Why Can't We Do "5 Whys Analysis"!?
"A huge number of defects have come out!"
"The equipment has broken down and the line is stopped!"
"We're short on numbers! The delivery is going to be late!"
Manufacturing is a series of troubles.
That is where recurrence prevention measures become important✨
A method often used to think about recurrence prevention measures is the "5 Whys Analysis."
"Ask 'Why?' 5 times to find the root cause and implement fundamental measures!"
This is very important.
I believe it is incorporated in most companies.
However, I wonder how many companies are truly implementing fundamental measures (= recurrence prevention measures).
In many companies, I often see measures like "verbal warnings" and "retraining" being put forward as a result of "5 Whys Analysis."
Recurrence prevention??? It feels like that has the highest recurrence rate (lol)
You would think the "5 Whys Analysis" is being done properly, so why does this happen? There is a cause for this as well.
This time, I would like to share how to proceed with "5 Whys Analysis" so that trouble countermeasures do not end up as "verbal warnings" or "retraining."
First of all, let's think about why measures like "verbal warnings" and "retraining" came to be.
One factor that can be cited is that when proceeding with "5 Whys Analysis," the focus was placed on "people" as the cause.
Supervisor: "Why didn't you notice the strange noise from the equipment?"
Subordinate: "I was concentrating on the work, so I didn't notice."
Supervisor: "Concentrating is a good thing, but you also need to pay attention to strange noises."
Subordinate: "Yes, I'm sorry."
Supervisor: "What do you think you should do?"
Subordinate: "I will read the procedure manual again and be more careful next time."
Supervisor: "Understood. I'm counting on you."
Doesn't this feel like a conversation that is often exchanged?
In this case, the supervisor is operating under the premise that "the cause lies with the subordinate who is not concentrating on the work," which is why the measure became "be more careful."
Then, how should we think about it to make it a fundamental measure?
In the manufacturing industry, there is something called the "4 Elements of Production (4M)."
They are Man, Machine, Material, and Method.
These are the elements extracted from the production flow where materials enter the factory and are processed into products using people and equipment according to a set method.
Regarding equipment, it is good to capture it broadly, including not only "devices and machines" but also "tools, implements, and cutting tools." Materials are the objects to be processed.
To proceed well with "5 Whys Analysis," you need to focus on the other three elements, not "Man." For example, in the previous case,
Supervisor: "Why didn't you notice the strange noise from the equipment?"
Subordinate: "I was concentrating on the work, so I didn't notice."
Supervisor: "I see. Is the material this time the same as usual? Is it a new prototype?"
Subordinate: "No, it was the usual mass-produced item."
Supervisor: "Then, was there a case where you used a different cutting tool than usual?"
Subordinate: "I haven't changed the cutting tool since yesterday."
Supervisor: "Does that mean you followed the set replacement frequency?"
Subordinate: "Yes, that's right."
Supervisor: "Is the equipment not set up to notify you when a strange noise occurs?"
Subordinate: "It doesn't have that kind of function."
Supervisor: "Understood. Then, I will ask the equipment department to either detect the strange noise and issue an alert or have it stop automatically."
Subordinate: "Thank you very much. I appreciate it!"
It's a bit long, but it turns out like this.
The flow was to first question the materials, then the tools, then check the methods, and finally consider improvement measures targeting the equipment (Machine).
As in the example, if you can really modify the equipment to "detect abnormal noise and stop automatically," you can implement a measure that is definitely effective, even if it is questionable whether it is fundamental.
And actually, there is one more very important element hidden in the example above for successfully advancing a "Why-Why Analysis."
What is it!?
It is that "the supervisor thinks of the countermeasures."
It is not always the case, but having the supervisor think about it is an important first step.
A scene often seen in companies is having the person who caused the trouble (the operator) think of countermeasures and write a report.
I understand the idea of "fostering a sense of ownership" and "training them to think of countermeasures," but if you keep making someone think who has never implemented fundamental measures or recurrence prevention measures, and who has no authority to spend money, no decent measures will be born, and it will have the opposite effect of what was intended.
Asking someone to do something they have never done or do not know (lack knowledge) is quite cruel, so you really need to show them the correct way. Of course, there are some people who are like supermen and can do it easily from the start, but that is not necessarily true for everyone.
As in the example given this time, it is good for the supervisor and subordinate to have a dialogue, with the supervisor taking the lead at first. By watching that, the subordinate will eventually be able to think for themselves and propose better methods.
The person who knows the site best is the operator. They may be toddling at first, but let's believe in their growth and wait!
How was today's post?
This theme is something I see very often, so I hope it will be useful for your daily efforts.
It would be encouraging if you could leave a comment or a like!!
Please feel free to let me know if there are any other themes you would like me to write about.