International Journal of Engineering Business Management
ARTICLE
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Processes through Employee Motivation and Involvement Regular Paper
Andrea Chlpeková1, Pavel Večeřa1 and Yulia Šurinová1* 1 Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Faculty of Materials Science and Technology in Trnava, Institute of Safety, Environment and Quality, Trnava, Slovak Republic * Corresponding author(s) E-mail:
[email protected] Received 23 April 2014; Accepted 6 October 2014 DOI: 10.5772/59431 © 2014 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract The 8D method is a complex tool for solving problems of significant scale which are hard for individuals to solve and involve solutions which require extra resources. However, several problems have been detected in the method of 8D’s usage in modern organizations. The main aim of this paper is to define critical factors which lead to the demotivation of problem-solving teams. The primary aim of this research is to empirically investi‐ gate the current state of the usage of 8D in Slovak enter‐ prises, including the context of employees’ motivation and involvement; to identify opportunities for improvement of the implementation of 8D by increasing the involvement and motivation of problem-solving teams as well as the proper usage of the methodology. Questionnaires were issued to industrial enterprises operating in Slovakia. Data from the research were used to propose ways for industrial enterprises to increase their 8D effectiveness by setting the right performance indicators and the way to integrate these indicators into the motivation system. The question to be answered is how to effectively use the intellectual capital of problem-solving teams and increase employees’ satis‐ faction in the broader context of the improvement of the effectiveness of problem-solving methodology.
Keywords 8D method, problem-solving team, motivation, involvement, performance indexes
1. Introduction There is no doubt that problem-solving is one of the key aspects by which efficiency critically influences customer satisfaction and loyalty. Actually, modern business use different methods for problem-solving, the usage of which lead to effective problem-solving process management and the elimination of problems in the future. A structured method of problem-solving helps in communication with customer and supports the development of partnership between the customer and supplier. In automotive supply‐ ing companies based on the ISO/TS 16949:2009 require‐ ments, organizations shall have a defined process for problemsolving leading to root cause identification and elimination. It is up to the organization as to which method to use. However, if a customer-prescribed problem-solving format exists, the organization shall use the prescribed format, which is usually described in the company’s CSR (Customer Specific Requirements) document. Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2014, 6:31 | doi: 10.5772/59431
1
To effectively solve problems at the customer’s site, organizations usually use the 8D method. Although the 8D method was designed as a complex problem-solving tool, currently it is more commonly used as a tool for handling complaints in the automotive industry. The commerciali‐ zation of the 8D has meant that 8D reports are often required by customers in case of random defects, where the root cause is difficult to identify. On the other hand, there are organizations that do not directly support the 8D teams and do not motivate them in searching for the root cause. Despite the fact that the 8th step of the 8D is the “recognition of the team and individuals”, few organizations pay sufficient attention to this step. Industrial enterprises sometimes rename, or even exclude the final step of the 8D report. The paper seeks to analyse how deeply Slovak organiza‐ tions implement the 8D methodology and explores wheth‐ er the way the methodology is used as well as human factors influence the 8D process efficiency. Building on prior literature and survey results, supported by the authors’ practical experiences, we attempt to study the main threats and misuses of the methodology which lead to 8D process efficiency reduction. Based on the survey results, the performance indexes which have to be followed in the 8D process will be proposed as a fundamental factor for sustainable and successful implementation of the 8D process. This is a survey-based study which is intended to be a useful reference for scholars and managers and interested in quality management systems and improve‐ ment techniques, particularly organizations operating in the automotive industry. 2. Literature review The 8D (also called G8D, Global 8D, TOPS 8D) is one of the most widely used problem-solving tools related to non‐ conformities reoccurrence prevention in the manufactur‐ ing process, commonly used for complaints management in automotive production. The 8D methodology (G8D) was developed as a complex tool of continuous improvement. In fact, 8D is a tool for solving comprehensive problems of significant scale, i.e., problems, the resolution of which is generally not within the power of individuals, or the solution of which requires more time and possibly more investment. By contrast, it is currently most commonly used as a tool for handling complaints in the automotive industry, and not just the automotive industry. Since claims management often rests on completing the 8D report without using sufficient data processing tools for decision making and the implementation of corrective actions, the 8D methodology often appears not to be a sufficient tool for problem-solving. In general though, the 8D is considered as a highly effective tool for searching for the root causes of nonconformities and for the implementation of corrective actions. The reason why this method has received respect and is recognized by the world’s best vehicle makers is the fact that it conducts a thorough study of the system 2
Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2014, 6:31 | doi: 10.5772/59431
in which the nonconformity occurred to prevent the reoccurrence of similar events in the future. The original 8D process was pioneered by Ford Motor Company and called TOPS (Team Oriented Problem Solving). The process is documented on a form with attachments; however, following the form does not complete the 8D process and will not yield the desired results (Šurinová, 2008). The 8D-method has its historical roots in the quality standard MIL-STD 1520 “Corrective Action and Disposition System for Nonconforming Material”, issued by the US military. Introduced in 1974, it describes a cost efficient plan of action to handle and dispose of non-conforming materials. The processes and the handling of information between the parties involved have been described. The main goal was the identification of errors, the root cause analysis, the limitation of waste, the prevention of fault reoccurrence, cost reduction in production and a general increase in quality. This guideline was used by all US military suppliers until 1995 (Berk, 2000). Based on this, the Ford Motor Company developed team oriented problem-solving (TOPS – Teams Oriented Problem Solving) also called TOPS 8D. Later the VDA published its own version for the OEMs and suppliers of the automotive industry in Germany. It is now in common use for processing customer complaints (Edler, 2001). The automotive industry with its high level of network produc‐ tion has shown a high need to exchange quality information throughout the entire product life cycle (Kelkar, 2004), includ‐ ing the service phase. That is why it is important to use effective problem-solving methods not only in complaints management, but also in internal nonconformities han‐ dling. There is no doubt that the 8D methodology is a very pandemic tool which can be widely used not only for complaints management, it can be generally treated as a methodology for dealing with the reoccurrence of noncon‐ formities. 8D uses composite problem-solving methodolo‐ gy, by taking into account tools and techniques from various approaches based on the PDCA (Plan – Do – Check – Act) cycle – fig.2. In fact, the 8D method is a standardized procedure for complaints handling and the related implementation of corrective actions. However, fresh research shows that in most companies the connection of the complaint management to the other business processes of the company by information technology and organization along with the assessment of the importance of high quality in complaint management are still a problem (Behrens, 2007). The complaint will always represent the kind of information that is annoying to customers. Working systematically with complaints has a positive value for the company (Paulová, 2010). For organizations, not efficiently using the 8D would mean spending resources on analysis without an effective means to implement results, and a continuous failure to improve processes. Based on practical experience we can now state that the 8D report creation for complex problems has to be backed up by extensive studies and experiments have to be conducted in order to understand the root causes. Searching for root
causes can take weeks. That is why Rambaud (2006) states that 8D reporting can be time consuming and difficult to develop and that in order to successfully implement the 8D methodology the persons involved should receive an appropriate training.
