Escalation standards: first steps

77

78

by operators while working on a specific machine. First, they had to indicate whether the problem was an efficiency or a quality one. This was easy to identify in the machines using tablets because indicators are highlighted with different colors depending on their status with respect to the standard: red, yellow or green. They characterized the problem by answering some questions about the issue and then they had to call the team leader. The latter went to the gemba and filled the other columns of the table, about causes and actions. The problems with this method were the time lost in filling all the fields and the fact that operators were not used to this process and they forgot to compile it sometimes. The initial escalation from team leaders to Supervisors was also a confusing one because the Supervisors got many different inputs from their team leaders and it was difficult for them to understand which problems to focus on when they did not go into the gemba. They spent too much time reading emails or notes about problems but there was not a common way to keep track of the issues. The first activity done to ensure compliance with the standard rules was to create some flashcards to train the operators on the process they should use. Furthermore, some improvements on the tables and the general escalation steps were started. The basic process and the cards, used as a starting point for the thesis project, will be explained in sections 4.4.1., 4.4.2. and 4.4.3.

Figure 45: Escalation table, first steps

79 4.4.1. Operator level

The first improvement done during the project was changing the table to make it simpler to fill and standardize the fields. The table, shown in figure 46, was very intuitive and schematic and the operator had to write some references about the date, time, and shift, followed by some information about the problem. The operator had to select between a kosu or a scrap problem, as in the previous version. The number of questions was reduced and the analysis focused just on the information necessary to team leaders to help to solve the problem. The main section of the table was the description of the problem and the operator had to specify whether the issue was recurring or not. By collecting those production tables, it was easier for operators and team leaders to identify recurring problems and check how they solved them in the past.

Figure 46: Operator table

Figure 47: Operator actions flow chart

80

The Andon system simply consisted of stopping the machines every time a problem was encountered and operators had to notice their team leaders through a phone call. A flashcard was created and hung inside the production line, to better explain what the operator needed to do for the problems’ escalation and to standardize the process, shown in the flow chart of figure 47. This one explained the main steps done by the operators and it was given to them so they could check the process if any doubt arose.

4.4.2. Team Leader level

The Team Leader received the call and went to the gemba to help the operator. Team leaders helped operators fill the other parts of the table in figure 46, consisting of the two columns called causes and actions.

Figure 48: Team leader actions flow chart

They had to analyze the intercepted defect, verifying whether the problem was still existing if it was a problem that cannot be deliberated, what standards did or did not meet, what figures were affected by the problem, whether it had been a change in the process. They then checked whether it was a machine or process anomaly and reported the analysis done to share information with other shifts. After verifying and analyzing the problem, the Team Leader had to record the restored standards or changes made, indicating at what time he restored the process to optimal condition and sharing with the operator the actions are taken. If he could solve the problem, then the issue was just reported to the Supervisor in the email to keep track of what happened and of the

81

solution used in case of another repetition. If the Team Leader and the operator could not solve the defect by themselves, then it was necessary to involve other people, possibly coming from another department, for example, maintenance. When the problem still stayed unsolved, the Team Leader communicated it to the next colleague at the shift change, for warning purposes, and the Team Leader working on the next morning brought the problem to the meeting with the Supervisor. The flow chart, represented in figure 48, was created to help the Team Leader in the action plan and it was hanging to the team leaders’ desk inside the department.

4.4.3. Supervisor level

The Supervisor analyzed every problem, communicated to him either by email or during the morning meeting. The process remained confusing in the first part of the thesis project because the first improvements were made at the lower level, to start optimizing the escalation process. Another card was created for the Supervisors and their training and it is represented in figure 49.

Figure 49: Supervisor actions flow chart

The Supervisor took over the problems identified in the previous step and analyzed the open points differentiating the types of problems. When problems were unsolved, Supervisors tried to help the team leaders by creating a cross-functional working team.

This team worked on a PDCA plan to solve the problems. The following rules apply to the different types of problems. A punctual problem is an issue that has been solved

82

after the intervention and needs no more actions, but it is important to collect the information reported by the Team Leader to give evidence and keep track of improvements. If the issue is a recurring problem, which even if currently resolved continues to recur over time, the Supervisor has to report the problem in the PDCA shared with Engineering and Maintenance. In case of an issue of non-compliance with standards, the Supervisor verifies training of operators involved in the problem and he provides new training in case they lack information. He also verifies that the standard was correct or involves other agencies to improve it. When the type of problem is related to raw materials, the Supervisor involves the quality department for analysis and management of non-conforming material and creates a body to solve the problems with the Quality representative, Tooling and Warehouse (depending on the problem), using a PDCA (Federal Mogul, 2017).