PDCA
The idea behind the PDCA cycle is to empower employees to independently identify and solve problems. It is also a crucial element of the continuous improvement process (CIP).
Many projects in which a culture of continuous improvement (CIP) is to be anchored also fail because of the tools required for this. With the A3 Report, for example, there are such tools. Just for clarity upfront, problem solutions, decision bases and strategies are presented on a sheet of paper in DIN A3 format. The A3 Report provides employees with a kind of template for which analysis and action steps must be taken when solving a problem. This process, in turn, is based on a systematic approach: the PDCA cycle.
The four phases of the PDCA cycle
Of all the quality improvement tools, the PDCA cycle is the most important. It describes the basics of an improvement process and divides it into four phases:
Phase 1: Plan
In this phase the problem and the actual state are described, the causes of the problem are analyzed and the target state is defined. In addition, measurements for reaching the target condition is defined.
Phase 2: Do (Implementation)
In the implementation phase, the predefined measures for achieving the target status are fixed.
Phase 3: Check
In the review phase, the experience gained and the results achieved in implementing the measures are reflected and the measures are readjusted if necessary.
Phase 4: Act
In this phase, the experience is gathered and the problem-solving process is evaluated and standards for future action are derived.
PDCA Cylce
Teams always go through this process when they have identified a problem or a relevant opportunity for an improvement. Then a new PDCA cycle is started with the aim of establishing a new standard in the company which serves as a basis for further improvements. The following case study shows how working with the PDCA cycle works.
The PDCA cycle explained using a case study
The management board of an electrical motor manufacturer has adopted a new strategy to further expand the company's quality leadership in electric motor production and increase customer satisfaction. To this end, the management team defined the following so-called breakthrough targets:
The production processes must be state of the art
The work must be based on the zero-defect principle
The striving for continuous improvement (CIP) should be anchored among the employees
These goals have been broken down to all levels. At a meeting, the head of department pointed out to the group leader that the five pressing lines he supervised produce less than the target of 35k motors per day. The consequences: Supply bottlenecks and customer dissatisfaction. The group leader should now solve this problem. In accordance with the PDCA cycle, the following procedure was followed.
This reading pick is from experienced manager and lecturer Ron Basu he lists tools and techniques you can implement to make the best use of Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing, two major quality-control programs.
Read more here.
PDCA Phase: Plan
The group leader analyzed the production figures of the past weeks. He found that the joining line supervised by the team leader only delivers an average of 32k motors per day instead of 35k. The team leader suspected that this was due to high line rejects. They then took a look at the sorted motors in the quarantine stock. The result: the labelling on almost all rejected motors are displaced or not readable.
The group leader asks the team leader what could be the cause of the problem. His assumption: "The printer is not running perfectly and the application process is not stable. A check of the incoming labels has proven that all material is in specification, so the failure has to be within the printing and application process. The team leader then looked at the scrap figures in the shift reports. It turned out that over 80 percent of the rejected motors are produced during the night shift.
So the group leader and the team leader observed the labelling process in the following night shift. They noticed that the labeling belt occasionally jams in the conveyor belt, which is why the labels are applied offset to the desired location. The team leader suspected that this was due to the fact that the printer mounting and so the printer location was in the wrong position, a further analysis has shown that a new employee has been placed in the night shift and he didn’t understand the correct setting and placement of the printer after exchanging the labeling roll. In addition, it came out that the cartridge has to be replaced after 24 hrs which also was usually coming to the night shift. So the root cause was clear.
The group leader then asked the team leader to formulate a target state for possible countermeasures. He knows through trainings that targets should follow the SMART rule, but on this topic mainly measurable. He wanted to achieve the target by training the new operator. Done deal.
PDCA Phase 2: Do
But the group leader was not satisfied with that. He asked the team leader if he knew exactly how the operator were going to change roles and cartridges if there was a standard operation instruction (SOI) of this process and how to train new operators. The team leader denied this.
In the following night shift, they both watched the change of roles and cartridges by experienced and inexperienced operators. The experienced operators made sure that the labels did not touch the floor during the change and that the printer is in the correct position after replacing the role. The inexperienced, on the other hand, often rubbed the labels on the floor and just pushed the printer in the station without checking the first parts after replacement. Dirt gradually collected in the label dispenser, causing the tape to jam from time to time and the incorrect position of the printer led to misplaced and crushed up labels which in the end of line led to the rejects of the motors.
The group leader asked the team leader and his team to consider possible countermeasures, prioritize them and draw up an action plan. The countermeasures were among others:
5S sessions at the end of each shift to restore cleanliness and order in the line
Installation of training matrix in order to know how is able to follow the process and how is experienced enough to train new operators
Install a Poka Yoke fixture to ensure a process stable positioning of the printer
Install a counter with light indication when the cartridge of the printer needs to be replaced after an evaluated amount of labels printed
Based on the prioritization, the team members drew up an action plan. They also agreed:
The current status of the project is always documented on the cell board of the labelling line for the next three months
The progress figures are reported in the daily shop floor meeting – not the team meeting of the cell. It has mgt. focus.
PDCA Phase 3: Check
In the following weeks, the team leader of the cell reported daily the figures and the impact of the measures on the outcome. They also defined further measures on the basis of their experience to date. For example, the machine is always stopped when the label tape reaches into the light barrier, caused by an air blast. The measure was to install a duct for the carrier tape of the labels into a bin placed under the line, easily accessible for the line clean up at the end of the shift. As a result, the reject rate fell by almost 80 percent after three months. The initially formulated target of 40 percent fewer rejects was achieved.
PDCA Phase 4: Act
After this assessment, the group leader asked the team leader what he wanted to do with regard to standardization. He replied that he would prepare a written description of the optimal process "maintaining the label printer" as well as for training new operators. In addition, from now on he will carry out a daily process control in order to detect target/actual deviations earlier.
The group leader praised the team leader and asked him at the next team leader meeting to inform the team leaders of the four other production lines about the new standard and the findings in the PDCA problem-solving process so that they could learn from the experience. Him himself informed the head of the motor production department that the problem of insufficient motor production had been solved.
