Prodrive Technologies On-Hold Area Process Improvement PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by EnchantingSerpentine5808
Fontys University of Applied Sciences
Group S202
Tags
Summary
This report analyzes inefficiencies in the on-hold area processes of Prodrive Technologies, a high-tech manufacturing firm. The study, conducted by students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences, uses the DMADV methodology to identify bottlenecks and propose a redesigned workflow. Key recommendations include implementing a centralized Jira system to manage defects, adding QR codes, and creating standardized procedures.
Full Transcript
Prodrive Technologies Fontys University of Applied Science Science Park Eindhoven 5501, 5692 EM Gebouw Nexus (ER, De Rondom 1, 5612 AP Son Eindhoven Jeffrey Coppelmans Twan Lintermans...
Prodrive Technologies Fontys University of Applied Science Science Park Eindhoven 5501, 5692 EM Gebouw Nexus (ER, De Rondom 1, 5612 AP Son Eindhoven Jeffrey Coppelmans Twan Lintermans Quality Engineer, Company Mentor Quality Engineer, Company Mentor Project coordinator IEM, Fontys Group Mentor Prepared By Group S202 Name Student Number Abdulwahid, Mohammed 5039681 KaliĆska, Julia 5125146 Konarzewska, Kalina 522087 Khadka, Ishmriti 5008484 Rodriguez Gonzalez, Wilfredo 4742613 Tanev, Tano 5129737 Tetevenski, Vladimir 4832787 1 Summary This report comprehensively addresses inefficiencies in the on-hold area processes within the system assembly department at Prodrive Technologies, a high-tech manufacturing company specializing in innovative products for automotive, healthcare, and semiconductor industries. These are bottlenecks in the workflow, inconsistent documentation, and delayed defect resolution of which greatly impede productivity and alignment with Prodrive's operational excellence objectives. This project, executed in collaboration with Fontys University of Applied Sciences, applies the DMADV methodology to define, measure, analyze, design, and verify the current workflow, specify key challenges, and provide a detailed proposal for the redesign of the system. The on-hold area at Prodrive represents one of the important parts of the system assembly department and is intended for items that cannot move further in the process because of defects, missing parts, or some unresolved issues. However, significant delays and inefficiencies have resulted because of the general lack of standardized processes, manual documentation of defects, and inconsistent categorization. Observational studies and structured interviews with team leads underlined several systemic inconsistencies and workflow bottlenecks. Quantitative data underlined the problem more, where over 40% of items in the on-hold area were not being documented properly to complicate the defect tracking and resolution process further. Systemic diagnosis was done by using the DMADV methodology, root cause analysis tools such as Ishikawa diagrams, and the 5 Whys. The major challenges identified are that there is a lot of reliance on subjective judgment, unclear lines of escalation, and poor interdepartmental communication. This is further aggravated by the lack of a centralized tracking system, which means there is variability in how defects are identified, logged, and resolved. To address these challenges, the redesign focuses on implementing a standardized, data- driven workflow supported by advanced digital tools. The primary recommendation is the integration of Jira, a centralized defect management tool, into the production floor. Each on- hold item will be logged in Jira with mandatory fields, including serial numbers, defect descriptions, and assigned responsibilities, ensuring consistency and traceability. Physical items will be tagged with QR codes or barcodes, linking them to their digital records for real- time updates and reduced errors. The standardized workflow will define the role and responsibility at each stage of the on-hold process to eliminate ambiguities and ensure accountability. Categorization templates for defects will ensure consistency in documentation. Automated escalation protocols, based on predefined time thresholds, reduce delays by escalating unresolved issues. Real-time notifications will keep the stakeholders informed and enable prompt action. The integrated Jira dashboard will provide real-time visibility to the technicians and managers on items on hold, their status, priority, and resolution timelines. This dashboard enables users to filter items based on order number, defect type, or urgency to efficiently make decisions. Historical data will be leveraged to identify recurring issues, facilitating proactive measures such as targeted quality control and supplier feedback to prevent future defects. The project will be seamless in implementation, focusing on training and employee involvement. Workshops will be comprehensive to familiarize the employees to the new tools and workflows, building a collaborative accountable culture. Ongoing support will reinforce the importance of accurate data entry and adherence to standardized processes. 2 Expected gains in these areas are reduced average hold times, an increase in the rate of defects resolved, and better visibility throughout the departments. By centralizing tracking and automating key processes, the redesign should reduce human errors and enhance operational efficiencies in support of Prodrive's pursuit of continual improvement. This would further leverage historical data for the enhancement of quality control and reduce supplier-related defects. The new design proposal directly aligns with the core values guiding Prodrive Technologies: trust, equality, and responsibility. The redesigned on-hold workflow will drive collaboration, transparency, and innovation to solve current inefficiencies and position the company for continued operational excellence. This structured approach will let Prodrive adapt to dynamic production environments while continuing to uphold its reputation for quality and innovation. The implementation roadmap has accorded clear steps to be followed for Jira implementation, training of employees, and establishing mechanisms for monitoring to sustain improvements. It is a reengineered workflow that will help Prodrive stay competitive in high-tech manufacturing, demonstrate real commitment to operational excellence, customer satisfaction, and long-term success in an evolving industry by solving immediate challenges and laying the foundation for continuous improvement. This paper is a comprehensive study of the inefficiencies and effective solutions to enhance Prodrive's on-hold processes. By embedding data-driven strategies and fostering a culture of accountability, this report underlines the importance of aligning workflows with organizational goals and ensures a robust framework for future adaptability and success. 3 Preface This document which is based on reader (Reader writing) presents the result of a group project conducted as part of our academic program at Fontys University of Applied Sciences. The project was carried out in collaboration with Prodrive Technologies (4.1 About Prodrive Technologies), a leading high-tech manufacturing company specializing in advanced systems for industries such as automotive, healthcare, and semiconductors. Our research was focused on analyzing and improving the processes within the system assembly department, specifically in the on-hold area. The on-hold area plays a crucial role in managing products that require further attention due to defects, missing parts, or unresolved issues. While this area is essential to maintaining production quality, it currently faces several challenges, including inefficiencies, unclear responsibilities, and delays. This project aimed to design a more effective workflow for handling items in the on-hold area, ultimately contributing to Prodriveâs goals of operational excellence and continuous improvement. Throughout the project, we had the opportunity to apply our academic knowledge in a real- world setting. From conducting root cause analyses to proposing practical solutions which is designing a new process for the on-hold area to make the work more systematic and easier for the employee to the items lying in that area, the experience allowed us to develop technical and professional skills. For example, we learned how to map complex workflows, communicate effectively with stakeholders, and work collaboratively as a team. One key takeaway was the importance of aligning team members' strengths and finding strategies to motivate individuals to overcome challenges during the process. We are deeply grateful for the support and guidance provided by Prodrive Technologies and Fontys University. In particular, we extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Jeffrey Coppelmans, our company mentor at Prodrive, for his insightful feedback and practical advice that helped us bridge theory and practice. Additionally, we thank Mr. Twan Lintermans, our group mentor from Fontys, for his continuous encouragement, constructive feedback, and mentorship throughout the project. Their guidance played a significant role in the success of this research. We hope this report provides valuable insights for both Prodrive and other readers. By addressing the inefficiencies in the on-hold area, we aim to contribute to the companyâs long- term operational improvements. Furthermore, this project has enhanced our understanding of industrial processes and strengthened our problem-solving and teamwork capabilities, which will benefit us in our future careers. 4 Table of Contents Summary.............................................................................................................................. 2 Preface................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Project Situation.................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Research question................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Assignment............................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Project objectives.................................................................................................. 9 1.5 Method of Investigation.......................................................................................... 9 1.6 Structure of the report.......................................................................................... 10 2 Measurement (on-hold areas)...................................................................................... 12 2.1 Data collection..................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 On-hold areas.................................................................................................. 12 2.1.2 Quantitative Data Analysis............................