Spending a lot of time and other resources on one kind of reporting is not effective. Thus, it is crucial to use the 8D method as a complex tool for highly urgent and highly important problems.
Size of the enterprise
Business area of the organization 3% 2%
Automotive
dustry in Germany. It is now in common use for processing customer complaints (Edler,8% industry 18% 01). Machinery industry
49%
Large enterprises (more than 250 employees) Medium sized
53%production has shown a high need to he automotive industry with its high level of network 43% enterprises (50 to 24% throughout the entire product change quality information life cycle (Kelkar, 2004), Electrotechnical 249 employees) cluding the service phase. That is why it is important toindustry use effective problem-solving Small enteprises ethods not only in complaints management, but also in internal nonconformities handling. Chemical industry (less than 250 here is no doubt that the 8D methodology is a very pandemic tool which can be widely used employees) t only for complaints management, it can be generally treated as a methodology for dealing th the reoccurrence of nonconformities. 8D uses composite problem-solving methodology, Figure 1. Respondents structure: size of the enterprise (left) and business area of the enterprise (right) taking into account tools and techniques from various approaches based on the PDCA Fig. 1 Respondents structure: size of the enterprise (left) and business area of the enterprise lan – Do – Check – Act) cycle – fig.2.
(right)
As a whole, the 8D methodology was never intended to replace a systemic quality system (Riesenberger, 2010). However, due to Having structured the gathered information, the organized analysisand wassystematic carriedproblems, out. Theandevaluation of complaints registers, the results of the survey was conducted using MS Excel. To draw conclusions, the synthesis which resulted from the careful examination of product failure, it Problem method was useddefinition to create a standardized 8Disimplementation methodology focusing on possible to create a huge base of information that consistently commonCongatulate mistakes in the Team 8D implementation defined in 2008 and (Šalgovičová, verified by 2006). the broad increases product reliability The objective the team Establishing 8D is to face the problems and discover the weaknesses in the research conducted in 2013; additionally, the teamof motivation aspect is outlined. management systems that permitted the problem to occur in the The presented paper is an empirical study, informed by(Rambraud, the literature. Interim first place 2006). The general rules of Preventive
8D
Containment obtaining Actionsnew data as well as the methods of data processing are used. Spread sheets and Actions To make the 8D process efficient, constant communication, word expression interpretation were used as complementary methods.
as well as the application of a continuous improvement
PCA programme needed. (2013) believes that while Building on prior literature, research results and not the isleast the Barrett corresponding author’s Root Cause implementat. Analysis many companies may seek to expand, they may focus on profits and validation practical experience with the improvement of the 8D methodology, we attempt to identify the Permanant Corrective or their immediate reward. However, they also need to consider possibilities of using the 8D method, and to state the main advantages and disadvantages of Acions (PCA) the value of their employees and what they can bring to the table, using this method in industrial enterprises.
gure2: 8D methodology steps (own and processing) 4. Analysis interpretation Figure 2. methodology steps (own processing)
as well as show that the employer can help the employees to develop to their highest extent. Employees’ intellectual capital is a key factor in meeting the 8D process’ basic objectives which must be dealing with the reoccurrence of defects and the prevention of customer satisfaction.
