R. SEENITAMILVELValeo incident number [3] Q-VT/Chennai-AVCL-20090930-KLA
Customer Incident number [4] 01T/09
R.KARTHIKEYAN , S.GUNASEELAN(APU), GOPAL(PQ),VELMURUGAN(APU),SURESH,N.DHEENADate of customer notification [5] 19.09.2009
Revision 6.36_eng Opened date & Time [6] 30.09.09
[7] CUSTOMER / Contact name [8] VEHICLE/ENGINE/REF. CUSTOMER [9] [11]
Warranty TML / Prasad Parchure Indica Marina
0 km Return X
Internal S Y
Supplier N N
Logistic PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BY CUSTOMER / LOCATION OF THE PROBLEM [12] PRODUCT SOP DATE [13]
Project Diaphragm Finger tip broken 30.10.06 R Y
Safety LAST MODIFICATION DATE [14] N N
CUSTOMER VIEW VALEO VIEW- What happened? [15] Diaphragm finger tip broken before fitment
Assembly cannot be used, part not as per drawing VTES Reference: LLC-VT/AmiensCEPN-20090422-GCC
- When detected [17] 18/09/2009 - When was it manufactured at Valeo? [24]
Assembly Line Operator - TML - Who manufactured? [25]
- Where detected? [19] Assembly Line - TML PCBU Product is not applicable for other models
- How detected? [20] Visually
1
Origin of the part [31]
Nb. NG Parts Nb. Sorted PPM Sorting date WHO Identification OK parts1. IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES IN VALEO PERIMETER ? [36] WHO DATE WHERE
-Results of sorting in Customer plant 0 0 = '----' PPM-Results of sorting in Transport = '----' PPM --- --- 1. Quality Alert displayed in Line RKN / ND 19/9/2009 AVCL-Results of sorting in Logistics platform = '----' PPM --- ----Results of sorting in Valeo plant 0 140 = 0 PPM 19/09/2009 RKN Green mark on Diaphragm-Results of sorting in after-sales stocks = '----' PPM 2. Diaphragm tip hardness verified in WIP and FG RST / ND 19/9/2009 AVCL
TOTAL SORTING 0 140 = 0 PPM
From To
First certified good shipment:
Number Date 3. Polymer concentration verified in Induction hardening machine. MV / SM 19/09/2009 AVCL19.09.09 22.09.09 96 21.09.09
Period of NG partsOldest part Most recent part Identification OK parts
6/9/2009 6/9/2009 ok mark in cover assembly2. IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES IN CUSTOMER LINE ? [37] WHO DATE WHERE
THE CUSTOMER CAN DETECT THE DEFECT ON THE PRODUCTION LINE AT 100% : YES1. Verification of Defect Sample AJAY 19/9/2009 AVCL
If not, Valeo must set up a control at 100% on the customer line (describe the control made) :
2. All the Cover Asssembly verified for finger tip breakage by visually AJAY 19/9/2009 AVCL
LIMIT TIME: 24 Hrs
PLANT Manager [38] DEPARTMENT Manager [39] QUALITY Manager [40] DATE [41]
LRR KS BS 25.07.09
Leader [1]
Group [2]
PRODUCT (Designation + Ref) VALEO [10] TOTAL LINE REJECT SITUATION (Defect related) [33]
Cover Assembly - TCIC - 793939 / B
Cover Assy -
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ? > Use 5W + 2H to know what is the Current Situation (C/S) ?
- What is the difference between good and bad parts? [22]
1. Bad Part: Crack observed in Diaphragm finger tip2. Good Part : Finger tip free from crack Which LLC was already issued on similar problem? [34]
- Why is it a problem? [16]
- Was part produced in the standard process? [23]
Yes, Cover Assembly in as per the control plan no: PCA - CP - 011,Diaphragm in Induction hardening line, as per the control plan no: PCA-CP- 653,
Cover Assembly - 6/9/2009No traceability for Diaphragm
- In which other application or processes product is used? [26]
- Are we capturing the defect when reinjecting product in normal process? [27]
Yes, Diaphragm finger tip breakage was found in visual inspection area. WHAT DID YOU LEARN from sorting (shift related, period related, operator related…)? [35]
- How many bad parts? [21]
- Did a similar problem happen previously at customer or internally? [28]
No, QIM Reference : Q-VT/AmiensFranceAuto-20070320-BLN, Q-VT/AmiensFranceAuto-20070404-M9L
1. Customer Consumed all the part in the lot, so there is no immediate segregation in customer end. 2. NG part Cover Assembly was manufactured in 06.09.09 and there is no traceability for the Diaphragm.3. Diaphragm is hot formed at inhouse.4. Control Plan no : PCA-CP- 653 verified for tip hardness, it is addressed.5. PFMEA no: PCP-FM-001 Verfifed for tip hardness it is addressed and checked at 1.First Off, Last Off Per setup.6. Diaphragm tip hardness is checked in the defective part oberved is 81 HRA against the spec of > 79 HRA7. Induction hardening line self inspection report verified for last one week of NG Cover assembly batch code production ( 1.09.09 - 06.09.09 ) and QRAP board verfied, no issues addressed.8. Polymer Concentration checklist verified for last one month and found ok.9. Cover assembly Self inspection Report verified for 06.09.09 and QRAP board verified, no issues reported.BAD
PART [29]
GOODPART [30]
SORTING ACTIVITY to protect customer [32] WHAT ARE THE IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES (24 hours)?
