The theory accepted by Company X is, increasing quality reduces rework, lessens the need for inspection and thus lowers cost. This represents one of the major reasons for continual improvement. No longer would Company X compare themself to a trade standard or their competition. Rather comparison would be made to the company’s previous best, with an eye to improvement. SPC would be used to verify results.
Company X had a great reputation for wheel balance. In fact, several other shops referred their problem clients to company X for this service. The process of balance was examined to see if it could be further improved. To help find non-value added (NVA) steps the process was plotted on a fishbone diagram as with alignment.
Prior to this, a vehicle was test driven, the wheels removed and balanced. They were then installed on the vehicle and it was test driven again. Occasionally vibration would still be detected and the process repeated. Clearly this was a NVA.
On the second inspection the wheel would be found to be out of balance. Though a series of PDSA experiments, iIt was learned that centering the wheel perfectly on the balancer was critical. A small bur in the center hole could throw balance off quite a bit. This is because the wheel was being balanced off center [due to the bur] and on the vehicle the lugs pulled the wheel back to center.
A simple procedure was devised. Balance the wheel, loosen the hold down and rotate the assembly 180' without moving the balance adaptor. Check balance again and note the difference. If the wheel were properly centered, rotating it on the adaptor would make no difference, it would repeat. If it were not, the problem was apparent and could be addressed. This avoided additional test drives and balancing.
Another PDSA revealed a prime reason for comebacks to be weights flying off a balanced wheel. Several styles and vendors of weights were tried. A gauge was fashioned to identify the wheel edge profile and designations assigned to each. In all, about 12 profiles were identified.
Weights were purchased to fit each profile. Next a modular cabinet was obtained to keep them separated, with drawers clearly marked to identify the contents. Damage to adaptors was also found to be a problem. This was solved with a dedicated storage drawer, lined with wood that was cut out to accommodate each adaptor.
The tire being balanced was also found to be a major factor. A square block might be balanced, but it will still not roll smoothly. Some tires are round, others are not. Some brands also have far fewer problems with out-of-round than others. The company made the decision to only sell the tire that consistently tested best. This lowered their overall cost and all but eliminated tire concerns.
After many PDSA cycles, balance time was reduced considerably and balance comebacks fell to a factor almost too low to measure. The rate charged per hour, for balance was increased but since the time required decreased, the cost to the client remained constant. Since the time required was far less, more service could be sold, thus increasing profit. This was largely enabled by the increase in quality which brought about a corresponding increase in referrals.
The total investment was earned back in a few months and the returns continue till this day. There was also an [at that time] unanticipated benefit, in the form of increased employee morale. It seems having to do rework is not only costly on a financial level, it tends to be a de-motivator to those forced to deal with it. Perhaps this was the greater gain. I will write much more on this topic in the future.
Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 7 Location: Gonzales, LA
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:42 am Post subject:
Hi Louis,
This is a great concept, but who has the time? It seems we don't have time because of all the confussion and we have all this confusion, because we haven't taken the time to prevent it.
About how much time would you suggest a person allocate per week? Thanks for all the great post, where do you find the time?
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:
Louis. Say that after filling out (creating) the fishbone chart, and out-of-round tires are charted out as causes of imbalance over a period of time and found to be a rather common occurance. Suppose an employee or vendor suggested a wheel balancer with an accessory (feature?) that actually physically measures for out-of-round. How would you (the business?) go about deciphering if the cost of the balancer, which ultimately would address the out-of-round issue and most likely lower its causing NVA steps, would be worth the investment? Or, being that is did efficiently find out-of-round tires/wheels would it become a necessity towards continual improvement? Thanks, Matt.
I think this could also be used on any piece of equipment. Especially if you advertise (state) that you repair said specific issues.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:15 am Post subject:
MattFMN wrote:
Louis. Say that after filling out (creating) the fishbone chart, and out-of-round tires are charted out as causes of imbalance over a period of time and found to be a rather common occurance. Suppose an employee or vendor suggested a wheel balancer with an accessory (feature?) that actually physically measures for out-of-round. How would you (the business?) go about deciphering if the cost of the balancer, which ultimately would address the out-of-round issue and most likely lower its causing NVA steps, would be worth the investment? Or, being that is did efficiently find out-of-round tires/wheels would it become a necessity towards continual improvement? Thanks, Matt.
I think this could also be used on any piece of equipment. Especially if you advertise (state) that you repair said specific issues.
Hi Matt,
Great question. I have done a good deal of research on out-of-round (OOR) tires. What I found was, tires do not get OOR, they are made that way. This is not to say they cannot be flat spotted, by sliding, chopped up by alignment or have belts separate in use, but these are separate items. These separate items are easily distinguishable to a trained eye, by inspection. Determining these conditions, on the vehicle and before attempting to balance the tire would be much better, in my opinion.
OOR is also easy to determine with simple tooling or even a visual inspection, on the vehicle. There are two primary situations I see that normally exist. A client may come in with an OOR tire, in which case finding it would be part of the diagnosis. In this situation a good tire(s) should be installed.
A second situation could be OOR tires are being installed by the company. In the second case such a piece of equipment might be seen as NVA, as it exist because of the out of round tires [actual problem.] Switching to a non-OOR tire would eliminate the need for this step?
I think such a machine is simply a tool that is used in inspection. The cost seems very steep in relation to the benefit, in my observation. I believe much simpler methods can be used to determine the problem upstream.
In a business with high turnover and minimally trained personnel there may be some benefit. This again might be seen as NVA as the reasons for the high turnover and low skill levels might be considered the actual problems?