Building on prior literature, OEMs customer-specific requirements and customers’ B2B
For instance, al. in their study fact, the 8DThe method is a standardized procedure for complaints and the Helena commercialization of the studyingthe 8D method has meant that often 8Dhandling portals,and also authors’ practical experience, we Stantos-Rodrigues can state that et complaints (2013) found that employee motivation and organization latedimplementation ofarecorrective actions. However, fresh research shows that in most reports required from suppliers in case of random errors, management in automotive production is usually carried are outimportant using the 8D method. Designed initiatives to innovative initiatives, and also to the mpanies the connection of the complaint management to the othereffects business where the root cause is difficult to identify and random in processes of the by technology Ford, the 8Dorganization has become thewith most commonly used tool for effective complaints mpany by information and along the assessment of the ease of delivery and the exchange of ideas and knowledge. It is the process cannot be removed (Śurinová, 2008). On the other management, verified andare validated by the top vehicle makersinformation of the world. However, our start portance of high quality in complaint management still a problem (Behrens, 2007). The highly important as the 8D process may hand, there are organizations that do not directly support mplaint will alwaysstudy’s represent the kind of that information that of is 8D annoying results show the usage is nottothe ascustomers. effective it could be.concrete This argument is area. innovationas process for the problematic the involved 8D teams and do not motivate them in finding orking systematicallyconsequent with complaints hasthe a positive value for the company (Paulová, 2010).for theOur The problem OEMs is to determine which competence they with evidence from the results of the research. findings show that 29% of the actual root cause. On the contrary, in many organiza‐ ororganizations, not efficientlyusing the 8D should would strengthen internally and which is dependent on a their 8D process to be 20%-60% efficient. On the other hand, only 8% tions respondents as an indicatorconsider of the 8D process performance claims eanspendingresourcesonanalysiswithoutan effective means to implement results, and relationship a partnership with a supplier (Brandes, 2013). of thetime respondents consider their process is considered (time from the8D receipt of the to be 100% efficient. These facts may be a result ntinuousfailureprocessing to improve processes. complaint the sending the final versionused of thefor 8D)claims or of theto fact that theof8D is usually management and have is nottotreated a principal Thus, organizations seek theas effective formula for
ased on practical we where can now that the 8D report creation for complex the experience cost perofclaim, thestate cost is influenced by theargument cost part theextensive improvement strategy. This is consequent with survey results.system The can motivating Anthe effective motivation oblems has to be backed up by studies and experiments have to be conducted in8D teams. of thesurvey implementation of corrective actions. However, the combine the interests of employees with business confirmed that organizations most widely use the 8D for claims management (42% ofobjec‐ der to understand the root causes. Searching for root causes can take weeks. That is why results do not follow the process itself towards the preven‐ tives while at staff meetings, which would achieve personal respondents), only 23% of the respondents stated that the organization uses the 8D as ambaud (2006) states that 8D reporting can be time consuming and difficult to develop and of similarimplement nonconformities in the future and the real involved satisfaction. at in order to tion successfully thethe 8Dreoccurrence methodology the persons should According to Nenadál (2011) money is a very a complex tool for of nonconformities. impact of the measures on the rate of defects.
expensive form of the reward. Let the organization invest in cash
Basically, the main principle of the 8D methodology that it helps easily and rewardsishow much it wantstopeople to get usedaccurately to quickly. Trying 3 identify the root cause and thereafter set an efficient permanent corrective action, so that the Andrea Chlpeková, Večeřa and Yulia Šurinová: occurrence of the problem is eliminated. The correct implementation of 8DPavel involves the root Enhancing the Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Processes through Employee Motivation and cause being correctly stated and the corrective actions being efficient from the point of view Involvement of costs, time, influence on the final customer and the organization itself.
3
to motivate employees through rewards only leads to the need to spend more and more money to still achieve the same incentive effect. Concluding on all of the above, it can be stated that the advantage of the 8D method is its flexibility, allowing it be adapted to different situations and circumstances. This means that it can be used for investigating local problems in their own workflow, or multi-disciplinary teams investigating more complex issues that cross functional and departmental boundaries. It can be assumed that the efficiency of the 8D process is dependent on the problemsolving team’s performance, and the motivation of teams and individuals is a way of increasing the 8D process efficiency. 3. Research methodology The subject of this article is an exploration of the current state of the use of 8D methodology (G8D) in Slovak organizations and using this survey to identify opportuni‐ ties for improvement in the implementation of 8D as a complex methodology for improvement by increasing the involvement and motivation of 8D teams. The main problems in the implementation of 8D method‐ ology were named in the article of the main author of this paper “Positives and negatives of 8D method application in terms of complaints management process”, published in 2008. The article was based on the author’s practical experience with problem-solving. From 2008 to 2011 the author created and implemented the methodology to increase the 8D process in a concrete automotive-supplying company with a wide range of QEM customers. In 2013 research was conducted to determine the situation in the area of the usage of 8D problem-solving in Slovak organizations. The study’s hypotheses were set as follows: 1.
Slovak enterprises do not motivate the problemsolving 8D teams and individuals as is required by the standard methodology.
2.
Enhancing teams’ motivation and involvement will lead to the continuous improvement of 8D process results.
