaders at the top of the organization. Rather, the future is about exceptional teams and the leaders within those teams who can out-maneuver, out-manage and out-innovate their competition.”

Up the ‘lattice’

That is why leadership needs to be flat, Salzberg noted. In a global world, leaders are required at all levels of the organization, not just at the top. In fact, Deloitte has “kicked away the ladder,” he said. “In my organization, we talk now about the lattice, not the ladder.” With a lattice structure, people can move not just up and down but also sideways. If employees need to ease up on the intensity of work to take care of a child or an aging parent, the lattice structure allows them to do that without destroying their career. “The corporate lattice metaphor signals a shift in mindset. It’s better reflective of today’s employees, who want variety and flexibility, and reject a one-size-fits-all approach.”

Another leadership relic, according to Salzberg: the idea of a “ruling elite in the clouds of some bureaucratic Mount Olympus.” In the past, it would have been unthinkable for the average employee to have direct contact with the CEO, he pointed out. Today, CEOs regularly host employee town halls, in which people are encouraged to ask and say anything. “Our people have to see that if they disagree [with their boss], nothing will happen, that there are no [negative] consequences to promotion or compensation.”

No ostriches, no elephants

Leaders today must also be transparent, especially in our socially networked world, said Salzberg. “In today’s social media environment, it’s fascinating to see how in 10 seconds what you say is spread throughout the organization. There are few hiding places.”

The experience helped him develop what he calls his “no ostriches, no elephants” principle. “No burying your head in the sand if there’s a problem, and no ignoring the elephant in the room,” he said. “Much better to name and tame an issue, no matter how difficult it is, than to ignore it or pretend it isn’t there. Making sure the truth is told and discussed with all is the foundation of leadership. Without that, you can’t build trust.”

To read the entire article, see Knowledge@Wharton website.

Question: Has the current social media business environment lifted teamwork to a newer dynamic area of stability, or can total transparency harm team organizational effectiveness? Respond!

If your company is certified to AS9100B, you should already know that the transition to AS9100C Aviation, Space, and Defense Standard starts July 1, 2011. If your surveillance or re-certification audit is going to take place after this date, you must have completed the transition to the new requirements, and have the correct documentation and objective evidence to demonstrate effectiveness.

AS9101D Audit Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense is the new, completely rewritten standard that defines the requirements for Certification Bodies (CBs) to audit your system. This standard creates common auditing methods and document formats (seven appendices) that the CB auditor will use, and can be used by your organization in support of your internal audits, and external audits at your suppliers.

Key differences to the audit requirements and CB audit process include:

• Expanded scope of what and when a Major nonconformity will be written. Major nonconformity situation example, “a nonconformity where the effect is judged to be detrimental to the integrity of the product.”

• A new nonconformity report (NCR) used by the auditor. Example, when nonconformity found requires immediate containment action meaning –“fix now” to contain the nonconforming condition, it will be done. Immediate containment and correction can be reviewed by the audit team during the audit.

• Each audited “Product Realization Process – level of effectiveness” will be recorded on the Process Effectiveness Assessment Report (PEAR). The PEAR identifies 4 effectiveness levels. If the auditor classifies the effectiveness level as a “1 or 2” it will result in a nonconformity being issued.

• No more soft grading or scoring. If the auditor found evidence of non-fulfillment of a requirement, the auditor determines the nonconformity classification (major/minor). The “observations and opportunities for improvement” grade no longer exists for borderline correction actions.

• Audit results will be posted on the Online Aerospace Supplier Information System (OASIS) for approved parties to view (i.e., your customers)! This transparency alone only emphasis the need to seriously examine your current documented system and its conformity and effectiveness.

With the development of the AS9100C and AS9101D standards, you can count on performance-based, process-oriented audit methods and techniques facing your company future. It is now May, and the clock is ticking. Life was good when the auditor would ask for “thus and so” and you could show “thus and so” and get a check mark. Those days are changing fast!

Question:  Has your Certification Body (CB) informed your organization of the new requirements and their future audit process?  We have found it’s a CB communication mixed bag!  Let us know, and do you think the new CB audit process and AS9100C expanded requirements will make a difference in supplier quality? Respond!!