Production dates of sorted parts
19.09.09 21.09.09 22.09.090
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Sorting results
Def. Shift 3 at customer Def. Shift 2 at customer Def. Shift 1 at customer Def. Shift 3 in sorting Def. Shift 2 in sorting Def. Shift 1 in sorting Total qty sorted Shift 1 Total qty sorted Shift 2 Total qty sorted Shift 3
Defe
cts
per
sh
ift
Pro
du
ced
per
sh
ift
19.09.09 21.09.09 22.09.090
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
1
1
Defect quantity Total Line reject PPM
Qu
an
tity
of
defe
cts
To
tal L
ine R
eje
ct
Q2
Leader - Indicate the name of the leader responsible to manage the problem and his/her function - Indicate his telephone number and/or this e-mail address
DB2
Valeo incident number Mention Valeo incident number (QIM) or other internal reference
DB3
Customer incident number Mention reference number used by customer
Q4
Group Define the names of the people involved in the problem solving and their functions, including operator's. Put "operator" after operator's name.
DB4
Date of customer notification Mention the date the customer notified the problem for the first time
DB5
Opened date Mention the date and the time Valeo opened the PDCA in the concerned database (QIM, SRM…)
A6
Origin Tick the appropriate box(es) according to the type of issue
Q6
Customer / contact name Enter the customer affected and the contact name at the customer with his phone number and /or his E mail
AQ6
Vehicule / Ref. customer Indicate the vehicle or the engine impacted and its Customer’s reference number
BQ6
Product (Designation + Ref) VALEO Indicate the designation and the Valeo part number of the concerned part
CP6
Safety / Regulation If the issue involves safety and/or regulation tick the “Y” box. If not, tick the “N” box
DB6
Total Line Reject situation See Data-QR sheet
Q11
Problem description as seen by customer/ location of the problem Enter problem as described by the customer including its localisation on the part
BQ11
Product SOP date Enter the SOP date of the concerned part at Valeo
BQ13
Last modification date If applicable, enter the date of the last product or process modification
A18
What happened? - Description of the problem with clear and precise facts as defined by the customer. - Recurrence information - Traceability elements of the defective parts
BA18
What is the difference between good and bad parts? The defect must be described as the deviation between a good and a bad part. Focus on the part and not on the customer application or customer process. These data prepare the analysis team to look in the right direction, this definition will be the starting point of the FTA - Description of the problem with clear and precise facts as seen by Valeo
DB18
Which LLC was already issued on similar problem? - Mention here the LLC numbers already issued on similar problem, precise the type of the LLC (O / D / M) - Use VTES and Google search to find the answer
A21
Why is it a problem? In this section we need to understand what the impact of the problem is for the assembly site and/or for the final Customer. Those elements must be quantified (data) - What is the Customer effect of the defect ? - Impact on the logistic management of the part - Impact on the handling of the part - Impact on the assembly of the part - Technical impact in the application - Impact on the product reliability - Impact in term of safety - regulation - How important is the problem?
BA21
Was part produced in the standard process? Any product or process deviation or rework or operation done by non qualified person must be taken in consideration. If the answer is NO, the deviation must be clearly described and the references of the associated documents mentionned. Use tracability information on the part to answer to the question.
