W9_LUCKY_ISSUES SURROUNDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF POOR ON TIME DELIVERY PERFORMANCE

W9_LUCKY_ISSUES SURROUNDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF POOR ON TIME DELIVERY PERFORMANCE

1.      Problem Recognition, Definition, Root Cause Analysis and Evaluation

 

(i)                 Problem Recognition

At a recent Supplier Delivery Performance Workshop, the subject firm was presented with a 36 per cent score in line with the scoring formula for on time delivery against a total of 464 Purchase Order line items awarded to the firm. The scoring is quite low compared to other competing firms who scored 75% and 95% respectively for purchase order line items of over 1000.

(ii)               Problem Definition

In a previous blog, it was determined that the root cause of poor on time delivery performance that merited immediate attention with prospect for short time to implement, high implementation impact level and most likely to be within budget solution result was infrequent check for available Purchase Order with the customer procurement department. What are issues involved in infrequent visit for the purpose of checking for available Purchase orders?

(iii)             Root Cause Analysis and Evaluation

The purpose of figuring out why the recognized problem occurred has been determined, as stated above, bringing forth another problem for which I want to generate solution ideas using the Affinity Diagram.[i]

2.      Development of feasible alternatives

It has been determined that the three basic types of causal factors fall under the categorization of Physical causes (tangible material failure), Human causes (People did or did not do something) and Organizational causes (Faulty System/process or policy). I would like to use this same category as headers for the generated solution ideas.

3.      Development of outcomes  for each alternative

The outcomes for each solution idea header are as follows:

Figure 1: Affinity Diagram (By Author)

4.      Selection Criteria of solution ideas

The selection criteria are as follows:

1.      Short implementation time

2.      Implementation impact level

3.      Minimal Cost (within budget)

 

5.      Analysis and Comparison of the alternatives (causal factors)

 

Attempting to use the non-compensatory model of satisficing[ii] to narrow down a causal factor,

Selection Criteria (Attribute)	Minimum Acceptable Value	Maximum Acceptable Value	Solution Ideas  for implementation
Short implementation Time	-	10 days	Human solution ideas
Implementation impact level	High	-	Human solution ideas
Minimal cost of  implementation	-	Use currently available resources	Human solution ideas

Table 1: Feasible Ranges for Satisficing (By Author)

 

6.      Selection of preferred alternative (causal factor)

Comparing the attributes values against the feasible range reveals that taking on human solution ideas promises to provide the quickest solution at solving the problem of late on time delivery performance.

7.      Performance monitoring and post evaluation of results

I would need to focus more on addressing the human factors in order to fix the on time delivery performance issue by implementing the solution ideas for all procurement personnel, monitor and evaluate the results six months down line. I would need to adopt other tools for continuous improvement such as FMEA and KAIZEN to help minimize the need for root cause analysis in the future.[iii]

Reference

[i]Brassard, M. & Ritter D. (2010). Chapter 2 Affinity Diagram (pp.12 – 22). The Memory Jogger 2 (2^ndedition). USA:GOAL/QPC

---

[ii] Sullivan, W., Wicks, E., Koelling, P., Kumar, p., & Kumar, N. (2012).Chapter 14 Decision making considering Multiattributes (p. 577). Engineering economy (15^th edition). England: Pearson Education Limited.

 

[iii] Mindtools, (2012). Root Cause Analysis Tracing a problem to its origin. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_80.htm