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Jira in Prodrive (Issue tracking system)............................................................ 14 2.2 Interviews with the team lead............................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Overview of Interviews Conducted................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Key Findings from Interviews........................................................................... 15 2.3 Current process in flowcharts.............................................................................. 16 2.3.1 Kamil Team Leader SGSE............................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Kevin EV Charging Team Leader..................................................................... 18 2.3.3 Dawid Team Leader Technical......................................................................... 20 2.3.4 Dave Team Leader SGPS................................................................................ 23 2.4 Current Processes............................................................................................... 24 2.5 Summary of Findings........................................................................................... 25 2.6 Conclusion from the measurement...................................................................... 25 3 Organizational Diagnose.............................................................................................. 26 3.1 Analysis of the Organization................................................................................ 26 3.2 Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)for Prodrive Technologies 26 4 Analyzing the data....................................................................................................... 29 4.1 Main causes........................................................................................................ 29 4.2 Root causes and effects...................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 High-value products often require more investigation, causing longer hold times 30 4.3 Fishbone diagram................................................................................................ 30 4.4 Program of Requirement (POR)................................................................................ 32 5 Solutions and Recommendations................................................................................. 34 5 5.1 Recommendation................................................................................................ 34 5.2 New Design Proposal.......................................................................................... 36 5.2.1 RASCI Chart.................................................................................................... 38 5.3 Impact of Recommended Solutions..................................................................... 39 5.3.1 Impact/Effort matrix.......................................................................................... 40 5.4 Implementation of recommended solution in the new design............................... 41 5.5 Financial benefits................................................................................................. 42 Annexes.............................................................................................................................. 44 A. About Prodrive Technologies....................................................................................... 44 B. Interviews.................................................................................................................... 48 C. OCAI........................................................................................................................... 64 Literature List................................................................................................................... 65 References......................................................................................................................... 66 6 Figure 1: DMADV Model..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Funnel Structure................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Production line in the system assembly................................................................ 13 Figure 4: Product Issues..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Jira....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: SGSE on-hold process......................................................................................... 17 Figure 7: EV charging Process............................................................................................ 19 Figure 8: Type 5 and Type 6 Process.................................................................................. 21 Figure 9: SGPS Process..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 10: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)...................................... 27 Figure 11: Fishbone diagram.............................................................................................. 31 Figure 12: Proposed Solution.............................................................................................. 37 Figure 13: RASCI for new design........................................................................................ 38 Figure 14: Impact/Effort Matrix............................................................................................ 41 Figure 15: Technologies and Markets.................................................................................. 44 Figure 16: Business Process Landscape of Prodrive Technologies..................................... 45 Figure 17: Integrated management system of Prodrive....................................................... 47 7 1 Introduction This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the project, starting from the broader context of Prodrive Technologies and its operations before narrowing down to the specific focus of this project: improving the on-hold area processes within the system assembly department. It presents the research question, sub-questions, objectives, and the methodology used to address the identified challenges. The chapter concludes with an outline of the report structure to guide the reader. 1.1 Project Situation Prodrive Technologies is a high-tech manufacturing company that designs and produces innovative products for the automotive, healthcare, and semiconductors industries. Its operations span several stages, including research and development, production, and system assembly. System assembly plays a critical role in ensuring that Prodriveâs products meet the highest quality standards before reaching customers. Within system assembly, the on-hold area is designated for items that cannot proceed in production due to unresolved issues, such as defects, missing parts, or technical failures. These on-hold items create bottlenecks, leading to reduced productivity, delays, and mismanagement. The current on-hold process lacks clear workflows, responsibilities, and efficient tracking mechanisms, contributing to these inefficiencies. This project focuses on analysing and redesigning the on-hold area process to improve efficiency and align with Prodriveâs operational excellence goals. By addressing the root causes of delays and inefficiencies, the aim is to create a standardized, data-driven process that ensures smoother handling of on-hold items. 1.2 Research question Design a process for the on-hold area of the system assembly department to handle the on- hold items by the end of January 2025. 1.2.1 Sub Research question 1 What is the current process for handling items in the on-hold area? 2 Who is responsible for each step? 3 What are current inefficiencies in the on-hold area? 4 What are the root causes of inefficiencies and delays in the current on-hold area process? 5 What steps and workflows should be included in the new process for handling undefined NCG items? 1.3 Assignment The assignment involves the following tasks to address Prodriveâs requirements: 1. Measuring the Current Process: ï· Mapping the on-hold areaâs workflow to identify gaps, inefficiencies, and unclear responsibilities. ï· Documenting how undefined NCG items are there and how they are currently identified, stored, and resolved. 2. Analysing the process: 8 ï· Establishing a clear definition and categorization system for undefined NCG items to ensure consistency and standardization. 3. Designing a new process: ï· Designing a process for identifying, categorizing, and resolving undefined items. 4. Providing Recommendations and solutions: ï· Developing a roadmap for Prodrive to implement the proposed definitions and workflows. This assignment will involve close collaboration with Prodrive stakeholders, including quality control, product leaders, and production teams, to ensure that the recommendations align with the companyâs operational goals and quality standards. These tasks are crucial for aligning the proposed solutions with Prodriveâs operational and quality standards, ensuring their practical applicability and long-term impact. 1.4 Project objectives The primary objective of this project is to design a standardized and efficient process for managing the on-hold area in the system assembly department. This includes: ï· Ensuring accurate categorization of undefined NCG items. ï· Reducing the average time items remain in the on-hold area. ï· Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and workflows for handling on-hold items. The goal is to transform the current on-hold process from one that causes delays and inefficiencies to a streamlined, efficient, and productive workflow. 1.5 Method of Investigation The project utilizes the DMADV (Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify) methodology (DMADV) to tackle the inefficiencies in the on-hold area of the system assembly department. DMADV is a systematic approach designed for creating new processes or systems when small improvements are not enough. This methodology guarantees that the proposed solution is based on data, thorough, and in line with the organization's goals. In the Define phase, the project scope is established, key stakeholders are identified, and clear objectives are set. The Measure phase focuses on gathering baseline data to grasp the current state of the on-hold area and assess its performance. During the Analyse phase, root causes of inefficiencies are pinpointed using tools like root cause analysis and process mapping. The Design phase involves developing a detailed process workflow for the on-hold area, integrating solutions to tackle the identified challenges and inefficiencies. Lastly, the Verify phase is where the solution is presented to the company. 