Learning New Concept: Problem-Solving Method / Culture Shift
Learning New Concept: Culture Shift
Introduction the Concepts to Large Teams - Problem-Solving Methodologies
This article explores the gap between the corporate intent to instill a Problem-Solving method within the engineering team and the actual adoption of this new approach by the team members. Generally, while the goal is to minimize product defects and reduce warranty claims, the challenge lies in fostering a cultural shift. Therefore, this shift involves not only teaching the problem-solving method but also ensuring its consistent practice and facilitation by the team.
Overall, in corporate culture, training and re-training are routine practices. Initially, corporate leadership often decides to adopt specific knowledge sets for employees to use in their daily activities. Sequentially, these classes, developed and facilitated throughout the year, aim to equip the engineering community with problem-solving tools. Furthermore, these methods, taught for generations, are intended to instill cultural behaviors that help teams proactively address product development issues before they arise, potentially saving resources in the long run.
Consequently, based on extensive experience with various methods, classes, projects, and general facilitation, several key insights emerge:
- Intent vs. Delivery: There is often a disconnect between the intended purpose of the Problem-Solving methodology and the presenter’s ability to effectively deliver it
- Leadership Misunderstanding: Leadership may misunderstand the practical application of the presented method, leading to a gap between intended and actual use
- Skewed Adoption: The knowledge imparted during training often doesn’t translate into effective practice among team members, as evidenced by the lack of positive long-term results and frequent shifts to new methods
- Misconception of Methods: There is a persistent misconception about what the actual method is, its purpose, and how to apply it to new problems. As a result, complex methods are often avoided and not effectively facilitated by team members, contrary to leadership’s intentions
General Group Behavior – Understanding and Utilization of Concepts (Psychology of Group Behavior)
Furthermore, in the context of introducing Problem-Solving methods, there are two main groups: instructors, representing management and leadership, and “students,” the workforce tasked with applying the material. Moreover, the training typically focuses on two elements: the intent behind the method and the tools for daily practice. However, several key issues arise:
- Focus on Tools Over Philosophy: Training often emphasizes tools and examples rather than the underlying philosophy. This approach leaves students well-versed in specific tools but less prepared for atypical problems
- Boxed Thinking: Students may become reliant on tools rather than developing a deep understanding of the problem. This leads to a process-focused approach rather than encouraging comprehensive, out-of-the-box thinking
- Outcome-Oriented Judgments: Instructors and managers often prioritize the demonstration of tools and their outputs over a thorough analysis of the problem. This focus can stifle innovative problem-solving
- Cyclical Method Adoption: The organization may continually seek new methods without seeing a long-term reduction in issues or defects, as the workforce remains confined by the complexities of each new process rather than truly understanding and addressing the root causes
Ultimately, this cycle of adopting new methods without addressing fundamental issues can limit the effectiveness of problem-solving initiatives.
Examples of “Knowledge” Sets - Problem-Solving Method (GM before 2000)
Sometimes, before the end of 2000, General Motors mandated a comprehensive 5-day, 8-hour-per-day training program for the product development engineering staff. Therefore, this rigorous training aimed to teach a specific problem-solving method to address typical issues encountered in Release Engineering. However, by the time I took the class, the method had already become outdated due to the introduction of the Red X training, which was also mandated.
Consequently, the original training covered the necessary steps to resolve common problems and included associated metrics and software tools. However, it was eventually phased out along with these resources. Reflecting on it now, the problem-solving method taught was “okay” for its time, but it quickly became irrelevant as newer approaches were introduced. Hence, the shift away from this method highlights how rapidly Problem-Solving techniques can evolve in the automotive industry.
Examples of “Knowledge” Sets - Red X
Originally, the Red X method is a specialized Problem-Solving approach widely adopted in the automotive industry, particularly known for its effectiveness in identifying and eliminating root causes of complex issues. Developed by Dr. Dorian Shainin, the Red X methodology focuses on pinpointing the “Red X,” the most significant factor contributing to a problem, through a structured, data-driven analysis.
