The chill at the beginning of the year: From the booming orders to the idle giants in the workshops
The cold at the beginning of this year is more severe than in previous years. Just after January, the order report of the sales department was full of red figures: the volume of regular orders suddenly decreased by 30%, and a leading customer (an electronics brand that had contributed 15% of the annual revenue for three consecutive years) was lost. February was even worse. In the MES system of the workshop, the total number of work - orders to be produced was less than a quarter of that in the same period last year. Only 2 out of the 8 SMT chip mounters on the SMT line were in operation, and the rest were covered with dust - proof cloths, like a group of idle giants. The office has also changed. The overtime meals, which used to be provided three times a week, are no longer available. The administrative department has posted a notice stating that "overtime cannot be applied for non - urgent projects". Even the printer now uses double - sided recycled paper. Even "saving paper" has become a countermeasure to deal with the decline in revenue.
Repeated complaints: Those old problems that "are never solved"
Xiaolin from the customer service department has complained to me more than once: Last month, a customer filed three consecutive complaints about the soldering defects of the same power board. The first time was a pin desoldering, the second was a short - circuit caused by a solder ball at the same position, and the third time was still about that pin, but this time it was due to insufficient solder. She flipped through the complaint records: Every handling report stated that "an engineer has been dispatched to solve the problem on - site", but the "root cause" was always "operator negligence", and the "corrective action" was always "strengthen training". What's even more absurd is the 8D report for key customers. I've seen one where the "root cause analysis" only stated "inadequate process execution". The column for "improvement responsible person" was empty, and the "verification time" was not filled in. Last time when the customer came for a factory audit, they pointed at the report and asked, "Who is following up on this improvement?" The quality manager stammered and couldn't answer. It turns out that those 8D reports are just "paperwork" to appease customers. They are filed after being written, and no one ever follows up to see if the problems are really solved.
Unimplemented tools: Those trendy but empty management frameworks
The dilemma of internal audit: Should one seriously examine problems or "save face"?
I was assigned to the SMT workshop for the monthly internal audit in February. This is my second time conducting an internal audit. I didn't finish the first one because I was busy with a project. My way of conducting the internal audit is different from others: I don't stare at the document piles to find loopholes. Instead, I like to stand beside the assembly line to observe details. In the feeder of the chip mounter, the labels of two reels were pasted the wrong way around (100Ω resistors and 150Ω resistors. If they are pasted incorrectly, it will result in batch scrapping). In the temperature curve record sheet of the reflow oven, the dates of the last week were all the same day, obviously filled in later. In the electrostatic ring test cards of the operators, the signatures on three cards were in the same handwriting. I wrote down two pages of problems after only checking one-third of the workshop area. Lao Zhang, the internal auditor next to me, nudged me and said, "Xiao Zhou, that's about enough. If you write too detailed, the production department will give us trouble." I looked up at him. On his inspection form, a tick was marked for the item "Reel verification of chip mounter", but he didn't even walk over to the material rack just now.
The final dilemma: Should one "write the truth" or "pretend to be ignorant"?
It was only later that I learned that previous internal audits were just going through the motions: before the audit, a friendly reminder was sent to the workshop to have the documents supplemented and the site tidied up; during the audit, a few trivial and inconsequential issues (such as there is dust on the workbench) were picked out, and the conclusion stated meeting the requirements. Last week, the quality manager told me, Internal audits are not about finding faults, but helping the workshop ‘improve’ management. If you write down the problems in too much detail, the boss will hold people accountable, and it will be difficult for everyone. But looking at my notebook, those problem points were like small thorns: if it wasn't detected that the material rolls were pasted backwards, mass production would result in batch defects; if the temperature curve was filled in retroactively and the reflow soldering temperature wasn't well - controlled, the reliability of the solder joints would definitely not pass. I hesitated: if I wrote the truth, would I be regarded as ignorant? But if I didn't write, those problems would still be there. Just like the false soldering complained about by the customer last time, wasn't it because the previous internal audit failed to detect it, which eventually led to batch returns?
These problems are like a tangled mess: the decline in orders is the result, while quality issues, the failure to implement management tools, and the perfunctory internal audits are the causes. Looking at the idle placement machines in the workshop and the internal audit form in my hand, I suddenly realized that all the "sudden" declines are actually the accumulation of "long - existing" problems. It's just that these problems were covered up when the business was doing well before.