ISO 27001 is an international standard which defines the requirements for an Information Security Management System (ISMS). The standard is designed to ensure the selection of adequate and proportionate security controls. The standard is particularly suitable where the protection of information is critical, such as in the finance, health, public and information technology sectors.

The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of vital corporate and customer information are essential to maintain competitive edge, profitability, legal compliance and commercial image.

Annex A of ISO 27001 is probably the most mentioned annex of any management standard. Why is there so much talk about it? Let’s take a look at the security controls and examples.

If you have read Annex A, you have seen that 133 security controls are listed there.  Annex A contains the following clauses:

• A.5 Security policy
• A.6 Organization of information security
• A.7 Asset management
• A.8 Human resources security
• A.9 Physical and environmental security
• A.10 Communications and operations management
• A.11 Access control
• A.12 Information systems acquisition, development and maintenance
• A.13 Information security incident management
• A.14 Business continuity management
• A.15 Compliance

These 133 controls which can be seen from the names of the clauses, are not focused solely on IT – they also cover for example physical security, legal protection, human resources management, and organizational issues. You could consider Annex A as a form of a catalogue of security measures to be used during your treatment process – once you identify unacceptable risks in risk assessment, Annex A will help you choose the right control(s) to decrease those risks. And ensure you don’t forget any important control.

Annex A is where ISO 27001 and ISO 27002 come together – the controls in ISO 27002 are named the same as in Annex A of ISO 27001, but the difference is in the level of detail – ISO 27001 gives only a short definition of a control, while ISO 27002 gives detailed guidelines on how to implement the control.

Obstacles

If by now you are thinking that Annex A is a perfect implementation tool for your information security project, don’t get confused – it also has some things that don’t always make good sense. For instance, some controls define almost the same issues, sometimes causing confusion – like A.9.2.6 (Secure disposal or re-use of equipment) and A.10.7.2 (Disposal of media).  Annex A mentions policies and procedures, however it does not require those to be documented. It might seem strange, but only where the word “documented” appears, does the standard require written policies and/or procedures.

Mandatory relationship with ISO 27001

The mandatory clauses 4 to 8 contain the management part of the standard – they prescribe the PDCA cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act phases), including risk assessment and treatment, documentation control, records control, provision of resources, internal audit, management review, corrective and preventive actions.  The risk assessment & treatment process is the main connection between clauses 4 to 8 and the controls from Annex A – it will help you decide whether individual controls from Annex A are necessary for decreasing risks or not. It means clauses 4 to 8 and Annex A cannot exist one without the other.

The focus on risks and the flexibility to apply security controls according to what your organization considers as appropriate are the real benefits of the an ISO 27001 ISMS – you must be careful to take full advantage of them.

Question: How did/will your organization identify it’s appropriate controls, too many, too little, was it successful,  and what lessons have you learned?

Thanks for reply!

Has your organization decided that it’s a good idea to classify customer complaints according to whether they are “justified?” This occurrence just took place with a client of ours that received a complaint due to using a product beyond its capability and felt it wasn’t necessary to utilize their corrective actions system for identification and resolution.

This may make some logical sense, but it’s the worst thing a company can do for building customer satisfaction.  Take all customer complaints seriously!

Craig Cochran recently wrote an article for AIAG Quality Standards which highlights ways to ensure your customers are satisfied with how you handle their complaints.

If I’m a customer, all my complaints are justified. If you try to tell me that my complaint is “unjustified,” it’s only going to make me angrier than I already am. Once the customer experiences a problem, it becomes the company’s problem. Regardless of the fault of the problem, customer satisfaction has been affected, and action must be taken.

Consider these scenarios:

(1) The customer used the product incorrectly, and the performance was adversely affected; the complaint is deemed unjustified. But why did the customer use the product incorrectly? Was the application known prior to the sale? Were the instructions unclear? Is there any chance that the customer was misled, even unintentionally?

(2) The customer says the product was damaged, but the type of damage described could only have happened at the customer location; the complaint is deemed unjustified. But should the product’s packaging be improved? Should you provide guidelines for proper handling?