A23
When it happened? The way and the circumstances the defect has been detected is key to understand why the Valeo process did not detect the defect internally - Operation done to detect the defect - Reference to the work instruction when relevant - Type of tool or machine used to detect the defect - Process parameters including distance, time to detect visually the problem, limits or master samples used - Environmental conditions such as light, temperature, ambient noise…
BA23
When was it manufactured at Valeo? - Date of production of the part - Exact time based on traceability data of the parts and their sub assemblies, can include date of test of the part - Manufacturing shift - Traceability data when avalaible
A25
Who detected (name of operator) To know who has detected the defect is key to have the possibility to ask for more precise data. - Name of the person or his registered number - Function of the person, qualification In addition of the date of detection, the following data, when available, must be added for the warranty issues : - Garage name - End user name
BA25
Who manufactured? These information are related to the person working at the station responsible for the defect and the person in charge of the detection of the defect. - Name of the person and/or his registred number - Function of the person, qualification, status (temporary or Valeo) - Name of the company when relevant (subcontracted part for instance)
A27
Where detected? - Plant name or Garage name - Assembly line name - Step of the process of assembly including step before and after (reception, warehouse, subassembly, assembly, test, warehouse, logistic, garage, field…)
BA27
In which other application or processes product is used? If applicable, precise data are requested - Product designation - Valeo and/or Customer references - Customer applications - Extend the answer to other different products or processes if the same symptom is potentially present (same assembly machine for instance)
A29
How detected? The way and the circumstances the defect has been detected is key to understand why the Valeo process did not detect the defect internally - Operation done to detect the defect - Reference to the work instruction when relevant - Type of tool or machine used to detect the defect - Process parameters including distance, time to detect visually the problem, limits or master samples used - Environmental conditions such as light, temperature, ambient noise…
BA29
Are we capturing the defect when re-injecting product in normal process? Going to the genba, using the testing equipment or applying the work instruction with the defined limits, without any warning to the operators, are we capturing the defect ? If the answer is YES, precise elements that lead to the detection (machine number, operator name and qualification, work instruction used…) If the concerned operators have been warned to do the test, give the information
DB29
What did you learn from sorting Traceability data of the parts and the components must be used : - Are the parts coming from same period of production? - Are production dates consecutives or not? - Is there any link with a specific supplier or component? - Is there any link with a production line, a machine, a specific tool, a specific cavity? - Is there any link to an operator? - etc.
A31
How many bad parts? - Precise how many bad parts have been found defective at the time of detection in the Customer process? - Precise how it costs when appropriate
BA31
Did a similar problem happen previously at Customer or internally? Consult Line, APU, project QRQC to answer to the question - If yes, how many time, complete the information via the Total Line Reject (TLR) graph when appropriate. - Product designation and references - Dates of detection of the previous defects - Location of the detection - Quantity of the defects - Reference of the previous analysis (QIM or internal one)
A34
Bad part Insert a picture or a drawing of the bad part or component, showing clearly what is the defect, where it is located on the part, and what is the difference with a good one (including mesurement if relevant)
BA34
Good part Insert a picture or a drawing of a good part or component, in the same position, same distance, same angle, same light, showing clearly what is the right situation (including the same mesurement if relevant)
BA47
Origin of the part Indicate which part have been selected as reference for good part. Good part should be as comparable as possible to bad parts - Period / date of production... - For warranty, mileage must be as close as mileage on bad part - Machine, cavity number of the mould - For project issue, precise which develpoment level has been taken into consideration for the good part (prototype, DV, PV ...) - When good and bad parts cannot be 100 % comparable, precise the limitation of the comparison
A48
Sorting activity to protect customer All stocks (FG + WIP + components) potentially polluted by the problem need to be sorted This sorting operation must include the internal and external AFTERSALE stocks ( including VS) when relevant - formalize a sorting instruction with sheet of record to collect all relevant data to improve the knowledge about the defect - Results of the sorting: - Traceability of OK/KO parts with: - Production date / time, shift - Equipment traceability (mould, cavity, Machine or line number…) - Operator traceability
DC51
Immediate countermeasures in Valeo perimeter Mention immediate countermeasures : > sorting activity > 100% inspection control (receiving area, stocks, end of line) > check process parameters > control machines' calibration > check operators' certification
DC62
Immediate countermeasures in Customer line Mention immediate countermeasures - Sorting - 100% control - call resident engineer to collect information
DW76
Plant Manager Mandatory validation by Plant Manager Name and signature
EQ76
DEPARTMENT Manager Mandatory validation by department Manager Name and signature
FK76
Quality Manager Mandatory validation by Quality Manager Name and signature
GE76
Date Date of the validation by the Quality Manager
Database 2 / shift by manufacturing date Enter: > Quantity of defects per shift per manufacturing date found after sorting at Valeo > Quantity of defects per shift per manufacturing date found at customer > Total Quantity sorted (Valeo + customer) > Total Quantity produced per shift/ per manufacturing date ESCAPED parts are estimation of the ones that have been produced but could not be sorted (already in field, car dealer,...) Production dates have to be changed according to the real situation Description of the sorting items can be adapted according to specific criteria
A5
Quantity of defects per shift per manufacturing date found after sorting at Valeo
A8
Quantity of defects per shift per manufacturing date found at customer
A11
Total Quantity sorted (Valeo + customer)
A14
Total Quantity produced per shift/ per manufacturing date
A17
ESCAPED parts are estimation of the ones that have been produced but could not be sorted (already in field, car dealer,...)