To find out how the 8D method is currently used in Slovak industrial enterprises and to state the main problems in the implementation of 8D in Slovak enterprises, research was conducted. Building on the research results we attempt to identify the possibilities of improving 8D efficiency, and to state the main advantages and disadvantages of the usage of this method in industrial enterprises. The questionnaire was created and sent to the organizations which were intended to use the 8D method (mainly automotive supplying organizations). The questionnaires were sent to the respondents by means of e-mail and by post, the online questionnaire was also created to make data collection more efficient. A total of 51 valid responses were collected. For the latter, 94% of the respondents stated that they 4
Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2014, 6:31 | doi: 10.5772/59431
usually use the 8D method for different purposes. The surveyed organizations mainly have more than one certified management system and 88% of the respondents have their management systems integrated. The responses came mainly from large and medium-sized organizations operating in the automotive, machinery and electrotechni‐ cal fields of industry. The graphs in figure 1 show the respondents’ structure the by size of the enterprise (left) and the business area of the enterprise (right). The respons‐ es came mainly from large and medium-sized organiza‐ tions operating in the automotive, machinery and electrotechnical fields of industry. The respondent struc‐ ture gives us a picture of 8D users in Slovak industrial enterprises. Having structured the gathered information, the analysis was carried out. The evaluation of the results of the survey was conducted using MS Excel. To draw conclusions, the synthesis method was used to create a standardized 8D implementation methodology focusing on common mistakes in the 8D implementation defined in 2008 and verified by the broad research conducted in 2013; addition‐ ally, the team motivation aspect is outlined. The presented paper is an empirical study, informed by the literature. The general rules of obtaining new data as well as the methods of data processing are used. Spread sheets and word expression interpretation were used as comple‐ mentary methods. Building on prior literature, research results and not the least the corresponding author’s practical experience with the improvement of the 8D methodology, we attempt to identify the possibilities of using the 8D method, and to state the main advantages and disadvantages of using this method in industrial enterprises. 4. Analysis and interpretation Building on prior literature, OEMs customer-specific requirements and customers’ B2B portals, and also studying the authors’ practical experience, we can state that complaints management in automotive production is usually carried out using the 8D method. Designed by Ford, the 8D has become the most commonly used tool for effective complaints management, verified and validated by the top vehicle makers of the world. However, our study’s results show that the usage of 8D is not as effective as it could be. This argument is consequent with the evidence from the results of the research. Our findings show that 29% of respondents consider their 8D process to be 20%-60% efficient. On the other hand, only 8% of the respondents consider their 8D process to be 100% efficient. These facts may be a result of the fact that the 8D is usually used for claims manage‐ ment and is not treated as a principal part of the improvement strategy. This argument is consequent with the survey results. The survey confirmed that organiza‐ tions most widely use the 8D for claims management
(42% of respondents), only 23% of the respondents stated that the organization uses the 8D as a complex tool for the reoccurrence of nonconformities. Basically, the main principle of the 8D methodology is that it helps to easily and accurately identify the root cause and thereafter set an efficient permanent corrective action, so that the occurrence of the problem is eliminated. The correct implementation of 8D involves the root cause being correctly stated and the corrective actions being efficient from the point of view of costs, time, influence on the final customer and the organization itself.
author’s practical experience, the most common mistake made during problem-solving is the so-called “quick findings”, which are usually based on intuitions, not on facts. The teams must be oriented on facts. The team moderator’s main task is to avoid feelings-based decisions and to keep the team oriented on facts (Šurinová, 2008). Based on the results of fresh research (2013), in Slovak organizations’ activities, the phenomenon of quick findings is usually related to the problem of a lack of time for 8D process management. Our research proved that lack of time is the main problem in Slovak enterprises (Fig. 3). In other words, 8D teams are intended to make the 8D problemsolving process shorter, having used quick (often not factbased and incorrect) findings.
There is no doubt that the phenomenon of complaints management in automotive production is usually achieved by using the 8D method. The effectiveness and efficiency of the method for claims management has been verified and validated by vehicle makers all over the world. Neverthe‐ Problems in implementation of the 8D less, we argue that the usage of 8D is not as effective as it Lack of time might be. This argument is consequent with the evidence 1% from the results of the research. Our findings show that 19% Non‐competent team leader 27% only 8% of the respondents consider their 8D process to be Lack of trainings (knowledge) 14% 100% efficient. On the other hand, another 29% of the 18% Lack of motivation 10% respondents consider their 8D process to be 20%-60% 11% Lack of managment support efficient. These facts may be the results of using the 8D only Use of the 8D to deal with random errors for claims management and not treating the 8D as a Others principal part of the improvement strategy of an organiza‐ Fig.3: Problems in the implementation of 8D tion. The survey confirmed our belief as follows: organiza‐ tions most widely use the 8D for claims management (42% 2. The application of 8D oninnon-systematic random Figure 3. Problems the implementation of errors 8D of respondents), only 23% of the respondents stated that the Actually, 2. a lack of time for the accurate solving systematic and significant The application of 8D on of non-systematic randomproblems is organization uses the 8D as a complex tool for preventing often induced by the phenomenon of there being a huge amount of problems at the customers’ errors the reoccurrence of nonconformities. site and a big amount of opened 8D reports. In fact, most of the problems which pass multiple-level control are random mistakes, caused by the human factor. Actually, a lack of time for the accurate solving of Based on the paper “Positives and negatives of 8D method As stated by Šurinová (2008), and supported by our research findings, it can now be stated systematic problems is often induced by finding that the 8D method is itand is notsignificant effective for random problem-solving. The remarkable application in terms of complaints management process” from of our research is that the respondents treated the problem of insufficient 8D usage the phenomenon of there being a huge amount of as one of 2008, as well as with the authors’ practical experience, the the causes for the ineffective application of the 8D method. Nineteen percent of the problems at the customers’ site and a big amount of reasons for the limited and deficient usage of the 8D respondents (Fig. 3) declared the use of 8D to deal with random errors as a problem in the opened 8D reports. In fact, most of the problems which implementation of 8D. methodology were estimated, which gave us the structure pass multiple-level control are random mistakes, caused of the questionnaire. There were three main weaknesses 3. Omission of the motivation factor. by the human factor. expected:
1. 2.
According to Fig. 3, the lack of motivation is seen as critical in the 8D process by 10% of As However,the stated byomission Šurinová and supported by our respondents. of the(2008), motivation factor has to be analysed in the broader Insufficient and shallow root cause investigation, and context ofresearch non-competent team leaders, who are not competentin allocating resources, as well findings, it can now be stated that the 8D method intuitive conclusions not based on facts. as a lack of management support. It was expected that the 8D results would not be particularly it is innot effectivesystem for random problem-solving. The taken intoisaccount the motivation for the 8D team members.
The application of 8D to non-systematic random remarkable finding of our research is that the respondents Although the 8th step of the8Dis called “recognition of the teamandindividuals”, only a errors. treated the problem of insufficient 8Dpractice,we usage asencountered one of therespondents feworganizationspaysufficient attention tothis step. In
who renamed this for step and from the8D report. The8D survey showed that only causes the evenexcluded ineffective itapplication of the method. 46% of Slovak enterprises use the 8th step of the 8D for the recognition of the Nineteen percent of the respondents (Fig. 3) declared the teamandindividuals. Twenty nine percent of the enterprises draw conclusions about the 8D The questionnaire was designed so that all of the three 8DInto19% dealof with random errors as the a problem the in the 8D process inuse thisof step. the surveyed organizations 8th step is in present supposed fields of the problems were investigated. form, butimplementation usually remains empty and finally, 6% of the organizations have the seven steps of of 8D. th the 8D report (the 8 step is excluded from the report).