In each of these cases, an argument could be made that the problem was the customer’s fault. Taking this position, though, does nothing to enhance customer satisfaction, nor does it further the organization’s long-term objectives. Savvy organizations will look for ways to error-proof their products with customers. Of course, some problems are truly the customer’s fault. When these situations occur, the organization might not be obligated to replace the product, provide credits or refunds, or accept returns. In all cases, however, customers must be treated in a diplomatic, cordial manner.

Reporting Back to Your Customer. Customers want to know what action has been taken. After all, the customers had a negative experience related to something they spent their hard-earned money on. They even took the time to tell the organization about it. Now they’re curious. What are you going to do about it? If your organization is interested in turning the negative experience into a positive one, someone must take the time to report back to the customer. The communication should include three key elements:

1. The results of the investigation into the problem;
2. The action taken; and
3. A statement of thanks for reporting the problem.

Reporting action back to the customer closes the loop on the issue. It also lets the customer know that you take his or her feedback seriously and are committed to making improvements. In some cases, it can determine whether your organization remains a supplier to this customer.

The following steps represent implementation guidelines for an effective complaint system:

• Determine what information is needed in order to investigate and take action on customer complaints. Build your complaint form/CAR around this information.
• Establish contact methods for customer complaints. Remember that voice contact is preferred by most customers.
• Appoint someone as the complaint administrator. This person will be responsible for the entire process.
• When a complaint occurs, use structured problem-solving techniques to address them in a systematic manner.

Complaint information should be one of the most widely disseminated topics in an organization. Trend data should be posted on every departmental bulletin board, along with the details of relevant complaints involving that department. Complaints, their root causes and eventual corrective action must be made topics of any regular communication that takes place throughout the organization.

Does your organization neglect unjustified complaints?  Give us an example and we will provide a direct response to your input with suggestions for improvement.

Organizations are faced with numerous improvement choices and buzzwords everywhere; Kaizen, Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, TQM, Process Reengineering, Value Propositions. Sometimes the wrong choice is made based on the latest fad or recommendation of another. We rarely take the time to step back, identify, and analyze what the real issues are and the type of method to use.

Let’s take a look at one of these improvement choices that we use with our clients,  and highly recommend due to its minimal investment costs and high rate of return.

Kaizen (usually pronounced ‘kyzan’ or ‘kyzen’ in the western world) is a Japanese word, commonly translated to mean ‘continuous improvement’. Kaizen is a core principle of quality management aligned within the methods of Total Quality Management and ‘Lean Thinking. Kaizen is a methodology aimed at the elimination of waste in every area of the business including customer relations, manufacturing and service delivery, design, supplier networks and office management. Its goal is to incorporate less human effort, less inventory, less time to develop products and services, and less space to become highly responsive to customer demand while producing top quality services in the most efficient and economical manner possible.

The principles of Kaizen are based upon:

• Waste is hidden in all processes
• Identifying and eliminating waste impacts costs and customer satisfaction
• When waste is identified, it becomes clear that it adds no value to the customer and increases operating costs.

In order to focus improvements on what matters, we have to clearly understand the interests of the people involved. These can include customers, stakeholders, suppliers, management, and employees. Kaizen uses a team approach. Team membership is made up of personnel who do the work. The team uses analytical tools and techniques to review systems and identify ways to improve and eliminate waste of time, money, materials, resources and effort to increase productivity and customer satisfaction.

What are Kaizen Events?

Kaizen events are focused three-to five-day breakthrough events that generally include the following activities:

• Training
• Defining the event scope /goals
• Documenting the current state
• Brainstorming and developing a future state
• Implement improvements and presenting results
• Follow-up activities.

Pre-event training up to two hours or more is preferred to achieve familiarity with lean principles and tools training. Training should cover basic lean principles, eight wastes, benefits of standard work, event methods and team roles. More advanced training with method and tools are introduced during the event on an as-needed basis.

Determining the event scope is the leader’s responsibility. When determining event scope, the leaders contribute relevant information such as event drivers, current state performance, and the desired performance. Variables can include 1) How aggressive are the event objectives? 2) Current state understanding in relationship to time and team members. 3) Process complexity can include the number of steps, systems, and personnel involvement. 4) Solutions complexity – What can be done now, and what will be part of the follow-up plan?