9 Figure 1: DMADV Model 1.6 Structure of the report A funnel approach (Funnel Technique) is used to structure the report effectively, starting with a broad overview of the issue and gradually narrowing down to specific solutions and recommendations. The report introduces the project, detailing the assignment, the research question, the objectives, and the context within Prodrive Technologies. It describes the challenges faced in the on-hold area, which establishes the project's purpose and importance. The second chapter offers an internal analysis of the on-hold area process, which is mapped and evaluated using tools like the PCOI framework alongside the program of requirements. The third chapter focuses on identifying the root causes of inefficiencies, utilizing tools such as the 5 Whys, and Ishikawa diagrams. This analysis categorizes the challenges into process, control, organization, and information-related issues, providing a thorough understanding of the factors that lead to delays and mismanagement in the on-hold area. Building on the insights from the earlier chapters, this section introduces the design process for the on-hold 10 area. The proposed design is grounded in Lean principles, including the 5S methodology for organization. The final chapter brings together the results and recommendations. The proposed process is validated through feedback from stakeholders and Fontys Mentor. It concludes with an implementation roadmap, outlining clear steps that Prodrive Technologies can take to adopt the new process and achieve long-term operational efficiency. Figure 2: Funnel Structure 11 2 Measurement (on-hold areas) Efficiency in assembly systems depends on how well related processes are managed. Nevertheless, the holding areas-areas where goods are held up due to defects, incomplete documentation, and other unresolved issues-are common. These areas serve both as symptoms and causes of bottlenecks, which could provide vital signals about the functioning of a system and its lack of efficiency. Current process understanding at Prodrive Technologies: A series of interviews were conducted with key personnel participating in system assembly workflows. Such a series of discussions provided valuable input on existing problems and helped in creating a Program of Requirements for mapping the current state. Based on the data from such interviews, supported by observational studies and tool usage such as Jira, this chapter does an analysis of the on-hold areas, identification of inefficiencies, and hence proposes process improvements. It means having a structured approach where real-world insight aligns with production optimization to increase workflow efficiency in meeting project objectives. 2.1 Data collection The following describes data that will be collected to understand the current state of on-hold areas, using various methods to identify inefficiencies: data collection will be analyzed and used to reach the goal of the assignment, which is to have a full new design for the on-hold areas. 1. Observation: Direct observation of on-hold areas provided insight into workflow bottlenecks and inconsistencies. It helps to prepare the questions for the interview based on the observation. 2. Interviews: In-depth interviews with key team leads were held to qualitatively understand current pain points and processes. 3. System Records: Data from NCG log, activity log, Jira, and Excel sheets were used to analyze historical and ongoing issues. 2.1.1 On-hold areas A full assessment of the assembly system floor was done to determine sections with on-hold products. Below in Figure 3, the production line in the system assembly is listed and the back represents the on-hold areas. Based on a predefined table of areas on the system assembly floor, a formal tour is made to document the status of each area in an Excel reporting sheet that contains critical information like serial number, product number, or order number for areas where on-hold products were found. The product lying in the on-hold area is d However, this did not include information from some of the on-hold areas in the documentation. To fill this gap, targeted interviews were conducted with relevant personnel about the missing data. The data collected during the visit was measured and the result can be seen in the next section 2.1.2. 12 Figure 3: Production line in the system assembly 2.1.2 Quantitative Data Analysis A total of 418 units across all handling and resolution stages were assessed. This included: ï· Defects logged: 20 ï· Failures logged: 20 ï· Repairs completed: 12 ï· Completed operations: 100 ï· Queuing operations: 82 Revealed in this analysis were salient performance insights like flow effectiveness and bottlenecks in the on-hold area. Notably, 40.43% (or 169 units) had no description, and this deficiency in the existence of clear documentation appeared to be the most serious among them. Additional issues included: ï· Test step errors ï· Front panel defects: 10.05% ï· Missing labels: 10.05% Other minor errors (e.g. pass clicking too early-4.78%; power cable disconnection-4.78%): These findings highlight the need for improved documentation, clearer test processes, and better procedures to prevent recurrence. This shall be the basis of standardization of processes to bring efficiency into workflows and improve tracing. This measure helped to do the interview and be critical with the questions to get more specific answers. As the figure above shows that the products that are in the on-hold area are missing descriptions which is causing a big problem in the on-hold area process. Figure 4: Product Issues 13 2.1.3 Jira in Prodrive (Issue tracking system) Jira is mainly utilized in the office environments of Prodrive for Issue Tracking. Itâs the information part of the PCOI element However, its potential to streamline on-hold processes on the production floor remains untapped. By integrating Jira with production workflows, Prodrive can achieve: ï· Centralize defect tracking. ï· Automate escalation processes. ï· Enhanced visibility for technicians and managers. Figure 5: Jira At Prodrive Technologies, Jira is the means for tracking and managing issues, especially within the office environments but has yet to be extended to the production line assembly system or hold areas. 1- Project Selection: Here the user selects the appropriate project in which to log the issue, ensuring proper categorization and management. 2- Issue Type Definition: Different kinds of issues can be categorized such as Defect. 3- Detailed Issue Documentation: ï· Responsibility: Here he or she can identify and assign the responsible individual or team to clear up the issue. 14 ï· Impact Assessment: categorization of the severity of the issues such as None, Low, Medium, or High. ï· Description: Fully descriptive explanation of the issue including the context, affected areas, and what actions are required existing limitations: T1 Now, JIRA is primarily used as an issue management solution for office environments. It has so far not been extended to such crucial areas as: ï· Production Lines ï· Assembly Systems ï· On-Hold Areas 2.2 Interviews with the team lead 2.2.1 Overview of Interviews Conducted In the course of the study, structured interviews with key team leaders and stakeholders at various levels within Prodrive Technologies were conducted. These interviews became an integral component in determining how processes related to items in the on-hold areas of the System Assembly Department are presently designed. The interviews provided qualitative insights into the current process implementation and also emphasized the challenges that different teams deal with the product lying there. All interviews were transcribed as can be seen in the Annex interviews These interviews aimed to identify the following comprehensively: 1. Current Processes: Mapping out in detail how each department currently handles the process of non-conforming goods and recognizing gaps or inconsistencies in their workflows. 2. Challenges and Inefficiencies: To pinpoint the main challenges in defect resolution, documentation, and communication issues within the on-hold process. 3. Practical Proposals: Discussed are possible ameliorations and standardization, considering the practical experience of the Team Leads. The main issue arising from these interviews would be an institutionalized process is lacking. Most departments heavily rely on the personal experience of the leading to handle on-hold items, which causes variability and inefficiencies. Nothing is standardized regarding categorization, documentation, and resolution of issues, contributing to delays and mismanagement. 2.2.2 Key Findings from Interviews 1. Process Variability: Each team follows its own pattern for dealing with NCGs. For example, Kamils team uses extensive documentation on Jira, and other teams may hardly or ever track the processes in any digital tool. 2. Following Experience: The considerable proportion of the responses from the Team Leads mentioned the main factor to decide upon-experience and intuition is present rather than basing decisions upon a 15 given protocol structure. Just the involvement of one's judgment itself gives inconsistency to results. 3. Document Gaps Several instances were highlighted where essential information, such as defect descriptions or root cause analysis, was either incomplete or missing. Inadequate documentation makes investigations more difficult and prolongs resolution times. 4. Communication Issues: Coordination among departments is irregular. Lack of clear escalation procedures and roles many times leads to delayed resolutions for high-priority issues. 5. Areas of Improvement: Team leaders of the group thought that a single online system with complete training would reduce most problems. Other plausible solutions were an enhanced communication system along with standard workflows in place. Long descriptions of these interviews, including quotations and themes, can be found in the annexes section (page 43). This additional level of information provides a granularity of the findings and supports the analysis presented here. It provides a full resource for understanding the perspectives shared through the interviews and how they shaped the subsequent recommendations and proposed solutions. 2.3 Current process in flowcharts Prodrive Technologies operates without a clearly defined method for managing its waiting areas in the assembly systems. This has led to each department handling products differently from other departments, which consequently wastes time and creates discrepancies in handling these products across the organization. To address all these, an in-depth analysis of the already available workflows was carried out. The investigation started with a high-level study about Prodrive's assembly and defect management. For fruitful drilling insight, structured interviews were done with team leads who can manage a variety of areas regarding on-holding activities. Such interviews yielded valuable information on existing processes, challenges, and improvement opportunities. The flowcharts that are in figure 6,7,8& are based on the interview. For now, the on-Hold area doesnât have a standard process. 