Every industry, every company, every facility is challenged with improving, or simply maintaining an acceptable level of quality performance. The targets continue to move, as the hurdles becoming increasingly more difficult. This is especially true in the automotive industry where single digit PPM is a given. Think about it, 3 quality defects per million products or 8 quality defects per one million products. It begs the question, is this level of performance truly attainable and sustainable? Most manufacturing leadership teams struggle with a few chronic, nagging quality defects as well as the pop-up surprise quality opportunities that can instantly cancel out a previously impressive quality performance trend.
Even the most established, well run organizations, with long tenured associates, can suffer from persistent quality-related difficulties, and continually fail to achieve their quality performance targets. In fact, it may be precisely those organizations with very experienced employees, and relatively stable results in many other critical metrics that hesitate to take appropriate action. That notable success apart from quality can predispose leadership to continue to utilize longstanding methods to address their quality deficiencies, even though they have not resulted in sustained quality performance improvement. These situations can often benefit greatly from leveraging expertise from outside the organization to bring in new ideas and occasionally radically different approaches.
Oftentimes those organizations that have had significant success in a number of performance statistics are the most difficult to assist regarding quality improvement. The difficulty can be compounded with a very experienced workforce. If these knowledgeable, skilled employees also work in a unionized production facility, a step-function quality improvement charter can certainly be an interesting journey!
I had the pleasure of assisting an organization in a somewhat similar situation as described above. The production facility had previously been successful for 40 years. The workforce was exceptionally experienced with a majority of the associates having been employed at this location for 25 years or more. Although the organization was unionized, the Union was relatively easy to work with and accommodating, but still enforced the rules, and the division of roles and responsibilities had to be maintained. The most difficult challenge with this entire team was the resistance to change, and the wide-spread perspective “we tried that before, and it didn’t work”. Of course after a mere 40 years of production, many methods actually had been attempted!
This was an automotive industry supplier, fabricating and assembling complex products which required precise dimensions. The manufacturing value streams contained a very large number of highly technical, sophisticated processes. This production location was large, complicated and the sheer number of opportunities to create quality defects appeared unlimited. Each and every process required precise control, significant preventative maintenance, and considerable operator knowledge and expertise. Improving quality would not be simple or swift, traditional methods would not suffice.
The number of university degrees and amount of advanced formal education were extremely limited with this quality team. In most cases, these individuals had also spent much of their careers at this one facility and except for visiting direct suppliers, had a somewhat limited perspective of current automotive industry standards and practices. Nevertheless team members were very experienced, with significant expertise regarding the products and processes in the facility. This production location had recently begun their Six Sigma Problem Solving and Lean Principles journey, and significant change was on the horizon. Although the organization had been successful for many years, demonstrated by their 40 year existence, it was now in a turnaround situation, and immediate action was required. Step-function improvements would be necessary to recover and operate at previous performance levels.
This manufacturing factory was able to recover and went on to impressive financial performance. Many changes occurred resulting in noteworthy improvements in a wide range of performance metrics. Improvements occurred as a result of waste reduction through Lean implementation, structured problem solving application, in-depth data analysis, safety practices upgrades, and quality-related processes and procedures. Many quality improvement initiatives were launched with numerous new business processes and procedures implemented. As with most turnarounds, certainly no single project or new process would be the silver bullet resulting in immediate and astonishing new results. But it is possible, and even desirable, for a single initiative to be the catalyst for sweeping changes. Just such a project occurred at this location, the red/green table initiative.
An interesting project title, a fascinating project… the red/green table. Even with this exceptionally experienced production team, that possessed outstanding knowledge of their products and processes, additional understanding and comprehension of quality performance was clearly in order. This initiative was designed to change the perspective of the workforce, clarify desired improvements versus required improvements, and ensure that the staff and the entire enterprise were in synch with the mandatory customer quality expectations. In fact, during this time it was necessary to educate some of the customers as well.
The critical first step in the process required the introduction of a new or at least very infrequently used term… anomaly. The objective was to drive differentiation between a defect and an anomaly as very different priority should be given to these two groups of issues, and different solutions sets should be acceptable. The basic definitions that were utilized appear below. We did not roll out these definitions across the facility through training or written documentation early on. All quality personnel were taught the definitions and instructed in the expectations of utilizing this terminology correctly and frequently when evaluating product concerns. Hearing these terms became commonplace all day every day and their usage was prevalent.
- Anomaly – Irregularity or peculiarity that deviates from the norm or from expectations. Typically not desirable, but acceptable even though the expectation is to eliminate them and the variation that they demonstrate.
- Defect – An unacceptable flaw or non-conformance that does not meet the requirements. Often termed a reject, they are considered inadequate, will not meet the customer expectations and should not be utilized.
This clarification of terms and their appropriate application appears inconsequential on the surface. But in reality a significant segment of an enterprise-wide quality improvement strategy can be created around these two diverse categories of products. Clearly the prioritization of quality improvement activities should differ considerably between defects and anomalies. It is particularly critical to ensure quality issues are properly segmented into these two groups for those organizations that have large-scale quality challenges to overcome. Without a precise understanding of this vital distinction, many production leaders can expend considerable time and resources improving acceptable but undesirable anomalies while truly defective products continue to be produced. This incorrect prioritization can often be bolstered by the customer, as customers frequently complain just as vehemently about anomalies as they do about true defects. This is when educating the customer may be in order!