4M [3] FACTORS [4] CONTROL POINT [5] STANDARD [6] OK PARTS [7] BAD PARTS [8]
JUDGMENT
COMMENTS [13]
METHOD Unloading Y N Y
MATERIAL 44 - 50 HRC Y Y N
MATERIAL 79 HRA min Y Y N
METHOD Where : Induction hardening Y N N
In judgment column, put "Y" (YES),"N" (NO) or "D" (DOUBT)
FACTOR TREE ANALYSIS FOR OCCURRENCEWhy the problem occured
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (Valeo view) [1]
POTENTIAL ROOT CAUSES [12]Std
OK [9]Meet
std [10]Direct
link [11]
Where : Hi Temp Hotforming Furnace
Component Auto unloading to the candle
trolley
Unloaded directly on to the trolley
not Unloaded directly on to the trolley
Component fallen due Improper alignment between loading arm and candle trolly
Diaphragm Surface Hardness
Where:Diaphragm Tempering / When:PCA- CP - 755 / 5 Nos. per set up Who: Line operator
4648
4648
Diaphragm Finger Tip broken
Where:Diaphragm induction hardening / When:PCA-CP- 653 / 5 Nos. per set up Who: Line operator
8081
7981
Polymer Concentration in
Quench OIL coolant
Refractro index(3-5)
34
33.5
A3
Problem description In this section, report exactly the answer to the question in the QR document "What is the difference between good and bad parts"
A4
Level According to the complexity of the analysis we may several levels of FTA. Put 1 for the first level. If a second or third level is necessary, open a new sheet in the PDCA file.
A6
4M The analysis is covering all factors according to the 4M: Machine, Method, Man and Material - MATERIAL: Material or components used for manufacturing, includes material for the product itself but also material used for the process (exemple: oil, chemical product to do an operation) - METHOD: Manufacturing and delivery process of the product including conditions, environment, method of work (work instructions), measurment methods... - MAN: Human factor involved in the process (example: trainings, validation, seniority...) - MACHINE: Equipments, production tools, machine, poka-yoke, software... - When people are concerned by the issue (maintenance, assembly operator, testing operator…) the M Man must be systematically used to confirm the adaptation of the person to his job (magic square or equivalent)
B6
Factors Any factor (such as process parameters, characteristics of a material, way to do an operation) linked to the issue must be recorded. In this section, nominate precisely the factor only (never qualify the factor as good, bad, big, small…): temperature of the mould for instance To identify the factors: - Compare good and bad parts - Go to the genba, ask the operators - Use documents such as FMEAs, drawings, control plans, process / machine description, procedure/process steps... - Involve experts
C6
Control point In this column, precise HOW and WHERE the factor is checked : For example : - In the set up checklist - In the part drawing - In the capability records - In the FMEAs - In the surveillance plan The control point can be everywhere in the process including supplier, incoming inspection, process of assembly, final inspection, transportation. When necessary, the reference of the document must be precised and the document can be included to the analysis file. The answer cannot be "NO CONTROL POINT". If control point was never defined before, mention it and precise where and how the factor can be checked.
D6
Standard In this column, we must find the defined value of the factors, nominal value and its tolerances. It can be the extract of a work instruction, the reference of master samples. Whatever it may be, it must be with facts and data or referenced to a clear nominated document that can be included in the analysis file. In this case, it must be precised. The answer cannot be " NO STANDARD" A standard may be not formalized but can be as a part of the culture.
E6
OK parts Based on the factor and the defined standard: - Values of the factor on good parts produced in the same process as the bad parts and when the problem happened or at least as close as possible of the time the problem happened - The data or the facts must be directly comparable, same units, same calculation method. If factor concerns a manual operation, the operation is described to highlight the commonality and the differences.
F6
Bad parts Same comments as Good parts To be comparable the good parts and the bad parts must have the same background. For example, for warranty compare parts with the same mileage, same vehicule life.
K6
Potential causes In the column, write the conclusion of the analysis, in case of direct link, this conclusion will be the starting point of the 5 whys.
