Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: Constant Improvement and Diagnostics
We hear and talk about shop equipment all the time...namely, diagnostic equipment. Diagnostics is very much my passion, so I’m am very passionate about diagnostic equipment and having the right tool(s) for the job. Equipment is often a barometer used to compare shop-to-shop, or how many techs rate shops they work in or are looking to work in. This I believe to be in error. No two shops tool arsenals will be the same; nor should they. If this was the case, every shop would have equally talented and trained technicians who use exactly the same methods for diagnosis. We know this not to be the case. Case in point, Exhaust Gas Analyzers (4 or 5 gas); I would be lost without one. Use of the gas analyzer has become so engrained into my diagnostic routine that not having one would be similar to driving with one eye closed. Not every shop has one, nor should they. Many techs do just fine without one, and having the shop own one would be a wasted expense.
Diagnostics are very much like the Deming approach of PSDA (Plan, Do, Study, Act). In the Planning stage we have information gathered by the Service Advisor communicated to the technician. From there, he/she develops a “plan” of attack. This usually involves deciding what tools to use and how to use then for the next step, Doing. Doing, in my mind (in reference to diagnostics), is the information gathering stage. We’ve decided what equipment we are going to utilize: scan tools, pressure gauges, lab scopes, etc.; and are now recording their reports. Yep, you guessed it…we’ve rolled right into the Study phase. We have all this information and now we must use our knowledge of the system (experience and training) to deduce the culprit(s) causing the vehicle to not meet the customer’s specification (expectations). From there, we inform the customer of how we wish to Act. Act phase, of course, is the actual repair. A part is replaced, a repair made to a circuit, software updated, a service bulletin performed, ect. Now I feel, and I do not know if this goes against Deming’s teachings, that from the Act stage we go back to the Do and Study stages. I believe in repair verification. I personally like to use the same equipment to see how my requested action has affected the vehicle (hopefully in a positive way). This, to me, is not so much of a quality control as it is a learning tool. Furthermore, if you have information (scan data, gas numbers/graphs, and scope patterns) of the vehicle pre and post repair, it makes for a great relationship and trust building catalyst between shop and vehicle owner.
With a dedication to Constant Improvement, the shop and techs need to look at these 5 or 6 stages (base of 4 with repeats of 1 or 2). With the techs you have, what can you do to best prepare them for the task of diagnosing today’s vehicles?
You certainly put a lot of effort into your post. I followed it with ease and think I understand what you are saying.
Plan, Do (in a small way), Study, Act (in a big way), then study the results and fine tune. There could be many variations, and Louis could certainly expound on that. But it is different from Guess, Shoot from the hip, or Throw parts at it. Ouch, we've seen techs do all of that.
To answer your question, how would I prepare techs to better diagnose modern vehicles? Each adult has his or her own learning style, or preference, so it would seem wise to match the training to the tech. Again, another PDSA. Say, administer some tests to find out how each one learns best, so a sample or trial training period, then study the results. After that a larger training segment.
Thanks again for your post, I hope you write more of them.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: Constant Improvement and Diagnostics
Hi Matt,
MattFMN wrote:
With a dedication to Constant Improvement, the shop and techs need to look at these 5 or 6 stages (base of 4 with repeats of 1 or 2). With the techs you have, what can you do to best prepare them for the task of diagnosing today’s vehicles?
Excellent post, I have never heard this particular slant applied to diagnosis. It makes perfect sense and is in keeping with exactly what Dr. Deming taught, in my opinion.
In answer to your question, my thoughts would be to familiarize them with this type of approach. I think logical reasoning might be one of the best things we may be able to teach. I would also want to pay them in a manner that helped to insure cooperation and removed as much undue stress as possible.
Thanks Matt, I hope to see more post from you on this and other topics.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject:
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. After learning about and studying up on on PDSA, it just jumped out at me that it was very much like what I already did...only I used it for diagnosing and repairing vehicles. My verification tests purposes are three fold: 1. Prove the repair to myself. 2. Document, save, study the results for future vehicles (learning/training/information tool). 3. Prove the repair to the client (they don't have to understand exactly what it means, only that it is different and that I care enough to show them).