3.
The omission of the motivation factor.
1.
The investigation of the insufficient and shallow root 3. Omission the motivation factor Slovak organizations do notofinclude the 8D process results in the motivation system of the cause, and intuitive conclusions not based on facts problem-solving teams’ members. According to the analysis of the survey results, 43% of According to Fig. 3, the lack of motivation is seen as critical organizations in Slovakia do not evaluate the 8D process efficiency at all. Forty one percent in the 8Dthat process by 10% of team respondents. It is clear that the 8D methodology guards against the of respondents stated the problem-solving members are However, not specially the awarded based on the 8Domission process results. madeon thebasis of be a subjectivedecisionmade by the of theAwardsare motivation factor has to analysed in the common mistakes made by individuals or problem-solving team leader, but the criteria for theawards of teamsandindividuals are notclearly established in broader context of non-competent team leaders, who are teams, who frequently develop elegant solutions to the 10% of the surveyed organizations. Only 2% of respondents stated that the criteria for not competent in allocating resources, as well as a lack of wrong problem - or disguise the evidence of failure with management support. It was 8 expected that the 8D results quick fixes without finding the root causes. In the light of would not be particularly taken into account in the moti‐ the article “Positives and negatives of 8D method application in vation system for the 8D team members. terms of complaints management process” based on the Andrea Chlpeková, Pavel Večeřa and Yulia Šurinová: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Processes through Employee Motivation and Involvement
5
Although the 8th step of the 8D is called “recognition of the is a widely discussed problem even on the forums related team and individuals”, only a few organizations pay to quality management. On the forum http://elsmar.com sufficient attention to this step. In practice, we encountered the participants share their experience with the last step of respondents who renamed this step and even excluded it the 8D. In one of these examples, the content of the text was from the 8D report. The survey showed that only 46% of “We bought everyone a shirt”. Most forum participants Slovak enterprises use the 8th step of the 8D for the recog‐ said they use standard wording for the 8th step: “Thanks to nition of the team and individuals. Twenty nine percent of everyone who participated in the successful completion of problem-solving teams about awardsbased on 8Dinprocess are set in the motivation or and a the enterprises draw conclusions the 8D process this results G8D”, respectively “Verbal thanks tosystem the team even reflected in their personal objectives. th this step. In 19% of the surveyed organizations the 8 step group drink”. Forum participants agree that those are th is present in the 8D form, but usually remains empty and acceptable toabout customers”. In casethe 8 step ispresenton the 8D form, there“texts are confusions the content of this step finally, 6% of the organizations have the seven steps of the in the thform. This is a widely discussed problem eventhe onpurpose the forums quality However, of the related effective to problem-solving 8D report (the 8 step is excluded from the report). management. On the forumhttp://elsmar.comthe process participants sharetheir experiencewiththe is not that the report is accepted by the last customer. Slovak organizations do not the 8D process results According to the Slovak enterprises’ most com‐ stepof the 8D. Ininclude one ofthese examples,the content ofthe textsurvey, was“We bought everyone in the motivation system of the problem-solving teams’ monly used form for of showing gratitude was atoverbal ashirt”. Mostforumparticipantssaid they usestandard wording the 8th step:“Thanks members. According to the analysis of the survey results, expression of thanks if they use the 8th step of the 8D to everyone whoparticipated in thesuccessful completionof thisG8D”, respectively“Verbalthanks 43% of organizations in Slovakia do not evaluate the 8D recognize the team and individuals efforts. Someto organi‐ to the teamanda group drink”. Forum participantsagreethat those are “texts acceptable process efficiency at all. Forty one percent of respondents zations even declared to the customer that they financially customers”. stated that the problem-solving team members are not reward the team members on the basis of the merit of the specially awarded based on the 8D results. Awards However,the purpose ofprocess the effective problem-solving process is notthatthe is accepted implemented solution or that thereport successful team members are made thecustomer. basis of a subjective decision made by theSlovak haveenterprises’ extra career opportunities (Fig. 4).usedform On the other byonthe According to the survey, most commonly of hand, ththat their fulfilment of the team leader, but the criteria for the awards of teams and 40% of respondents stated showing gratitude was a verbal expression of thanks if they use the 8 step of the 8D to individuals are not established in 10% of theSomedeclared 8th stepeven of thedeclared 8D statements 0-20%. This recognize theclearly team and individuals efforts. organizations to the was customer surveyed organizations. Only 2% of respondents stated foundation again proves that many organizations that they financially reward the team members on the basis of the merit of the implementedimple‐ that the criteria for problem-solving teams awards based ment the 8D only to meet their customers’ requirements solution or that the successful team members have extra career opportunities (Fig. 4). On the on 8D process results are set in the motivation system or and forget about the main benefits of the 8D which can be other hand, 40% of respondents stated that theirfulfilment of the declared 8th step of the 8D even reflected in their personal objectives. achieved by establishing a sufficient motivation system for statements was 0-20%. This foundation again proves that many organizations implement the the problem-solving teams. In case the 8th step is present on the 8D form, there are
8D only to meet their customers’ requirements and forget about the main benefits of the 8D which can be achieved by establishing a sufficient motivation system for the problem-solving teams.
