titlemaster_med Ishikawa fishbone diagram Ing.J.Skorkovský,CSc. Department of Corporate Economy ESF-MU Czech Republic Introduction (FBD= fishbone diagram) nFDB is a tool to find out relationships: n n n nUse in QM especially in automotive industry nOn of the tool set used to create so called 8D report (8 disciplines=FBD+5WHYs+PA+QM) nAnother tool : 5 WHYs – will be cleared later Another tool : PARETO=PA analysis will be shown later n n Effect Cause Fishbone diagram Dissatisfied worker Machines Management Mother Nature Men (Methods, Material, Manpower, Measurement, Machines, Mother Nature,Management) Training Salary Obsolete Dangerous Treacherous Incapable To hot Terrible cold Some chosen problems which could be find out during ERP support process I nlong response time to requirements nrequirement is directed to unsuitable consultant nbad documentation about service action (poor log) npeople ask repeatedly same questions at different moments and different consultants are asked nsolution of disputes :complaint- standard service npayment asked for supplied services 1.how much (to whom, type of task, type of the error- see diagram 2.starting time for invoiced services, response time 1.requirement is handed over till the problem is solved 2.time of starting solving -solved 3.start of implementaion of the bad object till end of testing 4.training 5. l nbad training methodology nbad consultants nbad communication protocol 1.telephone 2.e-mail 3.SKYPE nlack of interest of the management of both parties nright specification of reaction time nspecification to the error types and related response times l nresponse time of the distributor (ERP integrator ERP) n n 1. n Some chosen problems which could be find out during ERP support process II Diagram – response time handed over requirement find suitable resource (K1) K1 starts solving K1 solved K1 did not solved K1 handed over to distributor (D) D started work D solved the problem D ->K1 K1 handed over to customer RESPONSE TIME RESPONSE TIME II = active work = idle time Telephone call Fishbone diagram-support Dissatisfied customer Machines Management Mother Nature Men (Methods, Material, Manpower, Measurement, Machines) Phlegmatic person reacts later than expected Bad SW for support (HELP DESK) Bad communication Interest in golf only Incapable Consultant is on sick leave Consultant takes holiday Lower quality of the consultants heart of the problem Toy-Poodle-For-Sale Dissatisfied employee I Dissatisfied employee II 5WHYs nWHY 1 :Why my car had stopped ? nNo petrol in tank nWHY 2 :Why i did not have a petrol in my tank ? nI did not buy in the morning on my way to work WHY 3 :Why i did not buy a petrol ? nNo money in my pockets nWHY 4 : Why no money i my pockets? nEvening poker nWHY 5 : Why i did not win a poker game? nI do not know how to bluff! n 5WHYs w-you're-bluffing%20(2) no%2520petrol Cause Effect TQM and Ishikawa FBD and Pareto Reject type (effects); Reason 1 (cause) Reason 2 (cause) Reason 3 (cause) Reason 4 (cause) L19 8 9 2 4 L20 0 1 4 6 L21 7 2 3 5 Manual for urgent reject cause elimination (to establish correct priority of remedy actions) Score Inventory Suppliers Machines Measurement Every reject type ->one Ishikawa diagram (electronic version) Evaluation of set of rejects nEvery reject is assigned to one Ishikawa tree nEvery tree with empty table is handed over to chosen company of responsible experts nAll tables are collected and evaluated nSee example with two rejects and two experts 1. l Domain Machines Input control Setup Routing Method Breakdowns Workers Measurment Reject code L1 3,5 9 6,5 2 2,5 6 3 1,5 L2 9,5 2,5 2 5,5 6 8 3,5 2,5 Expert Reject John L1 3 8 9 3 2 7 2 1 Linda L1 4 10 4 1 3 5 4 2 Expert Reject John L2 9 3 3 5 7 8 4 3 Linda L2 10 2 1 6 5 8 3 2 Pareto chart : possibility to split up reject and setup priorities Lorenz curve High priorities Pareto analysis per every type of reject – next step ->practical example of Pareto use in ERP MS Dynamics NAV 15 Type of reject Cause 1 Cause 2 Cause 3 Cause 4 Cause 5 Cause 6 Total L1 7 2 4 1 8 0 22 L2 2 4 6 8 0 9 29 L3 4 0 0 5 6 7 22 L4 5 7 2 0 1 3 18 L5 0 2 7 3 0 1 13 L6 9 7 5 2 3 6 32 L7 0 7 0 2 3 4 16 L8 1 8 6 2 4 0 21 L9 2 0 5 7 1 4 19 L10 7 2 8 9 7 5 38 C C5 % C1 % C3 % C2 % C4 % C6% L1 31,82 9,09 18,18 4,54 36,36 0,00 100 Lorenz curve 68,18 95,45 86,36 100,00 36,36 Higher priorities for reject type L1 36,36 36,36 + 31,82=68,18 Firstly, it is necessary to correct causes of C5 a C1 !!! 68,18+18,18 = 86,36 86,36 + 9,09 =95,45 C4: 95,45 + 4,54=100 Pareto analysis II Pareto analysis II - data nDifficulty nResignation nUnderestimation nLow motivation n6 - (35,29 )- (35,29) n5 - ( 29,41 )- (64,71) n4 - ( 23,53 )- (88,24) n2 - ( 11,76 )- (100,00) n Frequency Freq (%) Freq accum(%) Pareto analysis II Current Reality Tree and Ishikava (Pareto) Cost Worlds Tendency No investment in software Inefficient communication tool (SW) Late assignment of tasks to resources No workflow software (method and tool) Overburdened resources Bad multitasking Outdated project management method (SW) Tasks are delayed Project is late and overspend budget 4 3 2 1 9 8 6 7 10 11 Customer is unhappy 12 SW=software 1 = Management 2 = Methodology 3 = Men 4 = Machine (SW) 12 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 7 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 7 John 8 7 4 3 5 6 Caroline 9 5 7 8 5 6 Mean 8,5 6 5,5 5,5 5 6 Vilfredo Pareto.jpg Vilfredo Pareto in person…