Documenting the current state by mapping and flowing the processes that are involved you will be able to identify and eliminate the waste that causes the delays. Creating benchmark metrics will give you a baseline and let you identify where the problems in your processes really are and measure impact of changes. Metrics include process time (touch time) lead time (turnaround time) and percent complete and accurate. Remember that time is the primary metric in a lean approach, so determining the critical path of your mapping will determine the overall lead time.

Brainstorming and developing a future state. With the current state documented, the Kaizen team members identify the waste in the process, determine root cause for the waste, and design effective countermeasures which becomes part of the future sate design. Analyzing the current state includes identifying the value-adding and necessary non-value adding steps with the primary customer in mind, the end user of the product or service. Specific root cause analysis tools are used to evaluate, prioritize, and select improvements the team will implement during the event. The goal is to highlight the process steps that contain the greatest waste, and improve the process using a number of metrics for future state implementation.

Implement improvements and presenting results. Measurable, incremental improvement requires the team to focus on what can be done within the event timeframe. All improvements should make work easier, and an improvement must generate positive measurable results. During this phase team members are identifying potential future training requirements, anticipated benefits, and a sustainability work plan. This plan can include process monitoring, 30 to 60 day action plans, user inputs for process modification, and process compliance audits. The team is responsible for presenting their project results to the leadership group. A formal reporting process is used which includes event objectives, key improvements implemented, and projected and measurable results.

Follow-up Activities. The improvement cycle is never over when the kaizen event concludes. Measuring, monitoring, and continual improvement is key to ensuring sustainability. Management and team follow-up meetings are needed to monitor progress, track results, and conduct lessons-learned activities are required. Part of this important stage is to conduct post-event process audits to ensure the improvements have been done, the new processes are being followed, and improvements are having the intended results. The “actual after measurement” metrics are documented to validate or alter the projected improvements defined in the future state process. Many organizations fail at this stage because they don’t aggressively continue to measure and analyze processes.

Kaizen works best when it is ‘owned’ by people, who see the concept as both empowering of individuals and teams, and a truly practical way to improve quality and performance. Developing a continuous improvement organization ensures improvements produce not only better productivity and profit for the organization, but also better recognition and reward and other positive benefits for employees, whose involvement drives the change and improvement in the first place.

Next month we will continue with “Why Kaizen” and share a recent client Kaizen project next and its results.   The client is a large Medical and Dental Service Provider.

Share with us your organizational Kaizen experiences and best practices, reply!

An effective organization requires a robust customer complaint system. Complaints communicate customer perceptions of quality, and  compose the largest determinant of customer satisfaction. Unfortunately, the majority of complaint systems are completely reactive: You’re not reaching out to your customer—you’re relying on the customer to reach out to you. This is a risk laden proposition and for every complaint your organization receives, there may be four, five or more you’ll never know about.

Because of its reactive nature, a complaint system should be used in combination with one or two proactive tools. Here are some suggestions to help you implement an effective system that is capable of improving your customer satisfaction connection.

Get the Details!

In addition to your customer service personnel expressing empathy, the person receiving the complaint must gather the correct details. Exactly what went wrong? Allow the customer to provide a general description, then begin to drill down. Typical information includes the following details:

• What was the exact nature of the problem? Generalities won’t cut it. The problem statement must provide enough detail and depth to facilitate investigation.
• When did the problem occur? The date is certainly necessary, as might also be the time.
• Where did the problem occur? The state, city, plant, retail outlet, department, production line and machine all might be important.
• Who was involved in the situation? What roles did they play?
• What product was involved? What were the part or style numbers?
• Were there any specific batch numbers, serial numbers or other identifiers that provide traceability?
• Was the problem isolated or generalized across all products?

Consistently gathering this expansion of information is difficult without a structured format. Most organizations custom-design complaint forms based on their individual needs and the most effective forms allow customers to go online and submit.  Decide exactly what information you need to investigate customer complaints and take effective corrective action; then design your form around these needs. Certain sections of the complaint form are almost universal, including:

• The person to whom the complaint is assigned
• The response due date
• The root cause
• The action taken
• A verification of action taken
• A closure signature and date

Also, consider all the steps that constitute a response to a typical customer complaint:

1.  Clearly defining the problem
2.  Identifying the root cause
3.  Proposing a range of acceptable corrective action
4.  Choosing the action
5.  Implementing the action
6.  Following up to ensure the action was effective
7.  Reporting the action and results back to the customer
8.  Updating procedures and other documentation as necessary to reflect changed methods.