2.3.1 Kamil Team Leader SGSE Kamil: Is the team leader SGSE. He has an exceptionally good understanding of the nonconformance goods process and is responsible for labeling, identification, and contacting the relevant personnel like the quality engineer or supplier. The below flowchart is based on the interview which can be found in the annex. 16 Figure 6: SGSE on-hold process Refer to Annex A (page 37) for the full transcript. Detection of Issues in Assembly ï· If no issue is detected, the assembly process proceeds without intervention. ï· If an issue is detected, the workflow transitions into the defect management process. Handling the Defective Item 1. Place an "On-Hold" label on the defective item. 2. Collect and document non-conformance details related to the defect. 3. Move the labelled item to the designated On-Hold Area for further evaluation. Logging the Issue in Jira ï· The defect is formally logged in Jira, including all relevant details, such as: 17 o Serial number and product information. o Description of the defect. o Assigned responsibility for resolution. o Categorization of severity (e.g., None, Low, Medium, High). Issue Investigation ï· A thorough investigation is conducted to determine the root cause and identify the most appropriate resolution. Determine the Outcome ï· The classification of the outcome is based on the investigation results: o Scrap: If the defect cannot be repaired, the item is designated for scrapping. o Repair: If repair is feasible, corrective actions are taken to resolve the issue. Final Updates in Jira ï· The on-hold status is removed once the issue is resolved. ï· Final updates are made to the Jira logs, ensuring complete traceability and documentation of the issue and its resolution. This workflow highlights the critical steps taken by Kamilâs team and serves as a foundation for designing a standardized process for the on-hold area. The included flowchart (Figure 6) provides a visual representation of this process, illustrating key decision points and actions taken at each stage. 2.3.2 Kevin EV Charging Team Leader Kevin: He is the team leader for the EV charging sector. Kevin is dedicated and detail-oriented with a strong focus on quality control and process optimization. He plays an important role in overseeing production workflows, managing non-conformance issues, and coordinating with technicians, quality associates, and suppliers to ensure that product standards are met. He insists on systematic documentation and tries to use things like Jira and SAP to make the tracking and resolution of issues easier. 18 Figure 7: EV charging Process Refer to Annex B (page 39) for the full transcript. Inspection of Products ï· Technicians inspect products during assembly for non-conformities. ï· If no issues are found, production continues uninterrupted. ï· If an issue is detected: o The product is labelled with key identifiers, including: ï§ Serial Number (SN) ï§ Part Number (PN) ï§ Order Number (ON) o The product is placed on a non-conformance cart and moved to the on-hold area for further evaluation. 19 Initial Decision Making ï· A decision is made to determine if the issue can be resolved immediately: o Immediate Resolution: The product is repaired and logged in the Resolution and Tracking process. o Further Investigation: If immediate resolution is not possible, the product undergoes investigative research to determine root causes and potential solutions. Investigation and Outcome ï· Following the investigation, there are two possible outcomes: o Rework: ï§ The product undergoes necessary repairs. ï§ It is then placed in a "Hold for Gathering" stage before proceeding to Resolution and Tracking. o Scrap: ï§ If the product cannot be repaired, it is designated for scrapping. Final Resolution ï· Once a decision (rework or scrap) is made, the product is: o Released from the on-hold status. o Sent back to the supplier if necessary. ï· Final updates are made to the logs, ensuring traceability and documentation of actions taken. This workflow demonstrates Kevinâs systematic approach to managing non-conformities in the EV Charging department. The corresponding flowchart (Figure 7) provides a visual representation of the process, emphasizing key decision points and subsequent actions. 2.3.3 Dawid Team Leader Technical Dawid: He is the technical team leader. Dawid is an organized, resourceful professional who seems to be very important in the management of non-conforming components and ensuring production processes run well. His responsibilities include investigating defective components, determining whether they should be scrapped, reworked, or repaired, and escalated to suppliers or other departments. Dawid identifies the causes of various problems by using numerous tools such as Jira, PLM manufacturing systems that provide him with follow-up on any product and defects to their various sources. 20 Figure 8: Type 5 and Type 6 Process Annex C (page 45) for the full transcript. Product Arrival ï· Upon arrival, each product is inspected for identifying information, such as a sticker or label. ï· If no sticker or label is found: o The product is compared to similar items, or o A lead technician is consulted for clarification. ï· If identifying information is present, the product proceeds to the initial investigation stage. Initial Investigation ï· The primary goal is to determine whether the issue can be identified: o If the issue cannot be identified, the product is escalated to the quality engineering team for further investigation. o If the issue is identifiable, the investigation moves to a detailed analysis stage. Detailed Investigation 21 ï· A thorough analysis is conducted to determine the root cause and resolution. ï· Based on the investigation, the productâs outcome is categorized as follows: o Repairable: The product is dispatched to the service team for necessary repairs. o Irreparable: The product is designated for scrapping. Final Steps ï· For repaired products: o The product undergoes final testing and is updated in Jira to document the resolution. ï· For scrapped products: o The productâs status is logged in Jira, ensuring full traceability. ï· The process concludes with comprehensive documentation, ensuring all actions and decisions are recorded for future reference. This structured process, as followed by Dawidâs team, ensures systematic investigation and resolution of issues within the on-hold area. The corresponding flowchart (Figure 8) provides a visual guide to the process. 22 2.3.4 Dave Team Leader SGPS Dave: He is the SGSP team leader. Dave sounds like a deeply knowledgeable and team- oriented professional in either operations or quality control of manufacturing. He clearly explained the handling processes regarding "on-hold" products, quality deviations, and nonconforming goods, adding their differences in complexity. Dave is detail-oriented and appreciates efficiency, including suggestions for process improvements such as linking a tracking system like Jira to physical labels for better integration and documentation. Figure 9: SGPS Process Refer to Annex D (page 50) for the full transcript. Identification of Issues ï· Products arriving from production or assembly are inspected for potential issues or uncertain statuses. ï· If an issue is identified: o The product is labelled with: ï§ Serial Number (SN) 23 ï§ Product Number (PN) ï§ Order Number (ON) o A description of the issue is added. On-Hold Placement ï· The labeled product is moved to the on-hold area. ï· The on-hold office contacts the responsible party, such as a quality engineer or project manager, for further action. Initial Resolution Attempt ï· If the issue can be resolved immediately, the product is moved to the Resolution and Tracking stage. ï· If immediate resolution is not possible, the product enters the investigation phase. Investigation Phase ï· The investigation focuses on assessing: o Costs o Severity o Potential solutions ï· Based on these assessments, a decision is made: o Rework: If repairs are feasible, the product is repaired. o Scrap: If repairs are not feasible, the product is scrapped. o Hold for Further Information: If additional details are required, the product remains on hold. Final Resolution and Tracking ï· After a resolution or scrap decision, the product is either: o Released from the on-hold status, or o Sent back to the supplier if necessary. ï· The process concludes with updates to the logs, ensuring complete traceability and documentation of actions taken. This workflow illustrates Daveâs approach to managing non-conformities, emphasizing structured decision-making and detailed documentation. The corresponding flowchart (Figure 9) visually depicts the process, outlining key stages and decision points. 2.4 Current Processes After the interview, it was clear that the on-hold processes differ significantly across departments. This section outlines workflows from four departments, highlighting their common and different way of handling the on-hold product. 24 SGSE Department: ï· Items are labeled and documented using Jira. ï· Escalation depends on manual intervention. EV Charging Department: ï· A cart-based system is used for on-hold items. ï· Defects are logged inconsistently, causing delays in resolution. Technical Team: ï· Detailed investigations are conducted, but documentation often lacks clarity. STPS Department: ï· Issues are labeled and tracked, but the lack of a system causes gaps in visibility. 2.5 Summary of Findings The analysis based on observations and interviews reveals several key challenges: ï· Lack of standardization across departments. ï· Insufficient integration of digital tools like Jira in on-hold processes. ï· Over-reliance on manual documentation and individual judgment. ï· Gaps in defect tracking and escalation procedures. Addressing these issues through improved workflows, digitization, and training will greatly enhance Prodrive's on-hold area efficiency. The output from this chapter provides the basis for the Program of Requirements (POR) described in Chapter 4. 2.6 Conclusion from the measurement This chapter points to crucial inefficiencies on hold in the areas of Prodrive Technologies, such as standardization gaps, inconsistent use of digital tools, and possible manual processes. It will be easier to be able to identify key problem areas that reduce operational efficiency and delay defect resolution through quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Data collection and interviews will form the basis for developing the Program of Requirements. This will ensure that any proposed solutions in further chapters are data-driven, targeted, and aligned with Prodrive's goals of operational excellence and process standardization. After the measurement was done the inefficiencies were found which are further analyzed in the chapter 4 for the root cause analysis. 