Recently, the problems in the workshop are almost exploding
In the three days of last week, the customer service department received five consecutive customer complaints. Some customers shot videos saying, "The screws of the product I just received fall off as soon as I turn them." Some customers sent emails complaining, "The label batch number doesn't match the instruction manual. We simply can't put the products into storage." It was even more chaotic in the workshop. After the daily morning meeting, the Soring work orders in the rework area could pile up half a foot high. The QC shook their heads while holding the testing pen and said, "Among the 200 semi - finished products sorted yesterday, one - third were not assembled according to the SOP. Either the waterproof glue was not applied, or the shell buckles were not fastened tightly. Just the rework took up the production capacity of two workstations." Even the production line team leader privately said, "Now I'm most afraid of seeing the two words 'customer complaint' and 'Soring'. Once they come up, we have to work overtime to handle them."
The root of the problem lies in "the slacking off at the workbench"
The root cause of all troubles is that "the most important things haven't been done well enough":
- Some operators compressed the requirement in the SOP of "self-inspecting each product for 5 minutes" into "just taking a quick look at the appearance". They didn't even check whether the torque of the internal screws reached 10 N·m. As a result, the screws were loose when the customers received the products.
- In order to meet the production quota, some workstations directly skip the "mutual inspection" process - the defective products from the previous process directly flow to the next one. By the time the QC discovers them, there is already half a box piled up.
- Some people thought it was too troublesome to "check the batch number three times when attaching labels" and simply "attached the labels after a glance". In the end, the batch numbers of the products received by the customers did not match the production records, and all the products had to be recalled.
These "omitted" and "simplified" operations directly turned "qualified products" into "fuses for customer complaints" and "normal processes" into "rework sprees" – it's not that there's a problem with the quality, but the awareness of "doing things according to the rules" has been squeezed out by the eagerness for quick results in "chasing production volume".
All the previous supervision was just for show
To manage the issue of "not operating according to SOP", we've tried all sorts of methods:
- A QC was sent to stand beside the workstation and keep an eye on the operators. As a result, the operators found it annoying, and as soon as the QC left, they reverted to their old ways.
- A camera was installed for playback operations, but when things got busy, even the team leaders didn't have time to watch the surveillance footage. In the end, the camera became a "decoration".
- Require team leaders to conduct inspections once an hour and sign for confirmation. However, a spot - check last month found that 30% of the inspection records were "signed retroactively" — when operators were rushing to meet production targets, they completely forgot about "following the SOP".
What's even more frustrating is that even if a "violation" is caught, at most 50 yuan will be deducted. Compared with "earning 200 yuan by doing 10 more units", this kind of punishment has no deterrent effect at all. In the end, the supervision became a situation of "you do your inspection, and I do my work", and it failed to stop the inertia of "being lazy" at all.
Finally, it's time to make a move on the "performance assessment", the so - called "baton"
The previous performance rules were simply "encouraging laziness": Output accounted for 60%, while quality only accounted for 20%. The operators could calculate better than anyone else - by making 10 more units, they could earn an extra 200 yuan; if they carefully self - inspected for 5 minutes, they might make 5 fewer units and lose 100 yuan. So "output first" became the default choice:
- Some people changed "self-inspection" to "touching the outer shell", and some turned "mutual inspection" into "asking 'Is there any problem?'".
What's even more exaggerated is that in order to speed up the progress, some workstations directly changed the requirement of "cleaning the equipment every hour" to "cleaning it once at the end of each day". As a result, the dust on the equipment adhered to the products, which in turn led to two more customer complaints.
Now, everyone has finally reached a consensus: the assessment weight of quality must be on an equal footing with that of production - each should account for at least 40%, and even "operating according to SOP" should be listed separately as a "core item". For example:
- Complete "self-inspection + mutual inspection" as required, and a 10% performance bonus will be added.
- If there are no quality complaints or Soring in the current month, add 15%.
- If an SOP step is skipped, 15% will be directly deducted.
- If rework Soring occurs, deduct 20%.
The purpose is straightforward: to make the operators understand that "doing it right" is more profitable than "doing more". The previous guiding principle of "putting output first" should be replaced with "quality is as important as output".
In the end, it still has to "wait for implementation"
The plan is still going through the approval process. Some people are worried, "Will the operators resist 'an additional assessment item'?" Others say, "This change should have been made earlier. The compensation for customer complaints last month was more than the profit from increased production." But at least for now, we've written "Quality is not a by - product" into the performance appraisal form and tied "working according to the rules" with "getting paid".
As for whether we can stop customer complaints and reduce Soring, no one dares to guarantee it. But one thing is clear: if "quality" remains a supporting role in performance evaluation, operators will always regard "following the SOP" as an "extra task". Now, at least we have promoted "quality" to the same position as "output" - the rest depends on whether the implementation can keep up.
After all, if the system remains unchanged, behavior will never change.