I, for the most part, am confident that the part or repair that I suggest will fix the vehicle. I like to keep records of data (scope waveforms, exhaust gas data, scan data) for future reference and to show other techs what I found, how I found it (training, and constant improvement).
Many times, after the vehicle is repaired, I have looked back on data and found that I had a clue that I missed that would have made the diagnosis more efficient. I can then, on a later vehicle, apply my theory and prove if I was correct in my finding.
I was worried, with reference to the 14 Points, that my repeating of the Doing and Studying phases would fall under "Cease dependence of mass inspection...". One could argue on both sides that going back is a valuable step or a non-valued step.
I, for one, feel that repeating those steps can be/are priceless.
I was worried, with reference to the 14 Points, that my repeating of the Doing and Studying phases would fall under "Cease dependence of mass inspection...". One could argue on both sides that going back is a valuable step or a non-valued step.
Actually 'dependence on mass inspection' means to only inspect at the end of the production process, not at several points throughout it, as you do.
As example, I know a large dealership that hired an inspector to check technicians' work after they had allready finished their jobs and had turned in their tickets. There is no value in that, catching mistakes, because it does not explain why the mistakes were made or how to avoid them in the future.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject:
Hi Bud,
Bud wrote:
I was worried, with reference to the 14 Points, that my repeating of the Doing and Studying phases would fall under "Cease dependence of mass inspection...". One could argue on both sides that going back is a valuable step or a non-valued step.
Actually 'dependence on mass inspection' means to only inspect at the end of the production process, not at several points throughout it, as you do.
As example, I know a large dealership that hired an inspector to check technicians' work after they had already finished their jobs and had turned in their tickets. There is no value in that, catching mistakes, because it does not explain why the mistakes were made or how to avoid them in the future.
I think you are exactly correct. When Dr. Deming stated Cease DEPENDENCE on mass inspection, he intended as a means of trying to enforce quality, rather than improving the system of production. Sampling a process could be construed as inspection, but is necessary to confirm results and gather data.
Best would be to work for methods that reduce the inspection needed. In cases where this cannot be immediately accomplished, inspection should be carried out in the process, rather than at completion.
Deming had a formula to calculate when inspection was practical. In your example of the dealership, workers are being paid to produce both good and bad work. Someone else is being paid to sort the good from the bad. The bad is then reworked and reinspected. Do, Inspect, Rework, Deliver. The cost of staggering, no wonder so many believe quality is okay, it just cost too much. Very Sad!!
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It is easier to just blame the person closest to the mistake or problem.
That answer just resonates with me. The blame game, finger-pointing, etc. Is that purely a "Western" philosophy or way of dealing with problems? Where did we develope it?
Would Deming combat that tendency of finger-pointing or blaming a person with "blaming" the system? Granted, there are instances when it is an actual person (is that a "special" cause?) that has to be dealt with. Does "blaming" the system and working to improve it constitute finger-pointing? What is a better way to eliminate finger-pointing period? Thanks, Matt.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject:
MattFMN wrote:
Quote:
It is easier to just blame the person closest to the mistake or problem.
That answer just resonates with me. The blame game, finger-pointing, etc. Is that purely a "Western" philosophy or way of dealing with problems? Where did we develope it?
I don't think we did develop it. Just as dark is the absence of light, blame is the absence of understanding, in my opinion.
MattFMN wrote:
Would Deming combat that tendency of finger-pointing or blaming a person with "blaming" the system?
Blame is an emotional response not a logical one. No one/thing need be blamed at all. When things go wrong, the reason(s) needs to be discovered and corrected, if possible. Understanding variation is also understanding that things will run counter to our plans.
Blaming a person, in a stable system, for a problem is much like blaming the weatherman for a storm on a day we planned to be clear.
MattFMN wrote:
Granted, there are instances when it is an actual person (is that a "special" cause?) that has to be dealt with. Does "blaming" the system and working to improve it constitute finger-pointing?
People are [a big] part of the system. As a very general statement, one definition of a special cause is a problem that the worker can explain the cause of and the way to prevent. For instance, "The lugs were over tightened, because I do not own or have access to a torque wrench." This could be a special cause, because the worker knows what is wrong and can tell you how to prevent it.