The more people involved in the complaint investigation, action and follow-up, the more likely it is the organization will learn from the experience and not repeat the same mistakes.

The Quality Guru Asks: How effective is your organization in gathering the right customer information? Give us your ideas on what are the  proper complaint questions to ask to get the right details?   

The current economic downturn has created an enhanced awareness on how an organization creates the value needed by its products, markets and customers. Becoming more efficient and effective is much more than eliminating process waste. Internal waste reduction may not be the primary need for an organizations markets or customers, thus waste reduction may not ensure continued sustainability of the organization.

A process management approach can help an organization prevent a narrow view of a business system. The process approach is a set of interrelated or interacting activities, that require specific input resources, monitoring and measurement opportunities (before, during, and after the process), in order to achieve consistent product and service. An organization wanting to improve its economic performance can use the process approach to link improvement to strategic goals.

The following questions is a good place to start:

* What business are we in?
* Who are our customers?
* What do they do, and what do they expect from us (the value)?
* What do we need to do to meet their unique requirements (capabilities)?
* What is customer critical and what is less significant?
* What are the critical core processes that will allow us to meet our specific capabilities?
* Which core processes do we have, which do we need to create, and which do we need to manage better (process management)?

Let us not forget that the “economic value” or rationale is particularly important. Identifying the critical processes that need to be either created or improved to provide the needed strategic capabilities should drive the overall improvement effort and economic value. This is the essence of process management (effectiveness of process = ability to achieve desired results, and efficiency of process = results achieved versus resources used).

Identifying the missing gaps and implementing the missing processes can be the quickest way to improve a system. The organization must ensure that process improvements are linked to strategy and core process execution. To be a success, an organization must continuously improve all its essential core processes to provide value and to always satisfy customer requirements.

The Quality Guru asks: What are your company core processes, and how do you measure their effectiveness?

Layered Process Audits (LPAs) have become quite popular and in many cases mandatory for suppliers in the automotive industry. The effects of properly conducted layered process audits can be substantially positive. Because layered process auditing reduces the number of operator errors they have spread to industries outside of automotive.

So, what is a Layered Process Audit? They are a system of audits performed by multiple layers of supervision and management to monitor key process operations, characteristics and verify process conformance on an ongoing basis. LPAs are an excellent tool for minimizing variation in your processes and error-proofing systems.

A layered process audit is an ongoing chain of simple verification checks that ensure a defined process is followed correctly. It is a powerful management tool that can improve safety, quality and cost savings by amplifying problem solving systems and making continuous improvement almost routine. Through observation, evaluation and conversations on the manufacturing floor, these checks ensure key work steps are performed properly. LPA interactions are also an excellent way for managers to show respect for frontline workers.

Let’s identify some essential components of a Layered Process Audit Program

* Management must take ownership of the LPA process
* Auditors Must identify and ask the right questions
* All management layers, top to bottom, must participate
* Immediate containment of nonconformances found
* Continual improvement must be included in the process
* Shift, daily, weekly scheduled and performed audits

Survey data shows excessive process input variation is the single largest cause manufacturing quality problem. This often results from a failure to reinforce process corrective actions. Or, can be attributed to a failure to follow the required steps and methods. Layered process audits reduce this variation along the manufacturing line up through the ranks of plant management. This helps ensure that operators are following the process steps.

Keep in mind that a layered process audit system must have a documented audit structure (just as quality system standards require) that schedules auditors at pre-determined levels and frequency of audits. These audits focus on process operations and error-proofing, not on finished product inspections.

One of the most common questions we hear with 5S (and Lean for that matter) is how do you sustain? Sustaining 5S can be very difficult without the use of a formal process. A layered audit program can be used successfully to ensure that your company’s 5S efforts continue.

Layered Audits are tied directly into the fifth S – Sustain – and they are the means used in Lean Improvement Systems to avoid “backsliding” into old habits, creating sustainable culture change. Layered Process Audits require that multiple operational levels within an organization review the same key operational controls to ensure sustainability. Simply stated, they are an ongoing chain of simple verification checks, which through observation, evaluation and conversations on the line; assure that the process is being properly performed.