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:24 am Post subject:
My intention wasn't just limited to OOR tires, or the tire machine, but the process used to determine if the machine would be a welcome addition or not. What would be tracked? How often the feature was used? How often the feature found the issue in a more timely manner than other methods? Tires and rims sold from wheel balance complaints vs. before the machine was used? All of these things? This could be any piece of equipment. For instance vehicle hoists that have controls on both sides, or information systems in them (such as lift points and tire pressures...maybe wheel torque specs, ect), or OE scan tools, or digital torque wrenches. I could go on and on. With the scan too, I think you elluded to tracking diagnostic time and if time was saved (also perhaps enforcing accuracy). Vehicle hoists could also have time tracked. How about the torque wrenches? Would you simply line one up against its mechanical counterpart and compare? If it was more accurate, or saved time from using as separate instrument for torque angle, would that be graphed? Are all these questions leading to: Use your imagination? I think I understand the principle of what the graphs are after, I think I'm just after reinforcement. Thanks Louis! Later, Matt.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject:
Hi Cecile,
Cecile wrote:
Hi Louis,
This is a great concept, but who has the time? It seems we don't have time because of all the confussion and we have all this confusion, because we haven't taken the time to prevent it.
About how much time would you suggest a person allocate per week? Thanks for all the great post, where do you find the time?
The time devoted to improvement has to be on an "as available" basis. Clearly, if there is no extra time, that is a reality of life, one can only do so much. The bad thing is, often not taking time for improvement, often results in even less future time available.
I dedicate one hour, every evening just for business improvement. After dinner, I go straight to it. Sometimes I finish in fifteen minutes, other times I may spend two hours. On average it amounts to about one hour every day. Thanks Cecile, I appreciate the reply.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject:
Hi Matt,
MattFMN wrote:
My intention wasn't just limited to OOR tires, or the tire machine, but the process used to determine if the machine would be a welcome addition or not. What would be tracked? How often the feature was used? How often the feature found the issue in a more timely manner than other methods? Tires and rims sold from wheel balance complaints vs. before the machine was used? All of these things?
I think it is important to try to measure what matters, that is, what is desired. There could be at least two possibilities that occur to me. One situation is if the machine can catch problems not currently being caught. If this were the case, the number of comebacks for such problems might be the pertinent measure.
Another scenario would be if problems are being caught by other methods, but a faster means is being sought. In this case, the time of diagnosis might be a better indicator.
There may be no right or wrong, just the measure that gives the information you most need. For instance, when purchase of the machine was considered, there was a theory, “This machine will . . . for us.” That would be the first thing to measure, does it meet the criteria for which the purchase is proposed.
MattFMN wrote:
This could be any piece of equipment. For instance vehicle hoists that have controls on both sides, or information systems in them (such as lift points and tire pressures...maybe wheel torque specs, ect), or OE scan tools, or digital torque wrenches. I could go on and on. With the scan too, I think you elluded to tracking diagnostic time and if time was saved (also perhaps enforcing accuracy).
I think the thing to measure is the thing looking to be achieved. If an increase in accuracy is being sought, that should be measured. If an increase in speed is being sought that would be the criteria. Of course there are also intangibles that are not easy [impossible?] to measure. Things like ease of use, more confidence in use, joy in use, etc. These too all have value, though measurement may be difficult. In such cases we must be guided by theory.
Another such case might be an increase in business after addition of a better piece of equipment. Difficult to directly relate but it could be related, as happy clients tend to refer others.
MattFMN wrote:
Vehicle hoists could also have time tracked. How about the torque wrenches? Would you simply line one up against its mechanical counterpart and compare? If it was more accurate, or saved time from using as separate instrument for torque angle, would that be graphed? Are all these questions leading to: Use your imagination? I think I understand the principle of what the graphs are after, I think I'm just after reinforcement. Thanks Louis! Later, Matt.
Any and all can be measured, though data may have to come from independent observation of the process [time/motion study?] more than the output data.
I always look for the “biggest bang for my buck.” Knowing my resources are limited, I prioritize improvement. Repetitive processes and/or high risk processes that effect the client get high priority. For instance, a bolt left loose is very high priority. Bolt tightening is very repetitive, happens over and again. The consequences of failure are very high risk and effect the client directly.
Once high risk problems are controlled I start concentrating on high volume problems. For example how long does it take to process a client at vehicle drop off. This happens over and again and directly affects the client. As resources allow, I try projects that make work more enjoyable, etc., although the side effect of many of the other processes may effect this as well.
I have a piece I wrote on prioritizing change. I will try to find it and post it under articles.
Thanks Matt, great questions! I appreciate the interest.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 30 Location: Bluefield, WV
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject:
Cecile wrote:
Hi Louis,
This is a great concept, but who has the time? It seems we don't have time because of all the confussion and we have all this confusion, because we haven't taken the time to prevent it.
About how much time would you suggest a person allocate per week? Thanks for all the great post, where do you find the time?
This is the same exact problem we have, not enough time because of all the problems and not enough time to solve the problems. Funny because when we're slow people go home, rather than sticking around to work on anything like this. Can't blame us, we're all on flat rate and we don't get paid for stuff like this.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
What would be tracked? How often the feature was used? How often the feature found the issue in a more timely manner than other methods? Tires and rims sold from wheel balance complaints vs. before the machine was used? All of these things? This could be any piece of equipment. For instance vehicle hoists that have controls on both sides, or information systems in them (such as lift points and tire pressures...maybe wheel torque specs, ect), or OE scan tools, or digital torque wrenches. I could go on and on. 