Leaving the lug nuts loose on one wheel [out of thousands] is probably a common cause. To the worker, it just happened. There may be dozens of reasons, but they cannot truthfully cite the one. It happens at random, to different people in the system. Causes are as common as the interruptions and distractions in the system.
This common cause problem can be demonstrated with statistics, plotted and predicted, well into the future. Management should realize the problem exist and that it is their responsibility to lessen it to the degree possible. Getting angry when it happens or trying to fix blame, is senseless and detracts from the actual effort that should be taking place.
MattFMN wrote:
What is a better way to eliminate finger-pointing period? Thanks, Matt.
KNOWLEDGE! An understanding of variation and who's responsibility it is to work to lessen it should make blame unnecessary. Poor management for years has sat back, used incentives to coerce workers to work harder [not to get more accomplished] and ignored their responsibility. This worked okay as long as those they competed with did the same. The big three ca. 1965 is a good example.
When enlightened competition comes along, the game changes. Rather than managers admitting they are totally loss, the blame game starts. Excuses are just that and don't feed the bull dog.
Only now are auto repair shops actually starting to run up against this competition. Not so much from other shops, but from people's inability to fund the incredibly inefficient ways vehicles are repaired. Shops BLAME the client, the economy, the parts stores, everything but themselves.
Only now are auto repair shops actually starting to run up against this competition. Not so much from other shops, but from people's inability to fund the incredibly inefficient ways vehicles are repaired. Shops BLAME the client, the economy, the parts stores, everything but themselves.
Now that is interesting. How about saying more about that, Louis?
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:54 am Post subject:
Hi Bud,
bud wrote:
louis wrote:
Only now are auto repair shops actually starting to run up against this competition. Not so much from other shops, but from people's inability to fund the incredibly inefficient ways vehicles are repaired. Shops BLAME the client, the economy, the parts stores, everything but themselves.
Now that is interesting. How about saying more about that, Louis?
I touched on the topic here, and hope to expound on it greatly in the future
For example if the primary aim of a business is to produce ethical profit, then the measure of success would be ethical profit produced. For instance a business may gross $1.2M and net 25% or a profit of $300K. A similar business may gross $2.5M and net 8%. In this case net profit of the latter business is $200K and by this definition is not as successful as the former.
The problems of the latter business may NOT be an inability to pay expenses. More likely the symptoms are seen as health care cost too high, taxes too high, etc. While these cost may be too high, relative to income, the reason is more gross under-utilization of resources rather than actual cost being too high.
Inefficiency adds cost and these cost must be paid. They are paid in a number of ways. First they are paid by the shop, in the form of low profits. Profit can only be so low and then the business eventually closes. To stay afloat prices rise and expenses are cut [beyond healthy limits] to pay the cost.
These things have been happening for many years. The symptoms of unhealthy cost cutting are the low [by comparison to skill level] wages of techs, the lack of benefits, general appearance of many shops, lack of equipment, training, etc.
The symptoms of price raising are back-yard shops, do-it-“yourselfers”, discount parts stores, vehicles being scrapped that could be repaired and the overall slow growth [shrinking] of the trade. This has greatly been buffered by the fact that the options people had included equal amounts of inefficiency in the price.
For instance other shops, new vehicles, etc. This is changing, no market this large will go begging for long. Toyota, to a degree is an example. Except for several artificial barriers [tariffs, restrictions, voluntary hold backs, etc.] they would have decimated the big three already.
By artificially propping up the big 3, people pay much more for a vehicle than they might. Soon another wave of very low cost vehicles may be on the way . . .
Shops are much the same, except without the force of law to protect them. An efficiently run operation may easily produce better quality auto repair at 25-30% lower cost. Such an operation may choose [for a while] to charge the same as everyone else and make much larger profit. They may also choose to lower their price by 25% and capture whatever market they desire, still making a nice profit.
People will always seek their lowest cost option. When results are great, the other options are in trouble. Another example is clients ordering name brand parts on the internet. Simply a more efficient way of delivering product.
