Reaction to a Process Gone Wrong

An assignable cause, being another term used for a special cause, refers to an identifiable factor that causes unprecedented variation in a process. Hence, it alters the quality of the final product. This cause is unusual and not previously observed, therefore, cannot be expected to be recurrent. I would try to explain to the president that the cause of defect in the die-casting was not in the normal process, but in an unpredicted variation in the process, hence changing the process would not solve the problem. I would suggest the use of process thinking to figure out where the defect occurred in the process in order to rectify it. I would explain to the president the positive trend in previous years due to the consistency in the process used and make him understand the findings by the auditor, which indicate that the variance in the productions is due to an unprecedented variance in the process over the past few productions.

Process thinking is relevant and necessary to a manager as it uses tools that aid in determining what processes the company uses and how the processes work. It helps determine what problems exist in the company and the causes of these problems and what effect they have on the company. Therefore, it aids in the smooth and controlled running of the company affairs and processes as all the parts making up a process are well understood. Process thinking involves the use of different tools such as use of Pareto charts, cause and effects analysis, check sheets, histograms, use of scatter diagrams, use of run charts and control charts and failure mode effect analysis also known as the variance effect analysis (Goetsch and Davis, 2010). I would explain the necessity of process thinking to the president and the tools it contains and with the help of histograms. I would explain the previous trend of the product to the president showing the attributes in the product during the time of its robust sales and the time the defects began being noticed, had not changed. As stated by the auditor, the defects were those that were visual hence, they were variable aspects of the product. This indicates that they were brought about by a variation in the process, as they are not attributes that were intended during the creation of the specific product.

On his decision to change the process, I would try to convince him the reason as to why that would be an adverse decision. Initially, the products were doing well in the market and had no defects. However, the manufacturing process used then was still the one currently used, therefore, indicating that the defects occurring must have been caused at a certain point where an unexpected and unknown alteration had occurred in the production process. This alteration is what was important and should be discovered and rectified. With the aid of a histogram, I would explain how the product faired over the years as this would clearly show how it prospered and the period where it started failing. It is at this point that the alteration must have occurred; hence, I would recommend the use of the different process thinking tools in identification of the cause. Since it is an alteration only discovered in recent years, I would help him understand that it is not as frequent and by discovering the error points in the process the problem was soluble without changing the process.

On convincing the president why the process of production should not be changed, I would focus on two process-thinking methods that I find most beneficial in rectifying the alterations in the production process. The first method I would apply in the discovery of the problem would be the cause and effect analysis or the Ishikawa diagram. This sorts problems caused by collection and analysis of data during the management cycle in a process and grouping them according to their relation. This process is effective in determining the cause of a problem by grouping of data involved in the process into major related groups where the other subsidiary data can be attributed (Goetsch and Davis, 2010). The greatest possible causes are determined and the minor causes related to a specific main cause traced to it. This process is carried through until a final significant cause is determined. On the determination of the possible causes of the defect, another process-thinking tool comes into play. The other process-thinking tool I would apply would be the Pareto charts to divide the error-causing agents in terms of their magnitude and the impact they have on the defect in the product. The identified causes are categorized in terms of their impact on the final product with those having the highest impact in causing the defect being identified. This would lead to prioritization of rectification actions with those alterations having the greatest effect on the process being dealt with first in a process until all errors are rectified (Goetsch and Davis, 2010). This would lead to a systematic and effective rectification process that would reduce waste of resources on formulation of a new process while at the same time leading to the development of a process that is free of errors.

References

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2010). Quality Management for Organizational Excellence: Introduction to Total Quality, Sixth Edition. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2010 by Pearson Education, Inc.