You Can be Great If You Really Want To

Quality programs, such as QS 9000, common to the automotive industry, use the concept of root cause analysis in problem solving. The person new to the system is frequently tempted to quickly jump at the answer without depth of investigation. A quality review that discovers quick assumptions being made by management will uncover this weakness in company operations.

Quality programs have been the way of life for operations in the aviation manufacturing business since WWII, but it has spilled over into other industries in modern times. Quality companies seeking certification under quality programs such as ISO 9000 will have to learn the discipline of digging for the root cause. For example, an airliner crashes, and on the surface it appears to be pilot error, frequently the first assumption made by the FAA. The crash investigation team knows better. There is much digging to be done.

In industry, quality operations require a disciplined approach to root cause analysis. For example, a manufacturer of car seat actuators was challenged by an annual cost reduction challenge, which is common to automotive operations. The cost reduction challenge was passed down to the gear manufacturer, a subcontractor, and the gear manufacturer sought ways to reduce material cost. One common approach is to go offshore with material and/or manufacturing requirements. Since changing the source of material and manufacturing requires prequalifying the new source, samples of the offshore products need to be cycled through the engineering, manufacturing, and quality operations. Testing, similar to the original qualification testing, needs to be repeated. This is the normal course of events when developing alternate sources.

If the new parts perform like the original parts, then the new source can be qualified, and parts can now be sourced from off shore. The other possible outcome is that there are significant shortcomings in the new parts, and the offshore source needs to be sidelined until quality issues are cleared up. Proceeding without prequalifying testing could cause havoc in the field. The following illustrates a hypothetical situation caused by a lack of quality discipline.

The new source of gears is accepted without prequalification testing, and the new parts are built into the product. The seat actuators are shipped worldwide, and they are installed into sedans and vans representing the spectrum of vehicles all the way up to luxury cars. Then there is a rash of part failure across the board ‘ in some cases with serious injuries resulting. The sales outlet CEO is screaming; the parent organization officers are screaming; the domestic original product manufacturer is embarrassed, and they are eager to help.

Root cause analysis is the implemented. The new products are collected and sidelined for belated qualification testing. The original source production line is reactivated to produce qualified products, and the pipeline is filled with originally qualified products. At the same time, the new assemblies made from unqualified parts are cycled through the qualification testing series. Notable differences are found in the performance of new actuators, and the new source is condemned.

The chain of events can be summarized as follows: Seat failure BECAUSE OF actuator failure BECAUSE OF gear failure BECAUSE OF unqualified source BECAUSE OF failure to prequalify: ROOT CAUSE

This case is fairly transparent, but most of the time the root cause of failure is elusive, and it takes detective work to get to the source of the problem. It could require a cycle of analysis / testing / re-analysis, etc. In most real world situations it requires a team effort to clear up a problem. It’s worth every effort because the future of the company and jobs is at stake. It is not for the faint hearted.

Related Blogs

• Moore Analysis | FanGraphs Baseball
• Bahrain Grand Prix FP1 analysis | F1 Fanatic – The Formula 1 Blog
• Iran Analysis: Rafsanjani’s “Finger in the Dike” Strategy | Enduring America

When things go wrong, does your organization put its energy into finding the guilty parties to blame? Or does your organization work to solve problems?

We have developed into a blaming society. Mom blames the older siblings when problems arise in the household. Teacher finds someone to blame when things go out of control in the class room. Management and unions blame each other. Political parties use blame in the extreme, and it is disruptive, subordinating national goals under political aims. Spouses unfortunately play the blame game to the destruction of marriages and families. Experts in many realms teach that making things better should be the focus of our energies. The barrier to this is blame.

Blame is the process of assigning responsibility for an event on another. Various emotions drive the blame, and it results in loss of face, embarrassment, fear and anger. It is unpleasant for all parties concerned. The language of blame and problem solving is distinctively different, and a study of real life situations could be constructive for managers hoping to rise above the cauldron of anger and blame. A manager may assign responsibility for a task without assigning blame. And you can hold someone accountable for results without blaming. The distinction is in the language and tone of the message. Robert Bacal, consultant from Casselman, Ontario gives some helpful scenarios:

Blame – ‘If you had done your work on time, we wouldn’t be in this mess.’