L6
Comments Write any comments to support the data concerning the analysis done on the factor including tests done to reproduce the defect
G7
Judgement - Standard OK? A standard is OK if the parameter is clearly defined with tolerances. This includes the way the standard is checked, frequency of measurement, method of measurement… To say standard is OK means that NO action is required to change or to improve the standard or the way to check it. To say the standard is OK means also that applying the standard we obtain good parts.
H7
Judgement - Meet the standard ? To answer to this question, check if you have respected the standard to produce the BAD part. - If you have respected the standard and you have produced bad parts, and if to produce good parts you have not respected the standard, then STANDARD OK is NO and MEET THE STANDARD is YES. - If you have not respected the standard and you have produced bad parts and to produce good parts you have respected the standard, then STANDARD OK is YES and MEET THE STANDARD is NO.
I7
Judgement - Direct link ? - If to produce GOOD and BAD parts you have used exactly the same standard with same result your answer is NO direct link. The distribution of the values for good and bad parts inside the tolerance of the standard must be considered to confirm if the standard is OK or not. - If the comparizon shows clearly a difference between GOOD and BAD parts, your answer should be YES. If your answer is NO, explain why in the column "Comments". - Your answer may be D (doubt) when you are facing to factors interfering on each other, in this case, deeper analysis is requested. - Identified potential causes must be confirmed by the reproduction of the defect. - If the answer is NO or doubt, standard must be clarified even if there is no direct link with the problem under analysis.
4M [3] FACTORS [4] CONTROL POINT [5] STANDARD [6] OK PARTS [7] BAD PARTS [8]
JUDGMENT
COMMENTS [13]
METHOD Y Y D
In judgment column, put "Y" (YES),"N" (NO) or "D" (DOUBT)
FACTOR TREE ANALYSIS FOR NON DETECTIONWhy the problem was not detected
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (Valeo view) [1]
POTENTIAL ROOT CAUSES [12]Std
OK [9]Meet
std [10]Direct
link [11]
Component falling on the floor
Hi Temp Hotforming Furnace
Falling Component visually to be checked
Visually No Crack obeserved
Visually No Crack obeserved
Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye
A3
Problem description In this section, report exactly the answer to the question in the QR document "What is the difference between good and bad parts"
A4
Level According to the complexity of the analysis we may several levels of FTA. Put 1 for the first level. If a second or third level is necessary, open a new sheet in the PDCA file.
A6
4M The analysis is covering all factors according to the 4M: Machine, Method, Man and Material - MATERIAL: Material or components used for manufacturing, includes material for the product itself but also material used for the process (exemple: oil, chemical product to do an operation) - METHOD: Manufacturing and delivery process of the product including conditions, environment, method of work (work instructions), measurment methods... - MAN: Human factor involved in the process (example: trainings, validation, seniority...) - MACHINE: Equipments, production tools, machine, poka-yoke, software... - When people are concerned by the issue (maintenance, assembly operator, testing operator…) the M Man must be systematically used to confirm the adaptation of the person to his job (magic square or equivalent)
B6
Factors Any factor (such as process parameters, characteristics of a material, way to do an operation) linked to the issue must be recorded. In this section, nominate precisely the factor only (never qualify the factor as good, bad, big, small…): temperature of the mould for instance To identify the factors: - Compare good and bad parts - Go to the genba, ask the operators - Use documents such as FMEAs, drawings, control plans, process / machine description, procedure/process steps... - Involve experts
C6
Control point In this column, precise HOW and WHERE the factor is checked : For example : - In the set up checklist - In the part drawing - In the capability records - In the FMEAs - In the surveillance plan The control point can be everywhere in the process including supplier, incoming inspection, process of assembly, final inspection, transportation. When necessary, the reference of the document must be precised and the document can be included to the analysis file. The answer cannot be "NO CONTROL POINT". If control point was never defined before, mention it and precise where and how the factor can be checked.
D6
Standard In this column, we must find the defined value of the factors, nominal value and its tolerances. It can be the extract of a work instruction, the reference of master samples. Whatever it may be, it must be with facts and data or referenced to a clear nominated document that can be included in the analysis file. In this case, it must be precised. The answer cannot be " NO STANDARD" A standard may be not formalized but can be as a part of the culture.
E6
OK parts Based on the factor and the defined standard: - Values of the factor on good parts produced in the same process as the bad parts and when the problem happened or at least as close as possible of the time the problem happened - The data or the facts must be directly comparable, same units, same calculation method. If factor concerns a manual operation, the operation is described to highlight the commonality and the differences.