As these practices become more common, funds covering the cost of inefficiency, partially borne by part profit, evaporate. It's very easy to blame the client for seeking a lower cost or the internet for providing it. The problem is huge inefficiency, covered for many years by all sorts of means that are now going quickly away.
One can sit back and complain, make excuses and go out of business, or embrace a new philosophy. Change is inevitable, survival is not.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject:
Not to restrict the evolution of this thread from a very, very interesting topic: Will managements dedication to removing obstacles automatically work to reduce "finger-pointing" amongst employees? I ask because I hear and read so much about techs pointing to SA/SW's failing to upsell, or not dispatching estimates in what they feel is adequate amount of time. Or SA/SW's complaining about techs not writing down what they did, how long it took, how long it should take, parts, adding needed repairs after estimate has been dispatched, etc. If management starts by removing commisioned pay, works with everyone to develope a system of scheduling, inspection, estimating, and repair... will that work to eliminate it? I mean, just typing this out is seems almost silly to ask, that logic may dictate it will. But I still question other issues that management may not be able to help on. Thanks, Matt.
Your question is right on target for what Louis wants to teach on this website. Actually, it was one part of it.
Deming's point was to eliminate incentives, spiffs, goals and bonuses (as in our flat rate system) and to replace them with leadership. But leadership is a big subject.
I have seen and read about shops that eliminate flat rate and replace it with salary, maybe a small bonus, but never supply the leadership. So their productivity falls, rather than increases. That has caused many shop owners to say 'salary doesn't work' and go back to flat rate pay schemes.
So with that introduction, I'll let Louis answer your question as to what all is needed to eliminate the blame game in a typical repair shop.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject:
MattFMN wrote:
Not to restrict the evolution of this thread from a very, very interesting topic: Will managements dedication to removing obstacles automatically work to reduce "finger-pointing" amongst employees?
I believe the short answer to be, if ALL of the fourteen points are adhered to the problem will normally dissipate. To me, the longer answer revolves around points seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve. Point seven states, institute leadership. A true leader would never seek to blame his staff, nor allow it. Instead of who’s wrong, the policy of the company becomes what’s wrong and how may WE prevent it.
Point eight works to removes fear, one of the leading causes of blame. Fear of repercussions mandates that blame is affixed, elsewhere. Point nine breaks down barriers between departments; Us and Them thinking. When a company is united in the aim, blame becomes less important. Point ten and eleven eliminates targets for the workforce. The aim switches to continual improvement and each person is expected to contribute.
Point twelve says it all. Remove barriers to pride of workmanship. People laboring under the threat of blame, will take few chances and have little joy in their work. Instead the workplace becomes a CYA exercise. Leadership cannot allow this to exist.
MattFMN wrote:
I ask because I hear and read so much about techs pointing to SA/SW's failing to upsell, or not dispatching estimates in what they feel is adequate amount of time. Or SA/SW's complaining about techs not writing down what they did, how long it took, how long it should take, parts, adding needed repairs after estimate has been dispatched, etc.
I once heard, “Only fools fight on a sinking ship.” Until the aim is clearly understood [agreed with?] and each person realizes how their job fits into it, there might always be such foolishness. Such is a lack of leadership, in my opinion.
MattFMN wrote:
If management starts by removing commisioned pay, works with everyone to develope a system of scheduling, inspection, estimating, and repair... will that work to eliminate it? I mean, just typing this out is seems almost silly to ask, that logic may dictate it will. But I still question other issues that management may not be able to help on. Thanks, Matt.
That is a good start, but in my opinion, insufficient to the task. A well salaried group with good systems, may still seek blame if they are subjected to goals and quotas. The same could happen if a hack leader confuses blame with finding cause or fails to understand variation or any number of other mismanagement habits.
Your’s is an excellent question. I think blame falls into the dark caldron of ignorance. When people do not understand variation nor why things occur, the response may be to get mad when things do not go their way. Anger requires a target, thus the blame. I believe it is a futile attempt to punish the offending party.
With understanding it might be realized that blame fixes nothing, nor is it necessary or desirable. Learning the source of problems [seldom the person] and correcting that produces results. Thanks Matt, you have brought out several excellent points.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