25 3 Organizational Diagnose The foundation of a companyâs success is often rooted in its organizational structure, which drives efficiency, productivity, and sustainable growth. To achieve this, many organizations rely on proven theories that promote continuous improvement and adaptability. However, even the most thoughtfully designed structures can fall short if not applied correctly, limiting their ability to deliver tangible results. For Prodrive, understanding how their organization currently operates is crucial. By evaluating its existing structure and addressing any inefficiencies or weaknesses, Prodrive can refine its approach to ensure clarity, accountability, and collaboration at every level, ultimately supporting its long-term growth and success. 3.1 Analysis of the Organization Vision At Prodrive Technologies, their vision is to create technologies that are the essential links in the systems that form the foundation of todayâs world and shape the future. Together, they aim to make the world work more efficiently, sustainably, and cohesively. Mission The company mission is rooted in a commitment to excellence and a passion for solving real- world challenges. They strive to create technologies that unlock new possibilities, foster innovation, and contribute to a more sustainable, connected, and thriving global community. Core Values Three core values underpin our culture and guide our journey toward achieving our mission: 1. Equality At Prodrive Technologies, every individual is valued for their unique contributions. They foster a culture of inclusivity where everyone is treated as an equal and empowered to contribute to their collective success. 2. Trust By empowering employees through trust, the company enables them to achieve their full potential. 3. Responsibility Prodrive takes pride in its commitment to driving positive change and contributing to a more sustainable future. 3.2 Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)for Prodrive Technologies Organizational culture of Prodrive is characterized mainly by Clan values of work and coaching, with traits of Adhocracy in terms of innovation and agility. The Prodrive organization analysis is done based on the interview and the observation during the visit. The Market culture reinforces accountability and goal alignment. This synergy allows Prodrive to reconcile employee well-being with operational excellence, creating a dynamic and productive work environment. (OCAI) 26 Figure 10: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) Clan Culture Characteristics: Prodrive is friendly and has a people-oriented organization. Prodrive prioritizes collaboration, mentorship, and teamwork. The open-plan design of the open office concept fosters deep interpersonal relationships, and weekly meetings are dedicated to group problem-solving. Mentors are leaders, that is, they help colleagues and build a nurturing environment. Impact: Employees are made to feel valued and included, which leads to great morale and engagement. Mentorship facilitates skill development and long-term career growth. Adhocracy Culture (Secondary) Characteristics: Prodrive strives for continuous evolution and innovation, which is reflected in its systematic approach to defect analysis and feedback systems. It is further suggested that teams are encouraged to try, innovate, and develop novel approaches to repetitive problems, especially quality control and defect tracking. Impact: Prodrive stays competitive by promoting adaptability and innovation. Employees are inspired to contribute creatively to process enhancements. Market Culture (Supportive) Characteristics: People are competitive and focused on achieving goals. Performance is being tracked in real-time using dashboards progress bars etc. Weekly meetings review successes and failures, allowing accountability and alignment with organizational goals. Impact: The focus on quantifiable results assures efficiency and goal congruency. Employees are motivated through concrete objectives and open performance measures. Organizational culture of Prodrive is characterized mainly by Clan values of work and coaching, with traits of Adhocracy in terms of innovation and agility. The Market culture reinforces accountability and goal alignment. This synergy allows Prodrive to reconcile 27 employee well-being with operational excellence, creating a dynamic and productive work environment. Organisations culture of Prodrive is characterized by Clan values of work and coaching, with traits of Adhocracy in terms of innovation and agility. The Market culture reinforces accountability and goal alignment. This synergy allows Prodrive to reconcile employee well- being with operational excellence, creating a dynamic and productive work environment. This enforces the weaknesses that the PDCA suffers from in the commitment aspect of the workforce and therefore gives more chances for continuous improvement in the company. C. OCAI 28 4 Analyzing the data To describe inefficiencies in the on-hold area processes at Prodrive Technologies, a structured analysis was carried out, and a mix of measurements, interviews, and process flowcharts were collected. The intention was to solve the problem at its origin, namely, delays, and challenge errors, and develop a Program of Requirements (POR) for reforming and standardizing workflows. The quantitative measures were separated into three categories: direct on-hold process observation, ERP systems, and system logs. These quantify bottlenecks, inconsistent defect management, and inadequate documentation. This was combined with qualitative information gathered from in-depth interviews with technical specialists and team leaders who oversaw the workflows. The interviews aimed to bring out those common challenges, validate the findings from the data, and develop some practical recommendations from real-world experience. These interviews were tape-recorded for accuracy and further analyzed to divide key themes, which are classified as Process-Based Flashes (P2) and Management-Based Insights (M2). The flowcharts from various other departments were also used to look at the current workflows in the department while dealing with on-hold items. This whole exercise revealed substantial discrepancies among departments, a lack of standardization, and blank spaces of communication preventing the timely resolution of issues. These findings revealed root causes for ineffectiveness, including different policies, incomplete documentation, and poor inter- group coordination. Integrating these perceptions will form the basis of these PoRs, which detail the requirements for optimal and streamlined on-hold processes. Adams presents a summary of the investigation based on concrete measurements, interview outcomes, and flowchart analyses for the development of PoR. 4.1 Main causes Main causes based on the interviews: Incomplete Documentation: P2, M2, PR2 ï· Missing or unclear details regarding product specifications, defect history, or testing procedures make investigations difficult. Unclear Defect Descriptions: PR1 ï· Defects are not adequately detailed during identification, causing delays in diagnosis and resolution. High Frequency of Missing Data: ï· The 40.43% of items without documentation is a significant measurement insight but not emphasized as a root cause for delays and inefficiencies. 4.2 Root causes and effects 5 Whys Lack of Standardized Tracking: PR2, PR3, P1 ï· Not all items on hold are tracked systematically, not all have corresponding entries in Jira. Labelling Issues: M2 29 ï· Some products are placed in the on-hold area without any description or clear labelling, of what the problem is or what kind of part Value-Based Decision Delays: P3 4.2.1 High-value products often require more investigation, causing longer hold times Delayed investigation and resolution time of on-hold items. 1. Why 1: Why is the investigation delayed? Missing or incomplete documentation 2. Why 2: Why is the documentation incomplete? no standardized format to track the product information 3. Why 3: Why is there no standardized? A lack of focus on implementing tools like Jira in the production area and in on hold 4. Why 4: Why has Jira not been implemented? Lack of investment in training for technicians. 5. Why 5: Why is there a lack of training? Management focused on other areas more than the on-hold area. 4.3 Fishbone diagram The diagram called Ishikawa from (Ishikawa diagram)Masaki Imai identified five generic headings under which it has dissected the removals of waste in the management of hold area issues: people, processes, materials, tools, and environment. Poor communication, insufficient training, and reliance on subjective decisions are the issues falling under People. An unclear workflow, unnecessary deviations, and ineffective escalation protocols are some of the things written under Processes. Inconsistencies in supplier quality and missing or incorrect labels are among the issues that Materials address. Under Tools, gaps in digitization are a lack of integration between physical systems and Jira, and reliance on manual methods. Finally, under the Environmental category is an untidy on-hold area and incomplete data for defect categorization. These causes interconnect with each other, which leads to delays, unresolvable defects, and less operational productivity in the on-hold process. 30 Figure 11: Fishbone diagram Relations: This relation will be found in the Report to connect between the report materials and the Ishikawa diagram: 1. People P1= poor communication P2= lack of tracking P3= decision making 2. Process PR1= unclear workflow PR2= lack of standardized PR3= inefficient resolution processes 3. Materials M1= quality of suppliers M2= missing labels 4. Tools T1= lack of digital tools T2= manual inspection and documentation 1. Environment E1= disorganized on-hold areas E2= insufficient categorization 31 4.4 Program of Requirement (POR) The Program of Requirements (POR) is a critical component of this document, providing a clear and structured framework for designing the new on-hold area process. Its purpose is to outline the specific needs, criteria, and objectives that the proposed solution must meet to address the inefficiencies in the current system. By establishing these requirements, the PoR ensures that the design process remains focused, practical, and aligned with Prodriveâs operational goals. The PoR is based on the PCOI element (PCOI) Role of the PoR in the Design Process The PoR acts as a foundation for the design phase by translating the insights from the Define, Measure, and Analyze phases of the DMADV framework into actionable design criteria. It serves several important functions: 1. Alignment with Goals: The PoR ensures that the proposed solutions address Prodriveâs operational and quality improvement goals, such as reducing resolution times and improving workflow consistency. 