F6
Bad parts Same comments as Good parts To be comparable the good parts and the bad parts must have the same background. For example, for warranty compare parts with the same mileage, same vehicule life.
K6
Potential causes In the column, write the conclusion of the analysis, in case of direct link, this conclusion will be the starting point of the 5 whys.
L6
Comments Write any comments to support the data concerning the analysis done on the factor including tests done to reproduce the defect
G7
Judgement - Standard OK? A standard is OK if the parameter is clearly defined with tolerances. This includes the way the standard is checked, frequency of measurement, method of measurement… To say standard is OK means that NO action is required to change or to improve the standard or the way to check it. To say the standard is OK means also that applying the standard we obtain good parts.
H7
Judgement - Meet the standard ? To answer to this question, check if you have respected the standard to produce the BAD part. - If you have respected the standard and you have produced bad parts, and if to produce good parts you have not respected the standard, then STANDARD OK is NO and MEET THE STANDARD is YES. - If you have not respected the standard and you have produced bad parts and to produce good parts you have respected the standard, then STANDARD OK is YES and MEET THE STANDARD is NO.
I7
Judgement - Direct link ? - If to produce GOOD and BAD parts you have used exactly the same standard with same result your answer is NO direct link. The distribution of the values for good and bad parts inside the tolerance of the standard must be considered to confirm if the standard is OK or not. - If the comparizon shows clearly a difference between GOOD and BAD parts, your answer should be YES. If your answer is NO, explain why in the column "Comments". - Your answer may be D (doubt) when you are facing to factors interfering on each other, in this case, deeper analysis is requested. - Identified potential causes must be confirmed by the reproduction of the defect. - If the answer is NO or doubt, standard must be clarified even if there is no direct link with the problem under analysis.
5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 1st Factor 5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 2nd Factor
Component fallen due Impoper movement
1st WHY [2] Discharging arm rapid movement 1st WHY [2]
By Checking visually
2nd WHY [5] Rotar actuator failure 2nd WHY [5]
How was it verified? By Checking the movement How was it verified?
3rd WHY Wear in the vane assembly 3rd WHY
How was it verified? By dismantling How was it verified? Evidence
4th WHY By metal to metal contact caused the wear (by Design) 4th WHY
How was it verified? How was it verified? Evidence
5th WHY 5th WHY
How was it verified ? Evidence How was it verified ? Evidence
Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause
5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 3rd Factor 5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 4th Factor
1st WHY [2] 1st WHY [2]
2nd WHY [5] 2nd WHY [5]
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
3rd WHY 3rd WHY
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
4th WHY 4th WHY
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
5th WHY 5th WHY
How was it verified ? Evidence How was it verified ? Evidence
Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause
POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] POTENTIAL CAUSE [1]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4] Y
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4] Y
Evidence Y
Evidence Y
EvidenceY
EvidenceY
POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] POTENTIAL CAUSE [1]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4]
B5
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
I5
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
B7
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
I7
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
B8
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
F8
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
I8
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
M8
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
B9
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
I9
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
B21
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
I21
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
B23
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
I23
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
B24
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
F24
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
I24
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
M24
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
B25
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
I25
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
How was it verified? By verification with magnifying lens How was it verified? Evidence
3rd WHY 3rd WHY
How was it verified? How was it verified? Evidence
4th WHY 4th WHY
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
5th WHY 5th WHY
How was it verified ? Evidence How was it verified ? Evidence
Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause
5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 3rd Factor 5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 4th Factor
1st WHY [2] 1st WHY [2]
2nd WHY [5] 2nd WHY [5]
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
3rd WHY 3rd WHY
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
4th WHY 4th WHY
How was it verified? Evidence How was it verified? Evidence
5th WHY 5th WHY
How was it verified ? Evidence How was it verified ? Evidence
Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause
POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] POTENTIAL CAUSE [1]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4] Y
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4]
EvidenceY
EvidenceY
POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] POTENTIAL CAUSE [1]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4]
How was it verified?[3]
Evidence [4]
B5
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
I5
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
B7
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
I7
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
B8
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
F8
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
I8
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
M8
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
B9
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
I9
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
B21
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
I21
Potential cause From the FTA, potential causes have been identified. For every line in the FTA where a direct link has been highlighted, a 5 why must be done. Report in this section the conclusion of the analysis of the factor written in the potential causes column in the FTA.
B23
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
I23
1st Why Explain "why" the potential cause occured in a logic way, the link from cause (1st why) to effect (potential cause) must be clear.