Furthermore, in the context of the automotive industry, the Red X training is designed to equip engineers with the skills necessary to tackle challenging quality and reliability issues that can arise during vehicle development and production. Moreover, the training typically involves rigorous instruction in statistical tools and techniques, such as Design of Experiments (DOE), which are crucial for isolating variables and determining their impact on product performance.
Therefore, the intended application of the Red X method within the automotive sector is to streamline the problem-solving process, reducing the time and resources spent on identifying issues. By focusing on the most critical causes of defects or performance problems, engineers can develop targeted solutions that not only address immediate concerns but also prevent recurrence. Consequently, this approach is particularly valuable in a highly competitive industry where quality and reliability are paramount, and even minor issues can lead to significant warranty costs or brand damage.
Furthermore, Red X training intended to foster a culture of continuous improvement within engineering teams, encouraging a proactive stance toward Problem-Solving. Additionally, by embedding this methodology into the engineering workflow, automotive companies can enhance their ability to quickly respond to and resolve issues, ultimately leading to more robust and reliable vehicles. Finally, the emphasis on data-driven decision-making and root cause analysis ensures that solutions are based on solid evidence, improving the overall quality and safety of the products developed.
Red X Training - Intent vs. Reality
While the intent of Red X training is to equip automotive engineers with advanced Problem-Solving skills, the reality often diverged from this goal. In practice, Red X is most applicable to manufacturing processes rather than design development. This discrepancy arises because the method’s strength lies in its ability to analyze data from stable, repetitive processes, which are more typical of manufacturing environments.
Fundamentally, in the design development phase, the variability and complexity of factors can make it challenging to isolate the “Red X” effectively. Hence, trained personnel become overly focused on data gathering and processing, sometimes overlooking the relevance of the data population to the specific problem at hand. Moreover, this tool-oriented approach can inadvertently shift attention away from a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of issues.
As a result, the Problem-Solving efforts become bogged down in the minutiae of data analysis, without achieving meaningful insights into the underlying causes. Consequently, the reliance on tools and processes can overshadow the need for critical thinking and a holistic view of the problem. Therefore, this gap between the intended application of Red X training and its practical use highlights the importance of aligning Problem-Solving methods with the appropriate stage of the product lifecycle in the automotive industry.
Examples of “Knowledge” Sets - DFSS
The DFSS (Design for Six Sigma) method is a systematic, data-driven approach designed to improve the quality of product design processes. Widely used in the automotive industry, DFSS focuses on preventing defects and optimizing design performance by integrating Six Sigma principles into the early stages of product development. Overall, this Problem-Solving methodology is particularly valuable in the automotive sector, where high standards of quality and reliability are critical.
Furthermore, DFSS training equips engineers with a set of tools and techniques aimed at identifying and addressing potential issues before they become costly problems. Consequently, the core components of DFSS include Voice of the Customer (VoC), Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and robust statistical analysis. These tools help ensure that customer requirements are accurately translated into design specifications, and potential failure modes are identified and mitigated early in the development process.
Moreover, the intended application of DFSS in the automotive industry is to streamline the design process, reduce variability, and enhance product performance. In addition, by focusing on defect prevention rather than detection, DFSS helps automotive companies minimize the risks associated with new product launches and reduce the time and costs involved in bringing new vehicles to market. Therefore, this proactive approach to Problem-Solving ensures that designs are robust, reliable, and meet customer expectations.
In addition, DFSS fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovation within engineering teams. It encourages a deep understanding of the interplay between design variables and their impact on product performance, allowing for more informed decision-making. Finally, by embedding DFSS principles into the design process, automotive companies can achieve higher levels of quality and customer satisfaction, ultimately leading to more successful products in the market.