2. Focus on Main Causes: It is specifically designed to tackle the root causes of inefficiencies, such as unclear responsibilities, missing data, and inconsistent defect categorization in the on-hold area. 3. Guiding the Design Process: By providing clear, measurable, and actionable requirements, the PoR guides the design team in developing solutions that meet Prodriveâs specific needs. How the PoR Was Created The PoR is based on thorough research and real-world insights. It combines: ï· Interviews: Feedback from Prodrive employees, such as technicians and quality control staff, who shared their experiences and challenges. ï· Observations: First-hand visits to the on-hold area to see how items are currently handled and identify areas for improvement. ï· Problem Analysis: A deep dive into the root causes of inefficiencies, such as a lack of clear item categorization and inconsistent processes. 32 PCOI Category Requirement Description Source Process Workflow Develop a clear and consistent workflow Interviews Standardization for categorizing and resolving items in the on-hold area. Categorization Define specific categories (e.g., NCG goods, B. Interviews 4.1 Main Criteria test failures, missing parts) and establish causes criteria for classification. Create pre-filled templates in Jira for common non- conformance types (e.g., missing parts, scratches) to standardize issue reporting. Escalation Protocols Implement clear rules for escalating B. Interviews unresolved items based on time thresholds or complexity. Efficiency Metrics Ensure items spend no more than a defined 2.1.2 Count of units maximum time in the on-hold area. Control Monitoring Use Jira to monitor recurring issues and track 5.1 Possible Solutions 2.3.1 resolution progress. Overview of Interviews Conducted Regular Reviews Establish regular reviews of process 5.1 Possible Solutions B. performance to identify bottlenecks and drive Interviews continuous improvement. Human Factor Develop a training program for technicians B. Interviews Mitigation and NCT to reduce reliance on subjective judgment in evaluating defects. Organization Cross-Department Enhance communication between the quality B. Interviews Coordination control, service, and production teams to streamline decision-making and resolution. Roles and Assign clear ownership for each step in the 4.2 Root causes and effects Responsibilities process, including personnel for categorization, escalation, and resolution. Information Data Completeness Ensure all items entering the on-hold area are 5.1 Possible Solutions 2.3.2 accompanied by complete data, including Key Findings from serial numbers, order numbers, and part Interviews and B. numbers. Interviews Historical Data and Generate periodic reports from historical data 5.1 Possible Solutions and Trends to identify recurring issues and predict high- 4.1 Main causes risk components or processes. Feedback Repository Maintain a log of quality feedback sent to Observation and B. suppliers, along with their responses and Interviews corrective actions, to improve long-term accountability. How the PoR Will Help The PoR ensures that the new process: ï· categorize all items in the on-hold area to avoid confusion. ï· Defines roles and responsibilities so everyone knows who is accountable for each step. ï· Introduces streamlined workflows to reduce delays. ï· Implements better tracking and monitoring systems for greater visibility. 33 5 Solutions and Recommendations 5.1 Recommendation From the analysis thatâs done above, there are several areas needing improvement in defect tracking, process standardization, and data visibility. Below is a detailed solution to these problems which can be added to the new design. 1. Unified Tracking and Labelling System Issue Identified: ï· No connection between Jira tickets and order numbers. ï· Part numbers are tracked. However, there is no visibility on order-level issues. ï· Consistent data in the system is missing Solution: ï· Link Jira to Order Numbers and Part Numbers:(POR),Main causes o Create a system. Each order number can be linked to multiple part numbers. o Ensure every on-hold product or defect entry in Jira contains part number and order number fields. This makes tracking specific and comprehensive. o Use QR codes or barcodes for labels. They link directly to Jira tickets when scanned. Visibility is ensured from the shop floor to the managerial level. ï· Mandatory Data Fields: o Enforce fields such as Order Number. Fields like Part Number Defect Type and Responsible Team must also be filled before submission in Jira. o Automate validation of inputs. This will avoid incomplete entries. 2. Enhanced Defect Categorization and Escalation Challenge Identified: ï· Defect types are not categorized. They are not linked to actions. ï· Escalations are manual. They depend on human intervention. ï· Delays in defect resolution exist. These delays are due to unclear responsibility. Solution: Root causes and effects (POR) ï· Categorization Template: o Standardize defect categorization templates in Jira. Technicians will be able to select from pre-filled options. Options such as missing parts scratches and assembly failure exist. ï· Automated Escalation Protocol: o Set rules in Jira. Unresolved defects escalate based on time thresholds. o Assign clear ownership of defects. Do this at every escalation level. ï· Real-Time Notifications: o Use Jira integrations. These send notifications. An example is emails or dashboards. They send these to team leads. It's for pending escalations. 3. On-Hold Area Workflow and Visibility 34 Challenge Identified: ï· Lack of clarity in the on-hold area. This is regarding items. It is also about their status and the next steps. ï· There is no established process to trace because orders are on hold. It is unclear even on their resolution timeline. Solution: POR, Root causes and effects, Main causes ï· Digital On-Hold Dashboard: o Create a centralized dashboard. Integrate it with Jira. The goal is to display all on-hold orders and their statuses. Examples include âawaiting inspectionâ and âawaiting resolution.â o Technicians and managers get to filter by order number part number or defect type. ï· Clear Process for On-Hold Items: o An automated workflow is needed for items entering the on-hold area. Step 1: Label with QR codes. These codes link to Jira tickets. Step 2: Defect categorization is next. It's in Jira. Assigned responsibility comes with it. Step 3: Monitor the timeline. There is an escalation for delays. Step 4: The resolution process is crucial. Confirmation is needed before items exit the on-hold area. 4. Training and Awareness for Teams Challenge Identified: ï· Technicians and stakeholders show reluctance to use Jira. They do not fully adopt the process. Instead, they prefer protecting their scope of work. ï· There is a lack of understanding of the importance of defect tracking. Solution: POR, Root causes and effects, Main causes ï· Comprehensive Training Program: o Conduct workshops to train technicians. Also, train quality teams, and managers on Jira use. The training emphasizes the importance of accurate and consistent data entry. ï· Demonstrating Value: o Showcase how defect tracking data helps. It prevents repeat issues. It also reduces workload and improves quality. 5. Historical Data and Analytics for Continuous Improvement Challenge Identified: ï· Data from history is not fully employed for tracing patterns. It does not reveal recurring defects. ï· There is an absence of proactive measures to prevent future issues. Solution: POR, Root causes and effects, Main causes ï· Defect Trend Analysis: 35 o Use defect data from records. Generate monthly reports revealing common issues. High-risk parts are also worthy of attention. Suppliers with recurrent quality problems should not be overlooked. ï· Preventative Action Plans: o Implement corrective actions for recurring issues. Supplier feedback can be useful. Additional quality checks for specific parts may be required. ï· Supplier Feedback Repository: o Maintain a log of defect reports sent to suppliers. Along with this record supplier responses and actions taken. This will ensure a comprehensive view. 5.2 New Design Proposal The proposed new design aims to address inefficiencies in the current on-hold area by introducing a structured, data-driven workflow that improves visibility, accountability, and resolution times. This design is based on the Program of Requirements (PoR), which serves as the foundation for ensuring the new process aligns with Prodriveâs operational goals and solves key inefficiencies identified during our analysis. Program of Requirement (POR). Management of on-hold areas in a dynamic and fast-paced production environment is very crucial to operational efficiency and product quality. Traditionally, on-hold workflows in Prodrive Technologies varied across departments, and each department was left to adopt processes to deal with its NCGs and stall products. This variety led to inefficiencies and increased resolution times, not to mention missing many opportunities for improvement that could be systematic. The newly designed proposal thus closes these gaps by introducing a single, traceable, and standardized process, using tools such as Jira to increase visibility and accountability across all assembly sections. The new design fills this gap through a single line, standardized process, using tools such as Jira to generate visibility and accountability across all assembly sections. This new flow diagram has extracted its principles from the already existing four designs, which were used by SGSE, EV Charging, Technical, and STPS teams. This new design integrates the strengths of earlier designs into one unified system that eliminates bottlenecks and creates an efficient means to communicate across departments, instead of concentrating on localized issues like the previous designs. Key improvements include centralizing data tracking, a more robust decision-making framework for defect management, and defining roles and responsibilities at every step. By connecting requirements outlined in earlier chapters to the improved workflow, this solution transforms the on-hold area into a well-organized, data- driven system that minimizes waste and enhances productivity. Comparatively, the new design reduces redundancies found in the earlier workflows by incorporating global principles of quality control and defect resolution into a seamless, company-wide process, ensuring every productâs