iSixSigma

8D

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29634

    Eileen
    Participant

    Anon,
    Thanks for the info. It doesn’t match what I was told. But, you seem to have done your research. My intent was not to deceive. However, the only KT material used was as I previously stated. There was no attempt to copy or infringe on KT on my part. The material used was placed in the appendix at the direct order of the HR dept. The included material were two pages (is/is not). Can you clarify what the judge determined was the nature of the infringement? Ford believed they had a license to use the KT material based on what they believed was a licensing agreement.
    Eileen Beachell
     

    0
    #76376

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Where/when was the first part of this string?

    0
    #76378

    James A
    Participant

    Morning Mike,
    I think it starts here . . . . .
    https://www.isixsigma.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=9598
    regards
    James A

    0
    #76379

    James A
    Participant

    And continues here . . .
    https://www.isixsigma.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=14708
    I STILL need more coffee!
    James A

    0
    #76380

    Abby Resser
    Participant

    Don’t ya just hate it when someone hits the post a new message button when they should have hit post a reply? It happens all the time within my company…in that case, it’s reply all versus reply to the sender. How about figuring out a poka yoke for that? :)

    0
    #76381

    James A
    Participant

    To Err is Human,  to Forgive is divine.
    To Umm and Err is downright inexcusable.
    :-)

    0
    #76382

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    James,
    Good morning. I remembered some of the original but couldn’t find it. Memory isn’t what it used to be.
    Thank you.

    0
    #76383

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    James,
    Now I think I will need another cup or two.
    Thanks.

    0
    #76384

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Abby,
    At least in this instance it is recoverable.
    I think the old post screen had the return to discussion group button under the post message button. Being an insomniac I am not always completely coherent (as I am sure you can tell) when I answer some things. If you hit the return rather than post it diappeared. It only happen when I did a long response.
    This may sound a little crass but before we became politically correct and changed it to Mistake-proofing they called it Fool-proofing. I had an engineer tell me that the way to fool-proof something was to stop changing the fools. I believe he may have been watching me try to operate my computer.
    Thanks.

    0
    #76387

    Gabriel
    Participant

    “It is impossible to fool-proof something. Fools are too ingenious”

    0
    #76389

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Gabriel,
    Therefore the name change. I believe it was percieved as a challenge.
    Good morning.

    0
    #76391

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Eileen,
    I think it is very brave of you to stepup on the issue and tell the world you did the 8D. Overall I believe the process has had a positive effect. I did the TOPS training in Detroit in 89.
    When I went back and read the two threads (thanks James) I was amazed that people were looking for the difference betwwen 8D and SS. Even with the TOPS training, as I recieved it, there was a huge difference in the tool sets. Personally I never felt the step “Identify Root Cause” had insufficient tools to identify root cause. If the purpose was as you said in an earlier post to get containment then the tool set was sufficent. When you augment the section with some additional tools (whether you want to call them SS or something else) it works well.
    There was the discussion about how well it worked. The discussion around this is just like a discussion of how well does SS work. It is typically more a function of how well it is used. The tool is the tool. I can drive screws with a hammer but if the screws don’t hold as well as they were designed to it isn’t an issue with the screw it is my lack of understanding how to apply it effectively. (It is much faster with the hammer.)
    I saw the implementation fall apart with the people who issued them to suppliers. Rather than being a problem solving aid they became punitive. One bad part = one 8D. In theory maybe it is OK. If you are building a marginal part (Ford patent) and have a marginal process and everyone knows it and you build about 4.5 million per year and there are 4 failure modes, basically 4 8D’s should cover it. Not one per part.
    As we worked through issues – one took 9 years to resolve – one particular test took 18 months – the 8D’s continued to poor in. This was just mindless.
    In Fords defense the others have similar systems that are equally disfunctional in the hands of someone who is equally incompetant.
    If you have ever had a defective part shipped to a company like Honda (at least in my experience) they do not try to get you to fix it by remote control (mailing you an 8D). A good part of the time they show up and help you figure it out.
    As far as poor containment. I have seen them returned to the supplier for a poor containment. If you accept it, you own part of the resposibility for reinforcing that type of incompetance.
    On IP lawsuits – going to court is always a crap shoot. It is too unpredictable. Like shooting Scud’s and going home and watching CNN to see where they hit.

    0
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.