Problem Solving with PDCA

When problem solving, it is important to have a plan of attack.  It is a good idea to have a basis for what you will be doing, I would suggest the PDCA cycle.  According to the ASQ website, the Plan Do Check Act cycle is a four step model for carrying out change.  It is ideal for continuous improvement because it is a never ending cycle that should be repeated over and over again.  It can be used for numerous situations such as starting a new project, developing a new or improved design, in planning, or when implementing any change.  There are four parts to the cycle including: Plan, Do, Check, and Act.

During the Plan phase it is a must to thoroughly study the problem.  Next, an in depth analysis of the problem should be performed.  Ideas for a remedy of the problem can then be developed.  Lastly, a plan can be made.

The plan is implemented and put into action during the Do phase.

The Check phase is then used to verify the conformity against the plans and requirements.  It is ideal to measure the effects of the implementation and compare with the target goal.

The Act phase is used as a review.  A review of the new ideas to establish a new standard and or modify the strategy.

Once a successful new plan or idea is implemented, the PDCA cycle can be used continuously to keep improving the process.

-KT

Electronic Design Problem Solving

Problem solving is a tool that is used by everyone one way or another. People use the tool in varying degrees and in different orders. There are many different ways to go about solving a problem.  In the field of electronics I feel that we follow the typical pattern of problem solving but spend more time in the testing phase.

We are usually faced with a general design of what the final product should accomplish. This is the biggest difference with the general problem solving methods that I have encountered. Contrary to problem solving for the answer, we are given or determine what the end result should be and problem solve to produce the desired specifications.

Once we know the specifications of the design, we do research and perform calculations to determine the needed components to get the results we need. Once we have the components that are believed to give the output we desire, we build a prototype of the circuit and test it. Testing includes but is not limited to varying the voltage, capacitors, and voltage frequencies. After testing we have a good idea about how all the components work together and affect each other.

After testing, we can either go back to the design and test phase or finalize a design and run tests again to verify the design before it is put into production or inserted into an existing circuit.

My Problem Solving Method

The first stage in the problem solving process is identifying the problem.   Sometimes this stage is taken the most lightly and you have to return to this stage because it is difficult to find the true root cause of the issue.  It is important to identify problems to be able to have concrete objectives to measure. Once you have come up with possible solutions for the problems you should look at the outcomes of each solution.  Some solutions might have positives and negative results and you need to look at the various outcomes of each of these conditions.. 

1)  Identify the Problem
2) Come up with possible solutions
3) Revert to #1 if solutions are not substantial enough
4) Look at the possible outcomes of each solution
5) Analyze and study the outcome
6) Decide which solution best fits the problem identifed in #1

I choose this method because it is always important to keep in mind that Ideniftying your problem is your most important step.  If your team or you personally do not spend a lot of time identifying and working with the problem, it will hurt you throughout your problem solving process.  Identifying the problem is refered to very often throughout the problem solving steps. So you must get to the floor and see what actually is causing the problem.

Once you have applied corrective actions to the problem, you then should analyze and study the outcome.  This is the stage where youmight need to go back to the drawing board and make sure that you have collected adequate data, have a good understanding of the problem, and  their root causes.  After you have worked through the outcomes and find out what your best solution is, you then should decide, make the final improvements and institute the solution for sustainable change.

HH

Problem Solving

When it comes to solving a problem, issue or concern I always find myself clinging to the methods I know and have practiced over and over again throughout the years. Luckily for me DMAIC is one of the main methodologies I turn to when solving a problem. DMAIC if you are unfamiliar is a cycle that takes you through the Design, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control steps in order to solve the problem at hand. This circular logic is great for returning to the situation if your initial design did not function as you intended. In the world of Lean and Six Sigma this may sound wasteful because you should always be doing or providing  things right the first time to deliver a high quality product or end result, however sometimes things do not always go as planned. Murphy's Law even states that whatever can go wrong will go wrong in any given situation so although not ideal allowing for variation and some rework in your problem solving techniques can be beneficial in the long run. With this being said I am not giving you permission to carry extra labor, inventory, machine capacity or any other costly attributes "just in case". This is purely wasteful and is not what the DMAIC cycle should be used for. The DMAIC cycle should however assist in planning, follow through and benchmarking of any plans, decisions or new practices you may plan on implementing.

It is my suggestion that the next time you are faced with a decision that needs to be made, a problem to be solved, or an item to implement you turn to the DMAIC cycle and give it an old college try. It may not be the most complete of the the methodologies on the market but in my opinion it is by far the most efficient and easy to follow for both novices and experts alike.

-SW

Problem Solved.

I used to work at a car wash that also did detailing.  We had a customer complain about a spot on a car that wasn't there when they put it through the wash.  My manager dismissed it and didn't take responsibility for the spot which seemed alright at the time because we had no way of knowing where the spot really came from, but once I started to notice the same mark appearing on other cars I knew it wasn't a coincidence.  