journey through the on-hold system is efficient and traceable 36 Figure 12: Proposed Solution Steps of the flow chart Disturbed Process: ï· Start Point: The process begins when a disturbed or defective product is identified during production or assembly. Label the Product: ï· The defective product is labelled with necessary details such as: o Serial number o Product description o Information about the issue o Responsible party for resolution. Labelled Product and Jira Integration: ï· The labelled product information is logged into Jira for digital tracking. This ensures traceability and enables stakeholders to monitor the issue. Check Label: 37 ï· The label is checked for completeness and accuracy. If any information is missing, the product will be sent back to the responsible department. On-Hold Area: ï· Products with verified labels are moved to the on-hold area for further investigation and resolution. Quality Problem Identification: ï· The product is inspected for quality issues. If quality problems are identified, appropriate corrective actions are planned. Decision Point: Fixed? ï· A decision is made about whether the product can be fixed immediately: o Yes (Fixed): The product is returned to assembly after resolution. o No: The product is moved to the next stage for additional handling Waiting for Missing Parts: ï· If the issue cannot be fixed due to missing components, the product waits in the on- hold area until the required parts are available. Back to Assembly: ï· Once the issue is resolved or missing parts are received, the product is returned to the assembly line for completion. Non-Conforming Goods (NCG): ï· If the product cannot be repaired or resolved, it is categorized as Non-Conforming Goods (NCG). This step involves: o Documenting the product as unusable. o Tracking it for disposal or further action as per company policy. 5.2.1 RASCI Chart Process T PS AO QE TL ITS QT QC S NCGS labelling R A S C I Implement R S S C Jira Quality S C R I check NCG C I A R Scrap A S R C I decision analysis C I R S A Updating C R S A I log Figure 13: RASCI for new design Matrix RASCI: T= technicians R= Responsibility 38 PS= Production supervisor A= Accountable AO= Assembly operators S= Support QE= Quality engineering C= Control TL= Team leader I= Informed ITS= IT support QT= Quality team QC= Quality control S= stakeholders NCGS= non-conforming goods specialists 5.3 Impact of Recommended Solutions Proposed solutions when implemented will transform how Prodrive manages its on-hold area and defect tracking. The critical challenges like lack of visibility inconsistent data and manual workflows are being addressed. Improved Tracking and Visibility Impact: All items on hold will generate a clear record in Jira. Records will link with both the part number and order number. QR codes/barcodes on items will enable instant access. This access will be available for defect details along with resolution progress. This will reduce confusion and manual searching. A centralized dashboard is also in the works. It will provide real-time insight into the status of on-hold items. This will make it easier for technicians and managers to prioritize and act. Result: Items on hold will no longer remain in a stuck position. Accountability or visibility will not be a problem. Teams can make faster decisions that are more informed. This will reduce the time items spend on hold and improve throughput. Faster Defect Resolution and Escalation Impact: Defect categorization (standardized. Such as missing parts and scratches) ensures consistency. This consistency aids issue reporting. It makes it easier to act. Automated escalation protocols eliminate delays. Delays caused by human intervention. Responses are made on time. Real-time notifications keep the team leads aware of unresolved defects. This prevents bottlenecks. On-hold area defects get resolved faster. Production moves without issues. Unresolved issues decrease significantly. Result: The product in the on-hold area will be solved faster and there will be fewer bottlenecks and delays. Process Standardization 39 Impact: Automated workflows for items in the on-hold area ensure consistency. They handle tasks like labelling defect categorization and timeline monitoring. Resolution is also part of their job. Technicians and managers have a clear roadmap. This roadmap is for handling on-hold items. Result: This reduces manual errors. It cuts down on confusion. The on-hold workflow becomes predictable and repeatable. The workforce spends less time figuring out the next steps. There is more time for resolving issues. Team Engagement and Skill Development Impact: Training sessions will improve Jira adoption. This will help technicians. It will help teams understand the value of defect tracking. Stakeholders' buy-in ensures everyone works together. They work towards the same goals. This reduces resistance to change. Result: Technicians and managers will take ownership. They will own the defect-resolution process. This increases accountability. It also increases efficiency. Long-Term Improvement Impact: Analysis of historical data will pinpoint repetitive defects. It will uncover problematic zones. Proactive measures will enable this. An example could be improved communication with suppliers. Another could be additional checks. Supplier feedback guarantees accountability. It also fosters continuous enhancements in quality. Results The on-hold area has fewer repeat problems. The reduction leads to fewer defects in the long term. Productivity is higher. By using this matrix below, teams or individuals can work smarter, not harder, ensuring resources are directed toward what truly matters. Prioritization: The matrix visually organizes projects to show what to focus on first (Quick Wins) and what to plan for (Major Projects). It prevents wasting time on low-value tasks. Efficient Resource Use: Ensures your effort goes into high-impact work instead of thankless or low-priority tasks. Clarity in Decision-Making: The decision can be made easily with the process being cleared. 5.3.1 Impact/Effort matrix The Impact/Effort Matrix is a simple yet powerful decision-making tool that helps prioritize tasks or projects based on their potential impact (the value or benefit they bring) and the effort (the resources, time, and energy required to complete them). By visually categorizing tasks into four quadrants, this matrix ensures that resources are focused on initiatives that maximize benefits while minimizing effort. 40 By using the matrix, Prodrive Technologies can make informed decisions, ensuring resources are allocated to projects with the best outcomes for the business. Figure 14: Impact/Effort Matrix 5.4 Implementation of recommended solution in the new design To succeed with these solutions Prodrive should pursue these steps: Setting Up a Merge Tracking System ï· Ensure to connect Jira with order and part numbers. ï· The development of QR codes/barcodes that link items with Jira tickets is imperative. This allows viewing the defect from anywhere. ï· Fields in Jira establish a structure. Such as Order Number, Part Number and Defect Type. These fields ensure data is complete. Establishing Workflow and Dashboard ï· Create a digital dashboard that can show the status of all items that are on hold. ï· Integrate workflow in Jira to automate items that are coming into the on-hold area: o As they come in, mark them with individual QR codes. o Defect them and assign standardized templates. o Set escalations that will have to occur after certain timings have lapsed and issues remain unsolved. ï· Educate the technicians, managers, and other employees on the new interface and new operational procedures. Standardizing Defect Management ï· Design template defect categories in Jira which will be easily accessed by technicians. ï· Create escalation procedures in Jira so that complaints can be escalated even without supervision when the required condition is met. ï· Send emails or use dashboards to forward notifications regarding defect escalation to team leaders or managers. Team Training 41 ï· Two competent sessions or workshops need to be taken to teach the technicians, managers, and quality teams how to operate the various Jira functions and steps involved in the new on-hold process. Using Historical Data for Continuous Improvement ï· Set up monthly defect analysis reports from Jira to identify recurring issues and high- risk parts. ï· Provide feedback to suppliers based on defect trends and request corrective actions. ï· Maintain a repository of supplier responses and actions to monitor long-term accountability. 5.5 Financial benefits Implementing the new design at Prodrive Technologies in the on-hold is not just a step toward operational efficiency but also a strategic financial investment. The system aims to significantly reduce costs, increase productivity, and improve overall profitability by streamlining processes and minimizing inefficiencies. Through improved productivity and faster resolution times, the organization will see tangible reductions in costs while simultaneously boosting customer satisfaction and operational performance. At its core, the new design delivers cost benefits by improving time efficiency, reducing waste, and enhancing process accuracy. Below are the key financial benefits and cost estimation that can arise during the implementation of the new design: Cost Estimation Cost estimation for the proposed project includes several components under the following broad categories: implementation costs, human resource costs, and operational costs. All these aspects are essential for a completely successful project with smooth process integration at Prodrive Technologies. 1. Implementation Costs: ï· The first major cost is for development of the integrated tracking system in Jira - licensing, development, and customisation. A solid platform made comprehensive to meet the company's needs is the goal here. ï· QR code/barcode implementation is also hardware (scanners and printers) and software investment to easily track items in the holding area: ï· Training employees on the new system would serve to equip them on effective utilization of the tools and processes. 2. Human Resources Costs: ï· Expenditure during the transition should consider allocation of employee time spent on training and adoption of the system, which would cause a temporary decline in productiveness in other areas. ï· Such charges may swell cost for the project if external consultants are engaged during employee training or system implementation. 3. Operational Costs: ï· Maintaining up-to-date and operating digital systems will harness different resources for their repairs and troubleshooting. It may also require further staffing or resources to observe and maintain the standardized workflow usage in the system for operational as intended over time. Benefits Estimation 42 Possible advantages: 1. Saving time: ï· Reduced average time of resolution of on-hold items. ï· Faster clearing of bottlenecks. 