The key is everyone is an “auditor”. This starts with the operator personally checking their process for compliance. Then the first line supervisor checks key processes, where feedback is immediate as are any agreed-upon corrective actions. The next level supervisor would then make the same checks, and so forth.

The essential part of the Layered Audit is the creation of a standard checklist You must identify and ask the right questions on the checklist. This is where Standard work at all levels of the organization is critical. Layered Audits is a formalization of “management by walking the Gemba”.

Layered Process Audits can be compared to a pilot’s preflight checklist. Is my operation ready for take-off? Am I confident that everything is in place to build and ship conforming product to my customer? When the day goes smoothly, management and operators can use the time saved to work on improvements. The beauty of LPAs is that managers often can learn much about the manufacturing processes from operators, and operators can learn much about what is important to customers from managers.

Let’s review some of the proven benefits of LPAs.

* Reduces variation in processes
* Improves & maintains operational discipline
* Reduces scrap and eliminates waste
* Improves overall quality and reduces costs
* Stops problems from becoming nonconformances

Quality Guru Asks: What success have you had in performing layered audits? If your not, and want to learn more, contact me for a Free Layered Audit Checklist.

The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) recently issued a letter on transition training for aerospace auditors. This training is a key element in the transition to the AS9100C, AS9110A, and AS9120A standards, as well as, use of the common AS9101D audit requirements standard.

All Aerospace Auditors (AA) and Aerospace Experienced Auditors (AEA) must complete Aerospace Auditor Transition Training (AATT) to be authenticated for auditing the new aerospace 2009 standards.

AS9100: This IAQG-Sanctioned AATT course has online and instructor-led components. The online component consists of an online initial examination and an online module titled, “Foundations: Understanding 9100″. The instructor-led component is a 4-day course and includes an evaluation and examination.

Classroom: Instructor-led training is required for auditors seeking AS9100C and AS9110A authentication. AS9120A training does not include an instructor-led course. As previously stated, AS9100C instructor-led training is a pre-requisite for AS9110A and AS9120A training.

For more information on the IAQG-sanctioned Aerospace Auditor Transition Training, go to this Plexus web page.

AS9100C Changes. Let’s look at a few of the key changes in the standard and identify important process points.

A. Expanded Scope from aerospace to aviation, space and defense organizations to better reflect the full range of users of AS9100.

B. Risk Management: This process defines the steps, sequences and interactions an organization must perform to ensure risks are properly handled. When risks are identified and communication is received, an assessment of these risks will be performed to determine potential impacts. Direct links to risk can be found in 3.1, 7.1.1, 7.2.2 7.4.1 & 8.5.3. Point: A formal, documented process must be established, implemented, and maintained covering responsibility, risk criteria, mitigation, acceptance and communication throughout product realization, including evidence of this system (this is much more than inserting the verbatim language/requirement on paper and stating our “sales personnel perform this”).

C. Configuration Management: Moved from clause 4.3 to 7.1.4. The move and expanded scope provides focus of this requirement during product realization. Added ISO 10007 sections (a-e). Point: Have you defined what, who and how (a-e example: config ID & audit) are executed, controlled, and valid objective evidence)? Configuration management is aimed to know at any time the “as designed” and the “as built” configuration of products in order to ensure fit for use of these products.

D. Project Management: Project management has been added to the standard outlining requirements on planning and managing product realization risks, resources and schedule. Point: Most aviation, space and defense products are complex and involve multi-tier partners and suppliers and project management provides additional focus on upfront planning and the management of project plans throughout product realization.

E. Customer Satisfaction: This requirement defines mandatory measures (e.g. customer performance indicators) that all organizations of all sizes and complexity must monitor), analyze and review to assess if improvement is needed. If action is needed, improvements must be planned and implemented and the results of the action must be evaluated to check their effectiveness. Point: A formal improvement process (example- PDCA) can ensure method, evidence, and evaluation of effectiveness.

F. Monitoring and Measurement of Processes: The Achilles’ heal – poorest evidence requirement we witness in documentation and measurable business performance improvement evidence. “Demonstrate the ability of processes to achieve planned results” (look beyond Management Review Inputs). Point: A note has been added to provide guidance on how an organization may go about determining appropriate process monitoring and measurement methods. It requires that the organization determine if the process nonconformity is limited or if it has affected other processes or products.