B24
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
F24
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
I24
How was it verified? Evidence (creating the cause is reproducing the effect) and data to support the demonstration must be shown. Give reference of the documents, records, movies when appropriate.
M24
Evidence Confirm Y/N if the why conducts to the potential cause.
B25
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
I25
2nd Why - Same as 1st why, the link from cause (2nd why) to effect (1st why) must be clear. - Analysis must continue to next whys up to root-causes has been identified. Number of whys depends on the complexity of the process to create the issue. - Final why must address system point to improve the efficiency of the organization. - If a why highlights something that cannot be changed (example : the Earth turned 360°C within 24 h), that means your 5 whys direction is wrong, go back to previous why and do the analysis again. - Of a why leads on a factor that should have been mentionned in the FTA, stop your 5 whys analysis, go back to the FTA and do your analysis again.
PLANT Manager Department Manager QUALITY Manager DATE
L.R.Rajakumar S.Venkatesh S.Balasubramanian
PLANT Manager Department Manager QUALITY Manager DATE
Comment and decisions if efficiency of corrective actions not OK [23]L.R.RAJAKUMAR S.Venkatesh S.BALASUBRAMANIAN 27.10.09
- WHAT WAS DONE TO REPRODUCE THE CONCERN? [1]
1.Drop the component from machine height in the floor immediately after hardening.(2 Nos)
2.Same component used for induction hardening and check the visual aspects and hardness.
Drop the component from 1meter height from floor immediately after hardening,same component moved to tempering and then induction hardened the part and checked for microcrack with operator Velmurugan skill level 4
1,Diaphragm TIP hardness found ok. (Measurement: 80 – 81 HRA , Spec: 79 HRA Min.)2.Air line crack observed in one diaphragm finger using Magnifying lens.
EXPECTED RESULT EFFICIENCY [9]
Component fallen due Improper alignment between loading arm and candle trolly
Due date [11]Done date [12]
PROCEDURE:Workinstruction
EXPECTED RESULT EFFICIENCY [9]
Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye
Magnifiying lens to be provided in linefor crack checking Valeo Sites &
Divisions:
Customer Sites:
M-2 M-1 Actual Sit-uation
W+5 days W+10 days W+1 month Target0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1EFFICIENCY CONTROL
Re
jec
ts
5 DAYS MaxAudit checklist documented action validated [13]
10 DAYS MAX [20]
1 MONTH MAXPERFORM FOLLOW UP AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION [22]
CZ6
Check the efficiency of the actions Follow up daily and visualize the effect of the action plan, any deviation versus the expected results must be reported to the relevant QRQC meeting.
B8
What was done to reproduce the concern? - Based on the identified factors in the FTA and the 5 whys, explain which activities have been done to confirm the root-cause of the problem. - The reproduction of the defect concerns occurrence and/or non detection
B11
Why was it done? From the parameters variation taken into acount for the reproduction of the defect, explain what impact are expected on the product.
B13
How was it done? 4M conditions applied during the reproduction must be recorded to be compared with the conclusions of the FTA. Precise what are the key elements followed during the trials.
B15
When was it done? Indicate when the reproduction of the defect has been done: date - time - shift
B17
What was the result? Based on facts and data, give the result of the reproduction of the defect on the parts produced.
B19
Is the root-cause verified? Comparison of the signature of the defect on the real bad parts with the parts coming from the reproduction of the defect must confirm the root-cause.
B24
Rootcause From the conclusions of the analysis (FTA, reproduction of the defect, 5 whys), report the root-cause of the problem needing a correction.
Y24
Corrective action Explain clearly which corrective actions are implemented to correct the root-cause. Reader should understand what is the difference between previous and future situation. Put data when appropriate, process parameter before and after for example.
BA24
Expected result efficiency Precise what is the effect of the corrective action and what will be its impact on the problem with fact and data.
BP24
Who Precise the person in charge of the implementation of the corrective action, only one pilot for one action.
CD24
Due date Precise the date when the corrective action must be implemented.
CN24
Done date Precise the date when the corrective action has been implemented wiht efficiency demonstrated
DP34
Y/N Indicate Y/N if document has been updated based on what we learn from the issue.
DV34
Who Indicate who is in charge of the activity, only one pilot.
EH34
Due date Precise the date when the corrective action must be implemented.
EP34
Done date Precise the date when the corrective action has been implemented wiht efficiency demonstrated
EZ34
Generalization of countermeasures to similar lines / products - Indicate, ticking Y/N if the countermeasures are applicable for other lines or other products. - When applicable, precise which lines, which products are concerned.