confusions about the content of this step in the form. This
Others Career opportunities Further education Common actions for successful teams (various teambuilding activities) Financial reward calculated on the basis of merit of the implemented solution Written thank Verbal thank 0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure4: Usual content of the 8th step of the 8D Report in Slovak enterprises (own processing)
Figure 4. Usual content of the 8th step of the 8D Report in Slovak enterprises (own processing)
Concluding all of the above-mentioned issues, we can now ment will lead to the continuous improvement of 8D state that the first hypothesis of the study is true: Slovak process results. Concluding all of the above-mentioned issues, we can now state that the first hypothesis of enterprises do not motivate the problem-solving 8D teams The research proved that organizations must take the study Slovak do not motivate theresults problem-solving 8D teams and and individuals as itisistrue: required by theenterprises standard method‐ care to ensure that the opportunity to motivate employees as itefficiency is required standard The 8D process efficiency can be ology. individuals The 8D process can by be the enhanced by methodology. is not overlooked in the broader context of quality man‐ enhanced by following the motivating performance indexes. Most respondents (86%) believe following the motivating performance indexes. Most agement systems and customer specific requirements! It is that the 8D process efficiency can be improved by problem-solving team motivation. Thus, respondents (86%) believe that the 8D process efficiency very important, however, but also very difficult to imple‐ secondbyhypothesis was confirmed. We can now state that enhancing motivation can be the improved problem-solving team motivation. ment in practice. The level ofthe its teams’ implementation is a matter andsecond involvement will to the continuous of 8D process results. Thus, the hypothesis waslead confirmed. We can nowimprovement not only of the company itself and its culture, but must be state that enhancing the teams’ motivation and involve‐ seen in the broader context of the 8D teams’ members and
6
The research results proved that organizations musttake care to ensure that theopportunityto involvement in the problem-solving process. motivateemployeesis notoverlookedinthe broadertheir contextof quality management systems and customer specific requirements! It isveryimportant, however,but also verydifficultto Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2014, 6:31 | doi: 10.5772/59431 implementin practice. The level ofits implementationis a matternotonlyof the company
5. Proposal of key performance indicators for the 8D
training. Spending a lot of time and other resources on one
kind of reporting is not effective. Thus, it is crucial to use s culture,butprocess must be seenin the broader contextof the 8D teams’ members and their the 8D method as a complex tool for highly urgent and ent in the problem-solving process. In the previous chapter of the paper, the main research
highly important problems. findings were categorized into three areas. Based on a deep Problems with a lower rate of importance can be solved by analysis of the research results, supported by practical osal of key performance indicators for the 8D process means of operational management, during operational experience with obstacles in the 8D process, the main areas meetings and the implementation of action plans, with no for of improvement will be suggested: evious chapter the paper,the main research findings were categorized into three 8D team building and additional methods for the usage of sed on a deep1.analysis of thetheresearch results, supported by and practical experience with To eliminate phenomenon of “quick findings” root cause investigations. If the customer required the 8D thethe 8Dmain application of random mistakes, the in the 8D process, areas in forcase improvement will be suggested: Report, the report is created based on operational meeting methodology for the classification of problems by results. importance and is proposed (Impor‐ o eliminate the phenomenon ofurgency “quick factor findings” and the 8D application in case of / urgency model of problems classification). Problems with a high level of importance, but lower ndom mistakes, tance the methodology for the classification of problems by importance urgency can be effectively solved during Kaizen work‐ In theis caseproposed of the omission of the motivation factor, 8D model of problems d urgency 2.factor (Importance / urgency shops, as the solutions from Kaizen workshops are usually process efficiency indicators are proposed (Motivating / assification). highly efficient and less expensive; however, the imple‐ demotivatingof 8Dthe process efficiency indicators model). the case of the omission motivation factor, 8D process efficiency mentationindicators of Kaizen activities is not achieved under time e proposed (Motivating / demotivating 8D process efficiency indicators model). Further, the two proposed models will be presented. pressure. 1.
Importance / urgency model of problems classification
As a whole, the 8D methodology was never intended to replace a systemic quality system. (Riesenberger, 2010). On the basis of the problems identified by the survey, we However, due to organized and systematic problems, and recommend using the 8D only in case of urgent and mportance / urgency model of problems classification registers of complaints, which resulted from careful important problems. When dealing with less urgent or less examination of product failure, it is possible to create a important problems, an organization should use different s ofthe problems identified bythe survey, we recommend using the 8D only of huge baseinofcase information that helps to increase products’ tools of quality management as proposed in Fig.5. d important problems. When dealing with less urgent or less important problems, an 2006). The objective of the 8Ds is to reliability (Šalgovičová, the problems and discover the weaknesses in the on should use different tools of quality management as proposed inface Fig.5. management systems that permitted the problem to occur High in the first place (Rambraud, 2006). A defects catalogue, a best practice database and a one point lessons database are informational inputs which can significantly help to Kaizen (CPI) 8D (QRQC) increase the efficiency of the 8D process.
Importance
he two proposed models will be presented.
2. Operational management, including problem tho the "problem to solve" list
N/A
Urgency Low High anagement tools for different types of types problems Figureusage 5. Management tools usage for different of problems
Motivating / demotivating 8D process efficiency indicators model
The most commonly used 8D process indication is the average time from receiving the customer complaint until the full submission of the 8D report, including the applica‐ tion of the permanent corrective action and the evaluation of its efficiency. There is no doubt that it is important to monitor the duration of the problem-solving procedure. However, following only the procedure duration may directly negatively influence the efficiency of the 8D method.
