I bet you all did the same...

Do We Even Need To Compile This Info?

Takde benda baru pun, masa saya kerja dulu ada satu term kitaorang selalu sebut "same old shit, different day". Tapi elok jugak kalau tak AB pulak takde kerja nanti. Kan?

In this posting, we'll share the top 3 mistakes related to each of the 10 Clauses that have been ranked as top-10 major NC.

Perkongsian dibawah adalah kisah benar dari pengalaman ngeri kami sebagai trainer and consultant selama 10 tahun sejak IATF 16949 wujud.

No 1 : Clause 10.2.3, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Korang sebenarnya bukan lah tak pandai, cuma saya rasa korang ni jenis merendah diri, suka buat-buat tak pandai... contohnya kalau ada satu product yang failed due to masalah "leaking" disebabkan operator lupa nak pasang o-ring. Dalam root cause tu nanti kita akan kata punca nya ialah "operator negligence" dan kita pun offer "retraining" as the corrective action. Then nak bagi nampak yang kita ni betul2 serius dan tak main2, masa meeting dgn client kita pun buat suara "deep" sikit pastu bgtau customer..."we have issued a warning letter to the operator". Kira "settled" dah lah root cause analysis kalau dah boleh bg jawapan mcm tu.

Soalan sebenar yg kena dijawab ialah "why did the operator missed to install the o-ring?"

Kalau kita buat a proper 5-Why, most likely the root cause bukan "operator negligence" but could be narrowed down to FMEA risk rating or Poka Yoke.

Satu lagi masalah ialah we noticed our participants were unable to proof their chosen corrective action is effective. In oiur class we keep on saying "Trend"... nak tunjuk effective atau tak kita kena tunjuk trend. If the issue is no longger in your pareto or has reduced significantly then you can claim your problem solving process is effective. So you need to collect data for a certain period of time or series of production run.

No 2 : Clause 10.2.1, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Pernah tak jumpa 5-Why analysis yang cuma ada 3-Why je?  Ini semua sebab tak sempat sampai why ke-5 tiba2 dah jumpa root cause. Terer betul korang kan...itu yang terus tukar nama jadi "Why-Why" analysis... instead of 5-Why Analysis :-)

The truth is not that you found the root cause but more likely you are jumping into the conclusion too fast.

Saya perasan korang buat kerja sama macam masa jawab soalan add maths SPM laaa. Every time we see question like "buktikan 2 dan 4 merupakan factor sepunya bagi..." ntah apa korang conteng kat exam paper tu tapi last-last sure ada ayat "terbukti"...kadang tu siap letak simbol "#" konon2 jalan kerja tu mmg terbukti, padahal ntah apa2. Engineer sekarang kalau buat 5-Why pun macam tu jugak... tau2 last sekali dapat jumpa root cause (Tak semua laaa engineer macam tu, ada yang memang betul2 hebat jugak)

For those who attended the 5-Why training or the 8D training surely aware of a method known as "Scientific Sequence" . Use this methof and you can't go wrong.

Remember the caravan that hit the petrol station roof in our 8D training? That example linked perfectly to the root cause, kan? Just utilise the Scientific Sequence correctly and you'll be able to push the analysis further. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to reach the 10th Why, and that’s usually where the real systemic root cause starts to show itself not just ‘operator forgot’ or ‘human error’.

No 3 : Clause 8.3.5.2, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Punca FMEA and CP ni tak allign ialah disebabkan kebanyakan FMEA dan CP ni korang dapat dari turun temurun. Senior2 korang yg sekarang dah pencen tu, zaman diorang dulu auditor tak reti sangat nak belek linkages ni semua, auditor skrg je rajin or maybe dah takde kerja sampai kadang tu naik lunyai CP tu diorang selak sbb nak cari linkages punya pasal.

Special Characteristic (SC) pun satu hal lagi, sampai ke harini still ada soalan "kalau dlm drawing takde SC nak buat macam mana?" eh kau ni... kalau tgk employment record masing2 lagi seminggu dah nak sambut 35 yrs anniversary kat kilang tu, tapi..... hmmm meh lah kita ramai2 pergi ke www.jobstreet.com, 99 speedmart pun mmg tgh cari cashier.