Once a basic understanding of some common anomalies versus defects was widespread throughout the manufacturing facility, the next step was to ensure proper categorization by every employee for every issue or debate every single time. This next step would require a succinct, universal, repetitive message for all three shifts, across all production business units throughout the entire facility. Clearly verbal teaching and coaching one-on-one would no longer suffice. We had to ratchet up the pressure and the expectations as part of the turnaround strategy at this stage. The message had to be visual, exceptionally unambiguous, and very powerful with zero interpretation required. In other words, we now needed the red/green table.
Exactly what is a red/green table? It is precisely what the moniker states, a table with one half of the top (horizontal surface) painted red, and one half painted green, a simple solution, a commanding concept.
The table was to hold both categories of products and components, anomalies and defects as follows:
- The red side of the table would showcase products that were clearly defective and did not meet the requirements but had been passed forward beyond the process where the defect occurred. In some cases these products made it all the way to the dock, or even to the customer.
- The green side of the table would include products that were clearly acceptable but had been rejected either as scrap, or for repair/rework. Again these products could show up in the facility at many locations, and be rejected well after the process that created them.
The products would be identified from a variety of origins throughout the plant. Each product would have a tag wired to it that briefly explained the “issue”, where in the value stream it had been identified, explicitly where on the print/specification the precise condition appeared and why it was either acceptable or defective. The tags were custom ordered to include all required data for a thorough understanding of each and every product defect or anomaly. These tags also drove compliance to the process as every blank had to be populated prior to placement on the red/green table. When properly completed the data on the tags provided all necessary information for complete understanding to resolve the debate, and disposition the product properly.
Although the table was the cornerstone of this entire initiative, its success was completely dependent on a comprehensive infrastructure to both accelerate and optimize the results. The critical aspects to the entire anomaly/defect project included the following:
- Placing the table in a prominent, high traffic area in the manufacturing facility
- Identifying ownership of the table and the process – a senior quality engineer
- Training the staff, and the specific plant leader of every discipline regarding the process and their required support
- Changing the contents, the visual examples, on the table on a regular cadence
- The staff reviewing the table contents as a team every single time new products appeared
- Following the process exactly as defined, and continuing without interruption for an extended period of time
The whole staff was very supportive of this complete process and system. The table review was accomplished as an entire team immediately following the 10 minute plant staff stand-up meeting at the beginning of each day. This team approach and very visible review by the entire staff illustrated the importance of this initiative across the enterprise and was instrumental in the success of this project. In addition, maintaining the process, regardless of the number of other crises was also a vital element. In the early stages there were so many products that required discussion and communication that the contents of the table were changed every couple of days, and a substantial number of products were displayed every day. Even with this dedicated organization, and the exceptionally experienced workforce, the level of misunderstanding and misidentification was extreme and a significant wake up call to the staff, the table and its contents were filling this void.
Leading the quality organization at this facility was a challenging task, and many sleepless nights were spent developing new approaches and game-changing solutions. The red/green table and the process it supported were an overwhelming success and one that I look back fondly on even today. Many pieces of the process had to fall into place for the level of success we achieved, and it required a dedicated team that was willing to think beyond traditional solutions. The education of the workforce that resulted from this initiative cannot be measured, but not a day passed without significant discussions pertaining to something that appeared on the table. These discussions occurred throughout the facility, across shifts, and well beyond those four walls. Production associates gathered around the table every day on every shift to view the products that were placed there and learn more about the customer requirements. The table and its contents prompted new discussions with customers, clarification in much of the documentation, were used in training of new and experienced employees, and became a catalyst for improvements across the plant and for the turnaround that was taking place.
The lessons of the small red/green table are many. Some of the most important lessons many of us learned include:
- Even with the most experienced, most knowledgeable workforce, teaching/training must continue
- Sometimes a simple idea, implemented by a dedicated team can reap huge benefits
- Changing the culture is not instantaneous, repetition over a long period of time is required
- No documentation is as powerful as actual visual examples one can touch and hold
- Explaining the “why” is just as important as communicating the rules or requirements
- Root cause analysis is significantly easier with a multi-disciplinary team on the same page
- When the entire leadership team demonstrates interest, so will the entire production team
Again, the red/green table was not the panacea, but perhaps the hub supporting the many spokes in the wheel of improvement. It also brought the leadership team together to support a critical initiative, that although led by quality, required broad support and commitment when the team certainly had many other activities competing for their precious time and focus.
The red/green table solution does not appear in any Lean literature, is not part of the Six Sigma methodology and is not touted by the world renowned turnaround experts. Sometimes a simple approach with a powerful message to an entire organization can still be successfully utilized, even if it wasn’t invented by Toyota. So the next time you are looking for an innovative initiative, and you believe in a concept that could result in step-function improvement for your enterprise, give it a try, your results might far exceed the victorious outcome of the red/green table!