As verified by the can be that the of the 8D method in d by the research results, inresearch can beresults, statedinthat thestated application According Riesenberger (2010), the biggest abuse in the application of the 8D method in case of random mistakes andom mistakes (problems with a low importance rate) is treated as oneto of the implementation of the 8D involves using the method solely as a (problems with a low importance rate) is treated as one of oblems in the usage of the 8D method in Slovak organizations. Moreover, it leads to one-page problem-reporting effort. This misuse is often further the biggest problems in the usage of the 8D method in lack of timeSlovak for managing significant problems. Thus, we propose using the 8D exaggerated by requiring the report to be written within 24 hours. organizations. Moreover, it leads to a further lack of o its full extent only in case of highly urgent and highly important Some problems. Intake fact, steps can a few hours, while others can take weeks time for managing significant problems. Thus, we propose studies and using experiments must be conducted in order to understand the root causes. (Riesenberger, 2010). This statement explains the results of the 8D method to its full extent only in case of highly for root causes take weeks. is why Rambaud that our states research. The 8D positive foundation is that organizations urgent can and highly importantThat problems. In fact, extensive(2006) can be time studies consuming and difficult that in to successfully do follow the complaint management process duration. It and experiments musttobedevelop, conductedand in order to order takes from one to two weeks for most organizations (38%) understand the rootpersons causes. Searching root causes can appropriate t the 8D methodology the involvedforshould receive training. to manage complaints. Only 6% of the respondents That is whyonRambaud states thatis8D a lot of timetake and weeks. other resources one kind(2006) of reporting not effective. Thus, it is declared that they managed their complaints in less than reporting can be time consuming and difficult to develop, use the 8D method as a complex tool for highly urgent and highly important and that in order to successfully implement the 8D meth‐ odology the persons involved should receive appropriate
10
three days. The durations may differ because of the complexity of the problems. According to Reisenberger
Andrea Chlpeková, Pavel Večeřa and Yulia Šurinová: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Processes through Employee Motivation and Involvement
7
(2010), the time needed to solve a problem or a customer complaint does not always have the same impact on cost savings. Sometimes problems originate from many com‐ plaints, while others only a few. In manufacturing, many chronic problems can occur only with a unique set of conditions. Sometimes they will be present, other times they will not. The second item which is usually followed by organiza‐ tions is the problem cost. As well as the 8D method application time, this indicator is in very rare situations directly influenced by the 8D team members. On the other hand, the team’s motivation (required by the 8th step of the 8D) and the follow up awards system act as an incentive only in cases where it is based on the facts. However, measuring the 8D process realization time and the cost of problems do not seem to be motivating indicators as far as these indicators are only poorly influenced by the 8D team members. Thus, we propose using the Motivating / demoti‐ vating 8D process efficiency indicators model. This model categorizes the motivation factors for the 8D teams into two main categories.
The motivation indicators monitored and the evaluation would give us a realistic view of the 8D process’ efficiency. Evaluating the defect rate of the products or processes where the 8D method was applied would show us how effective the corrective action was. An effective problemsolving process should lead to preventing the reoccurrence of the problem in the future, which in a modern organiza‐ tion is closely linked to the so-called Poka-yoke mistake proofing. Thus, the second motivation from the model is the indicator of Poka-yoke corrective actions rate in the overall amount of corrective actions. Finally, the 8D cannot be considered as being effective if the problem occurs again. That is why the third 8D efficiency indicator from our model is the defect reoccurrence rate. The key aspect to link the 8D process efficiency indicators with the motivation system is where the target value for each indicator should be set. 6. Conclusions Concluding all of the above-mentioned issues, it can be stated that the advantage of the 8D method is its flexibility, allowing it be adapted to different situations and circum‐ stances. This means that it can be used for investigating local problems in their own workflow, or multi-disciplina‐ ry teams investigating more complex issues that cross functional and departmental boundaries. 8D helps to insulate the customer (internal or external) from potential repetitive problems in the very first step of the occurrence of the problem with the help of the implementation of containment actions.
There is no doubt, that managers have to learn to deal with situations in which resources, expertise and employees are not assigned or pre‐set by formal authorities in the organization (Martini, 2012). Managers usually do not link the motiva‐ tion factor with the 8D efficiency. Figure 5 summarizes the motivating as well as demotivating indicators which we consider to be crucial in enhancing the effectiveness of the 8D method. As is seen from Figure 5 we do not consider it to be efficient to evaluate the time of the complaint man‐ agement, nor the complaint cost. Those are factors which Admittedly, 8D methodology helps to easily and accurately consider tocan be cruc in enhan ncing hardly the efffectiveness of the m team.As method. seen from m Figure becial in some cases influenced by8D the Onisthe identify 5 we doo not considder it to be efficient e to evaluate th he time of thhe complainnt managem ment, nor the root cause and thereafter the permanent contrary, indicators such as the defect rate ofc the problems action so that the reoccurrence of the problem is the com mplaint costt. Those aree factors whhich can bee in some cases hardlyy influenced dcorrective by the solved by the 8D method, corrective actions team. On O the contrrary, indica ators such as a the thePoka-yoke defecct rate of thhe problems s solved by yeliminated. the 8D Correct 8D implementation means that the root give method,, therate Poka-y tivedefects actionss rate as welll as therate deffects urrence asyoke wellcorrect as the reoccurrence canreoccu give real rate can cause is correctly stated and the corrective actions are real feeddback of thee effectiven of the 8D 8 method. feedback of the ness effectiveness of the 8D method. efficient from the point of view of costs, time, and influence on the final customer and the organization itself.
Demo otivating indicators
Motivativin M ng indicatorss
Although the 8D methodology is the most widely used method for quality complaints management in automotive production, it must be not forgotten that 8D is a tool for integrated complicated problem-solving, e.g., problems which cannot be solved by an individual or problems with a high level of resource consumption. 8D methodology commercialization has meant that the 8D reports are usually requested from suppliers even in the case of random mistakes, when it is hard to detect the root cause and to eliminate random effects.