I didn't have much to go on, but I was able to determine that it was only happening to cars that were getting the "super" wash with all of the products we used offered so I figured that it was one of the products not used in the “basic” washes.  Also, by the fact that it was showing up on cars at all meant that it had to be later in the wash otherwise it would have been washed off rather than sealed on.  Using this information as well as noticing that the spots were generally in the same spot, I began to look through the tunnel to try to find where the issue was coming from.

  I determined a point in the process where it made sense that the spot could be coming from, and then searched the area to find that one of the pipes seemed to be acting differently from the others.  I followed the piping back into the chemical room and down to the barrels of chemicals.  I confirmed that I had found the right barrel by the color of spots left on the cars, and was able to determine that the root issue was a faulty valve that controlled the chemical volume.  I was able to inform my boss and stop any other cars from being damaged.

I didn't know it at the time, but looking back it was surprising to notice that I had used several problem solving tools at least to some small degree. 

SH

Teamwork and Leadership

     Will Felps designed and conducted an experiment to see if a ‘bad apple’ would decrease the productivity of a group in a laboratory study.  He hired an actor to play one of three ‘bad apple’ roles; jerk, slacker or depressive pessimist.  For the vast majority of the groups, they adopted the one bad apples’ attitude and productivity dropped 30-40%.  There was one group, which he goes into at the end of the section that was able to defuse any negativity.  This mainly reflected on the group leader and his abilities.  Felps’ next study was going to determine if the opposite effect, if a good leader would increase productivity, was true.

     Without seeing any sort of results, I would venture to say that a good leader would increase productivity.  Take Michael Jordan for example.  As a basketball player for the Bulls, he was able to lead the team to six championships.  He was able to elevate the way his team played.  There are numerous examples like this across any sport.  The other examples lay both in the military and corporate worlds.  In all three spheres of teamwork (sports, military and corporate) there are three specific themes that appear with the good leader.  The first is good team cohesion.  That is not saying that everyone is friends, but will work together without personal issues getting in the way.  The second is discipline.  The discipline to do the job that the team member was assigned and not do someone else’s job.  The leader needs to display a certain amount of discipline in order to keep the group focused and understand the dynamic of the group.  By understanding the dynamic of the team, the leader can make judgment calls that can either help or hinder the group’s progress.  With the proper amount of discipline, the leader will know to make the correct call, not just the popular one.  The third is trust.  The team leader needs to trust the team members to do their work, and let them do it.  The team leader should not just sit there micro managing the team members.

     Link to Felp’s experiment (first part of broadcast): http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/370/ruining-it-for-the-rest-of-us

     -AK

Weekly Meetings: Yes or No?

Meetings are an important aspect to any business or team. They allow a team and its managers to stay informed on the current and future happenings of a project. Also, meetings offer a time where any pressing issues can be discussed and solutions can be thought out. In class we discussed many methods to ensure a meeting will be value added and not just a waste of time. We discussed techniques like using agendas to maintain order and how to solve inter-team conflicts. However, one topic that was briefly discussed was the importance and value of weekly meetings. While the benefits of having weekly meetings are somewhat obvious, there are times when weekly meetings can actually hurt productivity.

During my internship with Flextronics, I would attend three meetings every week: staff, zero defects, and production. The meetings were all separated by a day and each one had its own agenda. The meetings were scheduled for an hour and fifteen minutes but sometimes were let out early. They were productive for the most part, and things got done. During these meetings, my input was valued and heard but was rarely asked for because I was just an intern. I understood my position and assumed the role of being more of an observer.  

As I sat in on meetings, I was able to really get an understanding of how they were handled and what everybody’s’ feelings about the meetings were. I noticed a common link between all of the engineers:  nobody ever wanted to go to the meetings. At first I thought, “Well of course, who wants to go sit down and listen to their boss yell and complain for an hour?” However, I was surprised to get the same response after I brought it up to a few of the engineers I was shadowing throughout my internship. The meetings were not a waste of time, or even about having your boss criticize your work(constructively of course!). Rather, the same answer I got was the fact that they were so busy with current projects or customer problems that they did not see the value in sitting down for an hour; when they should be on the floor fixing a problem. When you are maintaining four cells per customer and have sometimes three or four customers; your day is already full once you walk in the door. Adding an hour of meetings to the day means that you get home at 8 or 9PM instead of 6PM. 

The responses are interesting and poise an actual real life conflict in the working world. There is plenty of truth behind the responses. In hindsight, it is easy to see how the meetings were constructed ‘poorly’. I noticed that while there was an agenda for each meeting, it was always a general concept that left it open to some imagination. Also, meetings would drag on sometimes waiting for peoples’ input. Applying some techniques learned in class have the potential to work these problems out and have successful future meetings. For example, apply the 30 minute rule to the meetings, but schedule the room for a full hour if it is necessary. Then, within the 30 minutes, have and follow a strict agenda. Focus on the facts and go around the room and get everyones’ input. However, even with all of this, nothing can get done without communication amongst all of the team members.

                     -Matt Deye September 27, 2012-