SES is currently working with a number of aerospace firms to achieve a successful and measurable transition. Contact Us for all your AS9100C training, documentation assistance, process improvement and internal auditing needs.

Many of us are involved with corrective and preventive actions as required by ISO-9001. It is not unusual to see the following “story” in a corrective action:

* Problem – Customer received defective material.
* Root Cause – The test technician was new and was not adequately trained.
* Corrective action – Retrain the technician and evaluate the training effectiveness.

In world-class lean organizations, this is known as a level-1 corrective action where no in- depth root causes analysis was done on possible issues. In the example above it is quite possible that the entire training program and evaluation of effectiveness is problematic, not just the training received by the technician. A level-2 corrective action is where in-depth analysis is conducted but the solution did not include a poka-yoke or error proofing. Obviously a level-3 corrective action will include error proofing.

Individual incidents as indicated above are symptomatic of more widespread systemic issues. Understanding the root cause of systemic issue is a painstaking process and an investigator and the team will cross boundaries of many functions. It is very common that a systemic issue will have multiple root causes and each of them will require its own corrective actions. It is the responsibility of leaders of organizations to mentor the staff to ask more questions (“why did it happen?”) and made decisions based on facts. Those of you use 5-Why techniques know that asking “why?” about 5 times will get you to the root cause.

Let us walk through a typical scenario of missed on-time delivery at JR manufacturing .The firm was struggling to get 95%+ on-time delivery (OTD). During Lean Daily Management, OTD performance of each department was discussed and each incident of delivery miss was discussed during the meeting. The discussion and investigation that followed one particular delivery miss is very revealing and shows the effectiveness of the system.

Adriana the planner, “We had scheduled this item for last week, but production and testing was not completed in time.”
Daniel, the cell supervisor (who was listening, was prepared): “True. But we got P/N 342 just yesterday (Oct 17) and there was no way we will make and test that product in one day.”
“Ok, Bob the department manager said, “This must be a supplier issue. But let us find it after the meeting.”

After the daily meeting, Bob and the cell leaders visited the warehouse to check the data on material receipt. In fact, the material was received on the day it showed on the purchase order – the day before it was issued to the floor. So the supplier shipped it on time. Then, someone commented, “I bet we didn’t order it in time.”

“I don’t know,” Bob replied. They walked to the sales area and found that sales entered the order on Sept 18 and PO for P/N 342 was issued on Sept 21, very reasonable. The purchasing group is relieved that they didn’t make a mistake. Bob was sure there was something out there that he is not seeing yet. He went back to the planner Adriana asked her how the lead time for the finished product was determined. By this time there were emotions and “not me” attitude. By second day, Bob found Adriana used 5-day lead time for this raw material P/N 342 but the purchase order indicated 11 days lead time.

Continued investigations revealed that the supplier changed the lead time, informed purchasing (who then changed the lead time for material receipt). But no one challenged the increase of lead time from 5 days to 11 days and no one thought this will affect lead time of existing orders.

On third day, Bob wrote down the root cause of this issue:”1) Suppliers are allowed to change lead time with only approval from purchasing, and 2) No system in place to incorporate changes in supplier lead times to existing orders and to communicate it within the organization.”

That was for one item. But the fixes will make sure the same issue will not happen again.

Looks painful? Yes it is. Finding true, actionable root cause of problems takes patience, and continued asking of “why?” Once you find the issue, you address all possibilities of the same issue happening again.

John Shook, in his book, Managing to Learn, published by Lean Enterprise Institute, details why managers should not propose solutions to issues – they should teach their staff to ask the right questions, “peel the layers of the onion,” and to make the root cause visible to all. Once there is an agreement and buy-off on the root cause, that associate now has the authority to propose solutions to specifically address those root causes. Thus the process of Daily Management and Problem Solving is all about empowering shop level associates to make decisions based on facts and to make continuous improvement as a way of life.

Good implementation of problem solving in any organization is a vital component of waste reduction and continual improvement.

Written by Mathew Nadakal, our Senior Consultant and Lean Six Sigma Blackbelt. Contact Mathew for more information on Lean Daily Management, and Problem Solving development.