On the other hand, 8D methodology helps to avoid such mistakes, but only in the case of the usage of sufficient principles. Suppliers are obliged to write 8D reports even in case of random mistakes and then a senseless analysis is carried out, and finally the 8D methodology is useless. This Figure55:Motivatinng versus deemotivating performancce indicatorrs of the 8D process leads to team demotivation. The team participants are Figure 6. Motivating versus demotivating performance indicators of the 8D process The mootivation inddicators monitored andd the evaluaation would give us a rrealistic view of the demotivated by the 8D usage’s uselessness and it makes the 8D proccess’ efficieency. Evaluuating the deefect rate of o the produucts or processes wheree the 8D 8D usage useless from their point of view. It leads to vague method was applieed would show s us how effectivee the correcctive actionn was. An effective e problem m-solving process shouuld lead to preventing g the reoccuurrence of the problem m in the Bus Manag, 2014, 6:31 | doi: 10.5772/59431 8 which future, w Int JinEng a modern orgganization i closely is liinked to thee so-called Poka-yoke mistake proofingg. Thus, thee second mootivation froom the mod del is the inddicator of Pooka-yoke co orrective actions rate in the overall amoount of corrrective actio ons. Finallyy, the 8D caannot be considered i as beingg effective if the probllem occurs again. Thatt is why thee third 8D efficiency indicator from ouur model is i the defecct reoccurreence rate. The key aspect a to linnk the 8D process efficienncy indicatoors with the motivationn system is where the target t valuee for each indicator i
problem-solving even in the case of the occurrence of complicated problems. To increase the 8D process efficien‐ cy, the Importance / urgency model of problems classifica‐ tion was proposed. This model will help organizations to classify the problems and to use a sufficient method for solving them. The correct setting of the performance indicators of the continuous improvement process, the management of nonconforming products and the networking of these processes with a motivation plan is essential for the successful implementation of the 8D process. Setting performance indicators with respect to the motivation of the problem-solving 8D teams based on the proposed Motivating / demotivating 8D process efficiency indicators model will help to eliminate the consequences of the principal risks of the 8D process such as lack of time, effort to reach rapid conclusions for the 8D Report (due to the incorrect setting of performance indicators), poor manage‐ ment support and lack of resources to implement PokaYoke measures. 7. Limitations of the study The 8D methodology is a tool widely used in automotive production. That is why the survey data are primarily relevant for automotive production. Nevertheless, as was proved in the study, the eight disciplines method is a complex tool not only for complaints management, but it is widely usable as a defects occurrence prevention tool and can be effectively used in different business areas. 8. References [1] Barrett, B. (2013) – “Creating Virtual Mentoring Programs for Developing Intellectual Capital” in 5th European Conference on Intellectual Capital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao. [2] Behrens, B-A., Wilde I., and Hoffmann M. (2007) "Complaint management using the extended 8D-method along the automotive supply chain." Production Engineering: 91-95. [3] Besterfield, D.H. (2012) Quality Improvement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 288p. [4] Buttle, F. (2004) Customer relationship manage‐ ment: concepts and tools. Oxford: Elsevier. 384p. [5] Crawford C.M. and Di Benedetto C.A. (2000) New Product Management. New York: McGraw‐Hill.
[6] Martini, A., Massa, S., and Testa, S. (2012) The Role of Social Software for Customer Co-Creation: Does It Change the Practice for Innovation? Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2012, 4:40. doi: 10.5772/54750 [7] Santos-Rodrigues, H., Luusinha, L., and Cranfield, D. (2013) “Product Innovation Building, the Relevance of Human Capital: A Case Study” in in 5th European Conference on Intellectual Capital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao. [8] Brandes O., Brege, S., and Brehmer, P-O. (2013) The Strategic Importance of Supplier Relationships in the Automotive Industry. Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2013, 5:17. doi: 10.5772/56257 [9] Paulová, I., and Meravá, M. (2010) “Claim and Continuous Improvement.” Research Papers Faculty of Materials Science and Technology Slovak University of Technology: 95-100. [10] Rambaud, L. (2006) “8D Structured Problem Solving: A Guide to Creating High Quality 8D Reports”, Phred Solutions, Breckenridge, CO, USA [11] Rambaud, L. (2011) “8D Štruktúrovaný prístup k riešeniu problémov” – ČSJ Praha.139 s. ISBN 978-80-02-02347-0 [12] Saniuk S., (2008) “Rapid prototyping of constraintbased production flows in outsourcing”, in: Advanced Materials Research [online], 2008, Vol. 44-46, p. 355-360,,http://www.scientific.net/0-87849-376x/355/ [13] Šalgovičová, J. a kol. (2006) “Measuring customer satisfaction in terms of quality management and marketing” - Trnava: Tripsoft. 214 s. ISBN 80-969390-6-8 [14] Šurinová, Y. (2008) “Positives and negatives of 8D method application in terms of complaints management process”. In Kvalita 3/2008, ISSN 1335-9231 [15] Biondi, S., Calabrese, A., Capece, G., Costa R., and Di Pillo, F. (2013) A New Approach for Assessing Dealership Performance: An Application for the Automotive Industry. Int J Eng Bus Manag, 2013, 5:18. doi: 10.5772/56662 [16] VDA. (2010) Ensuring quality in product life cycle: standardized complaint process. 1st Czech edition. Prague: Czech Society for Quality, 134 p., ISBN 978-80-02-02276-3
Andrea Chlpeková, Pavel Večeřa and Yulia Šurinová: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Processes through Employee Motivation and Involvement
9