2. Cost savings: ï· Reduced manual tracking errors resulting in reduced product defects. ï· More efficiency than manual processing will require less labour cost for an extended period on defect management. 3. Quality Improvements: ï· Supplier accountability and reduction of repeat issues. ï· Increased customer satisfaction because of faster resolution and better-quality products. ï· Process standardization: ï· Clear roles and responsibilities keep miscommunication and redundancy minimal. Using the Metrics to Analyse 1. Cost-benefit assessment will contain: ï· Hold time average reduced, and the cost savings calculated resulting from resource allocation. ï· Reduction of scrap rates with cost savings associated with it. ï· Estimate the productivity improvement per product through savings in time. 43 Annexes A. About Prodrive Technologies Founded in 1993, Prodrive Technologies (Company Profile)has grown into a global leader in advanced technology and manufacturing. With 2400 skilled employees worldwide, Prodrive is committed to creating innovative and meaningful technologies that drive industries forward. In Prodrive, 30 percent of employees are working in the Research and Development department. They have 3 production and development facilities globally Prodrive Technologies is a leading high-tech company that designs, develops, and manufactures a wide range of innovative solutions across various industries. Established with a strong emphasis on cutting-edge engineering and technological excellence, Prodrive operates in sectors such as automotive, healthcare, industrial automation, semiconductor, and energy. Below in the figure the technology and market where Prodrive is involved in shown. Figure 15: Technologies and Markets With a vertically integrated approach, Prodrive handles every aspect of the production process in-house, from research and development to assembly and quality assurance. This enables the company to maintain high levels of precision, flexibility, and speed, ensuring that its products meet the highest industry standards. Below in the figure, the landscape of Prodrive is shown. 44 Figure 16: Business Process Landscape of Prodrive Technologies Prodrive operates on the principle of delivering high-quality solutions tailored to meet diverse customer needs. They offer a broad range of services and products that empower businesses to thrive in a fast-changing world. These include: 1. Off-the-Shelf Products Prodrive develops standardized designs and manufacturing solutions that provide cost-effective, ready-to-use products. These off-the-shelf solutions help customers reduce time-to-market and meet their technical demands with reliability and efficiency. 2. Technology Solutions At Prodrive, workers specialize in designing and manufacturing advanced technological systems based on dedicated customer requirements. This allows us to deliver custom-made, high-performance solutions that perfectly align with our clients' specific goals and applications. 3. Manufacturing Services Prodrive also offers comprehensive manufacturing services tailored to meet the customerâs Total Product Demand. Our flexible and efficient production capabilities 45 ensure Prodriv can scale to meet varying needs, from small-batch prototypes to large- scale production runs. By combining cutting-edge innovation with robust manufacturing expertise, Prodrive Technologies continues to push the boundaries of technological excellence and deliver unparalleled value to our customers. Vision At Prodrive Technologies, their vision is to create technologies that are the essential links in the systems that form the foundation of todayâs world and shape the future. Together, they aim to make the world work more efficiently, sustainably, and cohesively. Mission The company mission is rooted in a commitment to excellence and a passion for solving real- world challenges. They strive to create technologies that unlock new possibilities, foster innovation, and contribute to a more sustainable, connected, and thriving global community. Core Values Three core values underpin our culture and guide our journey toward achieving our mission: 1. Equality At Prodrive Technologies, every individual is valued for their unique contributions. They foster a culture of inclusivity where everyone is treated as an equal and empowered to contribute to their collective success. 2. Trust By empowering employees through trust, the company enables them to achieve their full potential. 3. Responsibility Prodrive takes pride in its commitment to driving positive change and contributing to a more sustainable future. 46 Business Assurance-Integrated management system Prodrive Technologies implements a global integrated management system to assure the business on a range of relevant themes. This implies that all relevant themes applicable to the organization of Prodrive Technologies are integrated into a single system of business processes that are aimed to be used to provide the products and services relevant to their customers and other stakeholders. Preface Figure 17: Integrated management system of Prodrive 47 B. Interviews Annex A: Interview with Kevin (EV Charging Team Leader)/Return back to the interview results This annex contains the detailed transcript of the interview with Kevin, EV Charging Team Leader. The interview focuses on the process flow, challenges, and inefficiencies observed in handling non-conforming goods in the EV Charging department. Key Points: ï· Issues commonly arise during testing stages, leading to immediate scrapping of products. ï· Use of Jira for tracking issues, though inconsistencies exist in its application. ï· A need for better documentation and feedback loops for repetitive issues. ï· Recommendations for standardized defect categorization and supplier accountability. Right bellow you will find the transcribed versions of the interview: I will restart from the real start. So how it happens is we have technicians that work on the floor. Yes. From beginning till end, and we can have no performances from beginning till the end, of course. Wheelock is having one thing a bit special is while testing at one step, the product is being fused and, that means, the product cannot be retested anymore. Nothing can be taken care of the product anymore. So, if we fail after that, we must scrap the product. That is something for the technicians for you. That is just an extra thing for you to know. Everything else, when we have non performances that mostly happens, physically with, components on LCD covers, technical covers, or sometimes something, customizable. So, we have some I can show you a bit in here. Because that is the area in which These kinds of front panels that are being placed on the front of the, of the product, on top of the product, is something that the customer sees directly. Yeah. When you see things like this, that something cost is a no go. I get it. All the technicians here on the floor, when they find something, a part of the cable is missing. And here you see something is not soldered properly. Everything is being taken care of. The placed on the cart separately next to the lead technician desk. So, we'll move a bit on the floor out here. If you have something or some questions, just ask. Yeah. Okay. So yes. This is the cards where all the problems of products components are adding up and they stay nearby. That is the only card in the whole area. That is the only one. Yes. So, if it happens on backside, frontside, it does not matter. Everything is placed in here. Backside is this whole area. Yes. And the lead is informed what's happening or for me it's the lead, but normally it's our non-conforming technician. And they are saying, okay. Scratch, missing components, missing, or anything that's non-conforming being placed on here. And then Anya is my, non-conforming technician. She will put it into the system or 48 calls our, quality associate. Any You have any written information about the quality associate? Any Yeah. We had an interview with the quality assistant. Yes. Perfect. So, what they were trying to do is get some people in prototype to get knowledge about every single product in here. So, if we have an issue, we can, they know about the issue. It's being filed in the system. So, if it happens again, we know directly what to do. For Anya, what she will do is she will call the associates. They will come downstairs here, and they say, okay. We can fix it. We can scrap it. Or we have to make a nonperformance, number, and we have to put it in the system. Yeah. Or, Jira ticket, it depends because, now it's more common way to escalate the problems by Jira, especially for internal products. Still for external problems, we have, we use SAP to create the quality notification. But actually, Jira ticket now is more common. And, in the future, I think we'll just leave the sub in the past, and we'll focus on you on Jira. Suck and Jira tells you something you know about? Yeah. Yes. Right? Jira makes it for us easy every time with that same PM when there is a failure, and we hook a failure on that one. We can find it back every single time under that same PM. So, even at one point, there's so much information that it we don't even have to call an equality associate. We see the product. We check-in the file. Okay. Just grab it or we can fix it, or we can book it back. This is being handled from lead technician or from the quality sorry. My nonperformance handler. If it's filed into the system and ends up on this card. So, in here, everything is registered. We have to wait for an answer from the quality engineers to say, for example, we have a product in here. We have some products in here where we have an extra component, a missing component, anything like this. Do we have to toss it away? Just scrap it. Something. What we have to do in here, the products go directly to the customer. If it's a missing part as missing screw, it's, that on arrival for the customer. This is something we don't make in here. 49 Annex B: Interview with Kamil (SGSE Team Leader)/Return back to the interview results This annex contains the full transcript of the interview with Kamil, who provided insights into the workflows and challenges in the SGSE department is on-hold area. Key Points: ï· Clear procedures exist for labeling and processing on-hold items, but human factors and inconsistencies often create delays. ï· The lack of standardized labeling and tracking methods poses a significant challenge. ï· Recommendations include enhancing technician training and integrating digital tools to improve workflow efficiency. Right bellow you will find the transcribed versions of the interview: There you go. Yeah. So, the first th