Problem pasal SC tidak flowdown ni bukan sekadar antara FMEA-CP aje, issue ni bersambung sekali sampai lah ke SOP/Work Instruction tau.

Bab lesson learn tak payah tanya dah laaa, jawapan tu nanti semuanya level2 goreng sampai berasap punya lah. Kalau mintak nak tgk compliance and consistency mmg out.

No 4 : Clause 7.1.5.1.1, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

To be very honest, during my first few years working as an engineer (nama kilang tak boleh sebut… bahaya), setiap kali orang start cerita pasal MSA, terus rasa IQ turun 20 mata. I felt really “dumb”. All I know was, I must get GRR <30% pastu NDC > 5. Kalau tak dapat? Adjust je data sampai dapat. Dulu2 auditor pun tak pandai sgt pasal ni, kita adjust data pun diorang tak tau.

The excel template given by our trainer back then was like our Oxygen, kalau excel tu corrupted or terdelete mmg sorang-sorang akan mati kelemasan .

But when I was in Freeport, Illinois for a product line transfer project, ada sorang mat saleh ajar MSA from a completely different angle. That’s when I realised something... MSA sebenarnya takde lah susah mana. The real problem wasn’t the subject itself. It was the stigma we had back then, and honestly, I think it still exists today. The moment people hear the word “statistics”, terus otak masuk defensive mode. Belum sempat tengok formula lagi, mental block dah datang dulu. Kita dah assume benda tu susah, jadi memang susah lah jadinya.

Jangan panic dgn formula tu semua. Although it looks complex, everything behind it can be explained in a way that anyone can understand. I really love teaching this course sebenarnya sbb I like to see my participant faces when they start to understand every single number in the MSA report.

No 5 : Clause 8.5.1.1, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Jujur je lah, kita semua tak de kisah pun pasal document yang bernama Control Plan ni. Ni kalau kita cakap mcm ni gang2 QA marah lah tu.

Kita biasanya akan update SOP dulu sbb kita akan train operator pakai SOP dan bukan CP, kalau rajin or teringat baru kita pergi update CP. Itu yg sudah nya CP vs practice akan ada mismatch especially bila lepas engineering or process change.

Pasal reaction plan tu AIAG dan VDA pun dah perasan mmg ada byk problem, sbb tu CP yg baru ni dah tak boleh buat reaction plan yg halai-balai. Kena detail-out apa action yang kena buat.

No 6 : Clause 6.1.2.3, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

6.1.2.3 ni mcm time bomb, siapa yang masih tak kantoi tu bukan sbb system korang dah robust tapi lebih kepada auditor tutup sebelah mata.

I would say that Clause 6.1.2.3 is not difficult to understand. However, the work required to demonstrate compliance is tedious, time-consuming, and can be quite draining.

If I ask you to show evidence that you have tested your containment action, I don't think you are at 100% ready.

Sebagai cth, meh tunjuk sikit macam mana korang test contingency plan utk banjir, terbakar, pekerja mogok takmo run production, ada tak?

Hah baruni Selat Hormuz tutup, supplies sangkut or delay...ada buat testing tak? meh share sikit kalu betul ada.

Tapi mmg ada tips and trick to be at 100% ready dan ada client AB yg mmg fully ready, tapi tak yah lah share nama kilang tu nanti jatuh riak plak diorang.

No 7 : Clause 8.5.1.5, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Sampai hari ni tak ramai yang aware that the only Clause that ask for or a documented system is Clause 8.5.1.5, betul tak?

Tapi menda apa documented system tu ek? OK itu dah panjang cerita dia. Hopefully I have time to make one entry related to it.

Cuba bagitau saya, macam mana korang set "minimum qty" for spare parts? Atau macam mana korang decide mana satu kena ada spare dan mana satu tak payah? I want to know what system in place that will guide you to do those?