EZ41
Warn other sites / divisions / Customer sites - Indicate ticking Y/N if the corrective measures are applicable in other Valeo sites, Valeo divisions or customer sites. - When applicable, precise which sites/divisions are concerned
B42
Rootcause From the conclusions of the analysis (FTA, reproduction of the defect, 5 whys), report the root-cause of the problem needing a correction.
Y42
Corrective action Explain clearly which corrective actions are implemented to correct the root-cause. Reader should understand what is the difference between previous and future situation. Put data when appropriate, process parameter before and after for example.
BA42
Expected result efficiency Precise what is the effect of the corrective action and what will be its impact on the problem with fact and data.
BP42
Who Precise the person in charge of the implementation of the corrective action, only one pilot for one action.
CD42
Due date Precise the date when the corrective action must be implemented.
CN42
Done date Precise the date when the corrective action has been implemented wiht efficiency demonstrated
DB45
Confirmation - The modification of the documents and standards must be validated by the quality. Indicate name of the auditor and date of the audit.
DB48
10 days max - Within the 10 days after customer notification, countermeasures are implemented, efficieny confirmed on the genba, transversalization done - Plant manager / departement manager / quality manager validate the implementation and the efficiency of the countermeasures, name and signature. - Closure date is the validation date by Quality Manager
DB53
External distribution list Mention the name of the compagny / the names of the people external to Valeo that receive the PDCA/FTA of the problem
DB56
1 month max Application of the counter measures and their efficiency are confirmed based on fact and data (efficiency control document + checklist + LLC audit) Plant manager, department manager, quality manager validate the results of the audit done after 1 month.
B62
5 days max Within 5 days after customer notification, implementaton of the corrective action on the genba is confirmed. - Plant manager, department manager, quality manager validate the implementation of the counter measures name and signature - Date is the validation date by quality manager
DB62
Comments and decisions If the effciency of the action plan is not confirmed, recurrence of the issue for example, plant manager decides about complementary actions to find and solve real root-cause or to improve efficiency of the corrective actions.
9 / 10
Revision 6.36_eng
PDCA ANALYSIS : EFFICIENCY CONTROL
M-2 M-1 Actual Situatio W+5 days W+10 days W+1 month TargetRejects 0
1- HAVE PARAMETERS BEEN CORRECTED IN SAFETY / WORKING INTRUCTIONS?
2- DO WORKING INSTRUCTIONS MATCH WITH QUALITY CONTROL PLAN?
3- IS ALL DOCUMENTATION COHERENT?
4- ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS CLEAR?
5- ARE CRITICAL POINTS CLEARLY DESCRIBED?
6- DOES ACTUAL PROCESS MATCH WITH THE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS?
7- DOES ACTUAL PROCESS MATCH WITH EXPECTED CORRECTIVE ACTION?
8- ARE OPERATORS AWARE OF THE DEFECT?
9- ARE OPERATORS AWARE OF THE EXPECTED CORRECTIVE ACTION?
10- HAS THE SOLUTION BEEN PROPERLY VALIDATED ON THE FLOOR?
11- IS THERE A VISUAL AID?
12- IS IT POSTED ON A VISIBLE SPOT?
13- IS THE CONTENT CLEAR?
14- IS IT COHERENT WITH THE CONTENT OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION?
15- HAS IT BEEN MODIFIED? IS PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE RECORD MODIFIED?
DATE OF THE AUDITS [3]
AUDITOR'S NAME [4]Y Y Y YN N N N
COMMENTS [6]
DECISION[5]
CH
EC
KS
CO
NF
IRM
AT
ION
OF
IN
FLU
EN
T F
AC
TO
RS
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HE
CK
OF
O
PE
RA
TIO
NV
ISU
AL
AID
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
CH
EC
KS
CO
NF
IRM
AT
ION
OF
IN
FLU
EN
T F
AC
TO
RS
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HE
CK
OF
O
PE
RA
TIO
NV
ISU
AL
AID
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
B3
Confirmation checks - According to the corrective actions decided to solve the issue, the correct implementation of each action must be checked by the quality engineer on the genba with fact and data within the 5 days following the customer's notification. - The check is done on each shift including the week-end shift - A specific focus is requested on the operator trainings - The check list is completed and presented during QRQC meeting to close the PDCA
Q4
Check by quality per shift - Put OK/NOK to formalize the audit result
A20
Date of the audit For every shift, record the date of audit
A21
Auditor's name Record the auditor's name. If different according to the shifts mention every auditors' names.
O21
Decision Tick Y or N to validate or not the result of the audit for each shift