DFSS - Intent vs. Reality
While the intent of DFSS training is to embed robust Problem-Solving techniques into the automotive design process, the reality often falls short of this ideal. Generally, the complexity and rigorous demands of DFSS can lead to simplifications or even avoidance by the personnel involved. Consequently, trained engineers, focusing heavily on the prescribed steps and tools, may overlook the nuances of their application. Moreover, this rigid adherence can result in the use of inappropriate tools for specific problems, diluting the effectiveness of the Problem-Solving efforts.
In addition., the emphasis on tools and processes sometimes detracts from a deep understanding of the root causes of issues. Consequently, engineers may become more focused on completing DFSS checklists and templates rather than genuinely exploring the underlying problems. Moreover, this can lead to a surface-level treatment of issues, where the appearance of thorough analysis is achieved without truly addressing the fundamental design challenges.
As a result, the real-world application of DFSS often deviates from its intended purpose, with the Problem-Solving process becoming more about following procedures than innovatively solving problems. Finally, this gap highlights the need for a more flexible and critical approach to DFSS, where engineers are encouraged to adapt tools to fit the specific context of the problem, ensuring that the core principles of defect prevention and customer-focused design are not lost.
Conclusion: Culture Shift – Missing the Point – Intent vs. Reality
In conclusion, the introduction of Problem-Solving methodologies like DFSS and Red X in the automotive industry aims to foster a culture of intelligent, data-driven decision-making.
However, the reality often diverges from this intent. While these methods are designed to encourage a direct and proactive approach to identifying and resolving issues, their implementation frequently becomes entangled in rigid processes and an overemphasis on tools. Consequently, the “process will lead you” mentality shifts the focus away from the critical thinking and comprehensive understanding necessary for effective Problem-Solving.
As engineering teams become more preoccupied with adhering to specific procedures and using designated tools, they can lose sight of the primary goal: to understand and address the root causes of problems. Moreover, this approach can lead to a superficial treatment of issues, where the completion of process steps is mistaken for actual problem resolution. Consequently, the real potential of these methodologies—to preemptively tackle design and production challenges—is often not fully realized.
Over time, the complexity and perceived inflexibility of these Problem-Solving methods can lead to their avoidance. Therefore, teams may become discouraged by the cumbersome nature of the processes and the disconnect between the tools and the actual problems they face. This dissatisfaction often results in a shift toward seeking alternative methods, perpetuating a cycle of continuous learning without substantive progress. Hence, the organization invests time and resources in mastering new methodologies, only to repeat the cycle when the next method is introduced.
Vicious Cycle
This constant cycle of adopting and abandoning problem-solving methods creates a significant amount of waste, both in terms of resources and lost opportunities for real improvement. For a more effective adoption of these methodologies, there needs to be a shift towards a more flexible, problem-centric approach. Engineers should be encouraged to use these tools as guides rather than strict frameworks, fostering an environment where the focus remains on truly understanding and solving the underlying issues.
References:
- Red X – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_Shainin
- DFSS – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_Six_Sigma
- Step Function – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_function
- Engineering Change Request – https://georgedallen.com/engineering-change-requests-ecr-new-best-practices/
- Theory of Change – https://georgedallen.com/theory-of-engineering-change-in-new-product-development/
- Explain the Concept Clearly – https://www.useloops.com/blog/how-to-explain-a-concept-clearly-and-concisely
About George D. Allen Consulting:
George D. Allen Consulting is a pioneering force in driving engineering excellence and innovation within the automotive industry. Led by George D. Allen, a seasoned engineering specialist with an illustrious background in occupant safety and systems development, the company is committed to revolutionizing engineering practices for businesses on the cusp of automotive technology. With a proven track record, tailored solutions, and an unwavering commitment to staying ahead of industry trends, George D. Allen Consulting partners with organizations to create a safer, smarter, and more innovative future. For more information, visit www.GeorgeDAllen.com.
Contact:
Website: www.GeorgeDAllen.com
Email: inquiry@GeorgeDAllen.com
Phone: 248-509-4188
Unlock your engineering potential today. Connect with us for a consultation.