Saya bukan tanya apa system yang ada utk re-order those parts, tapi sy nak tanya apa system yg diguna utk menentukan Part A kena ada 10 pcs as spare, Part B kena ada 15 pcs as spare and it has to be in a documented system. Ada tak?

Satu lagi yg saya terkejut ialah OEE is not a norm for your maintenance team and even if they have, it was merely just a data collection for OEE calculation without a real deep dive root cause analysis if the OEE target was not met.

Yang paling champion ialah everytime I ask "what does your CSR says when it comes to TPM"...100% of the time the answer given to me was just a "smelly clam" smile. Jap, adake ayat "smelly clam" smile dalam english? Kalau takde takpe, let me explain here, smelly clam tu maksudnya kerang busuk. Peribahasa utk describe muka yang tersengih-sengih bila dah kantoi.

No 8 : Clause 8.5.1, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

Ini clause ISO sebenarnya, tapi findings2 macam ni considered cikai je laaa. Nak close NC ni pun senang. Tak ikut instruction, tak follow SOP, document dah outdated. Ini mmg never ending story.

Personally, I don’t think this is a big deal. As long as humans are involved in doing the work, findings like this are bound to happen. But based on the rules for classifying NCs, the auditor still has to raise it as either a major or minor NC. So jgn panic terlebih.

Nak settle kan macam mana? Hmmmm, kita bukan mcm kedai mamak yang dah boleh replace kan mamak tu dgn robot utk hantar order, nak tak nak kita kena rely on human jugak dalam byk hal kat kilang tu, so korang layan aje laaa problem ni.

No 9 : Clause 8.5.1.5, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

This one, I really feel sorry for all my clients sbb kita mmg takde masa nak analyze the data that we collected for KPI monitoring, etc.

Mmg tak senang sebenarnya sbb tu I always mention in my class that it will very unfortunate kalau kita dapat auditor yg BUKAN dari background manufacturing. For example the SPC data, mmg lah kita collect data hari2 tapi manade masa nak analyse and use them for decision making. Kan???

Imagine auditor yg dari hala mana ntah pastu di groom untuk audit manufacturing plant based on IATF requirements. Dia bukan tau kita semua ni sebenarnya kerja mcm fireman dalam line, yang dia pulak masuk prod line pakai neck tie, audit 2-3 jam pastu tanya kenapa tak analyze itu ini... eh blah lah kau!!!.

Kita bukannya tak tau what action to be taken, dlm training mcm2 kita discuss cara2 nak analyse data2 SPC ni, siap guna Minitab lagi utk tunjuk cara2 nak analyze but the issue here is we just don't have time ye tak?, masa mana nak update story IG, masa mana nak adjust oning tudung, masa mana nak update resume, masa mana nak up status dalam LinkedIn utk bgtau orang ramai yang kita baru naik pangkat. So data2 SPC dan Yield performance tu pun terpaksa dibiarkan begitu sahaja.

No 10 : Clause 8.5.1.5, the top 3 mistakes you all made are...

This section not so much of an issue lah utk all my client but why IATF rank this in their top 10... maybe this were the data from zimbabwe, nicaragua, trinidad & tobago agaknya.

But in the beginning of IATF tahun 2017 tu mmg ada lah issue2 pasal first piece tu, tapi skrg dah settled rasanya.

Issue pasal set up approval tu mmg real, dulu QC saya ada jugak main sign aje padahal tak check pun. Tau2 dah approve. Bila kita tanya mcm mana dia verify reading temperature kat machine, terus buat muka "smelly clam"...ahhh tak kan nak explain balik apa tu smelly clam, pergi baca kat No 7 tadi tu.

OK dah habis bebel...

Alright, so for every clause in the IATF Top 10 Major NC list, what we’ve shared above are the Top 3 mistakes that we repeatedly see our clients making.

Tapi kalau korang tak buat apa yg kita tulis tu, That is GOOD, no doubt our client are mostly POWER2 especially yang join AB punya training. hahaha. Done claim!!!