Factual statement – ‘Your responsibility is to fulfill your work commitments on time. When your work wasn’t available, I had to speak to the boss without the information I needed.’

The factual statement is the prelude to problem solving. The blame statement is bound to cause sparks to fly. Problem solving is focused on the present and the future. The goal is fixing a present problem and seeking to prevent it in the future.

Problem solving lacks the emotions of blaming, and it is less personal and more systems oriented. The problem solving process needs an understanding of the past and an understanding of the root causes of issues. It may include:

Clarifying the problem, goal or purpose

Collecting data, gain understanding

Diagnose, identify sources of problem

Formulate hypotheses for cause

Formulate a strategy for solution

Evaluate, collect more data

Note that assigning of blame is not part of the process. Neither is there room for emotional upheavals. Solving problems requires the use of a process, much of which was created by Deming. TQM, the quality system of modern companies, provides the structure and knowledge on how to solve problems the efficient way. Whether you are pursuing continuous improvement, organizational reinforcement, or improving performance on various levels, the issue of blame vs. problem solving is critical.

When problems occur, such as lack of performance, failure to meet commitments, etc, and you need to intervene, use problem solving. Begin by trying to understand the problem and underlying issues with the employee. Poor performance can be the result of boredom, stress, limited skills or knowledge, or other systems issues such as equipment or authority. Working with the employee to attack the root problem will help avoid it in the future. The focus is on the future. Additional scenarios by Robert Bacal:

Blame

Mgr: John, you should have let me know this work would not be ready for the meeting. We all looked stupid in front of the boss, and it’s going to take us time to recover.

John: I tried to tell you, but you were on vacation. And I forgot. You are very hard to get a hold of, you know.

Mgr: You could have called me at home.

John: I didn’t want to bother you. You said I shouldn’t call you unless it was absolutely urgent.

The manager attacks, and the employee defends. This could end up with attacks flying back and forth. The situation is not pleasant. Now look at how it could have gone:

Problem Solving

Mgr: John, I expected to have information from you prior to the teleconference. We need to figure out what happened and how to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Was I not clear on the date, or was there some other thing that caused us to miss the deadline?

John: Well, I might have misunderstood about the urgency, and when you went on vacation, I didn’t want to bother you at home.

Mgr: OK, well, how does this sound. If I need something on an urgent basis, I’ll make sure that I tell you in the future. I can also let people know when it is OK to call me at home, so it will be easier. I am also going to ask you to please keep me informed, though on projects like this we won’t be embarrassed again. Does this make sense?

John: Yes, and I have more input that may be useful….

You can feel the difference in the dialogues. The problem solving dialogue is neutral aimed at finding where the problem lies and works to prevent reoccurrence. Of course, it may not go this smoothly, and it is oversimplified.

Modeling problem solving in everything you do, staff meetings and other gatherings, is an excellent habit to form. When in a conference, and blame raises its ugly head, redirect with ‘what can we do, then, in the future?’ Seek a problem solving attitude when blame is assigned during a meeting. When you start doing this you begin to create a blameless culture, a responsible culture that discourages empty complaints that will put you in the middle of other people’s disputes.

Moving from blame to problem solving is a tough road because many people will not discern the difference. For some, being responsible also means to be at fault. When blame raises its head, return to the problem, ask diagnostic questions, begin to find root causes, and avoid being drawn into the blame game. In time, some people will begin to see the difference and trust that you are not blaming but attempting to fix the problem.

Related Blogs

• English – Very Demotivational – The Demotivational Posters Blog
• Cricket Blog – SG Maxxum 7 Star English Willow Cricket Bat
• NJ judge scolded for mocking Mexican defendant’s English skills, comparing other to OJ Simpson