Content By Chad Kymal

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

With the advent of the internet, cloud, and electronic workflows, what is the future of documented management systems? Do we continue with a structure of quality manual, processes, work instructions, and forms and checklists? How do we imagine the future of documented management systems?

For enterprise and site documentation, there’s a need for all entities, from site to department to individuals, to have their own documented management system structure. The documented management system should be a repository of organizational knowledge, in the form of documentation, records, projects, audits, dashboards, customer and/or interested party needs and expectations, calibration data, and much more. How is this possible?

Furthermore, documented flows should give way to virtual electronic workflows that help implement and sustain an integrated management system.

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

Organizations in the automotive and related industries such as steel, plastics, and semiconductors have been heavily influenced by automotive industry standards and practices like IATF 16949, advanced product quality planning (APQP), failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), and production parts approval process (PPAP). These are collectively called “Core Tools” and include measurement system analysis (MSA) and statistical process control (SPC).

During the last 10 years, a significant number of new technologies has been introduced in automobiles, including autonomous breaking, auto lane change, adaptive cruise control vision systems, and various sensor-operated alerts. Soon, more than 50 percent of a new car’s value will be found in its electronics (i.e., semiconductors) and software (see figure 1).


Figure 1: Automotive electronics cost as a percentage of total car cost worldwide from 1950 to 2030

Chad Kymal
By: Chad Kymal, Gregory F. Gruska

During the early 1980s, GM, Ford, and Chrysler established the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), a not-for-profit organization with the mission “To improve its members’ competitiveness through a cooperative effort of North American vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers.” In the late 1980s, U.S. automotive suppliers, through the auspices of the American Society for Quality (ASQ), approached the VPs of purchasing for GM, Ford, and Chrysler and explained the burden of multiple standards that were being imposed on the supply base. Not only where there multiple OEM standards, there were hundreds of tier one standards as well.

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

When we think about IT security, we typically think about the large hacks that were reported in the press. When viewed as a whole, we can understand the magnitude of lost data. It’s no surprise that these hacks are what come to mind when we think about information security.

The table below shows some of the largest hacks that occurred this century. The number of accounts affected range in the millions.

Greatest Security Breaches, 2003–2018, Ranked


Company

Accounts Hacked

Date of Hack

Yahoo

3 billion

Aug. 2013

Marriott

500 million

2014–2018

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

Omnex began working in the automotive industry by assisting Ford powertrain suppliers in 1986. The U.S. automotive industry’s Big Three used GM’s Targets for Excellence, Ford’s Q 101, and Chrysler’s SQA standards to qualify its supply bases. The automotive industry was making deep reductions in its supply bases based on the results of these assessments and other factors. Though many on the Omnex team at that time came from General Motors, Ford’s Q 101 was the standard that really received our attention. This is the standard that many automotive suppliers used to guide them on their path to improvement.

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

There is a proliferation of management system standards and requirements globally. These management system standards are either customer or industry mandated. Many standards are becoming a requirement for doing business.

For example, ISO 9001 is a quality management system (QMS) standard with industry-specific versions such as IATF 16949 for automotive, ISO 13485 for medical devices, and AS9100 for the aerospace industry. ISO 14001 is an environmental management system (EMS) standard, and ISO 45001, an occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) standard. All of these either already are, or are quickly becoming, threshold standards for doing international business.

There are yet other standards waiting in the wings that may soon become industry requirements for social responsibility or sustainability, laboratory management systems, and energy management systems. Typically, these standards are seen as hindrances or obstacles in the way of doing business and therefore not beneficial.

Standards overload results in hundreds of procedures that impact organizations with multiple requirements for conducting a task (see Figure 1). How can a business manage these standards most economically? Are there efficient methods for managing them?

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

ISO 45001 is the much-anticipated, first ISO-based international occupational health and safety (OH&S) standard. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has tried twice and failed in the past to create an international OH&S management system standard. Although there are a lot of celebrations and accolades with the launch of this new standard, the road to its release as an international standard wasn’t as smooth as one might have imagined.

Up till now, the go-to standard for OH&S has been British Standards Institution’s (BSI) OHSAS 18001. Although it’s closely aligned to ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 isn’t an ISO standard but a consensus standard that is used worldwide by organizations that want an OH&S management system.

Chad Kymal
By: Chad Kymal, Gregory F. Gruska

The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and the German Association of the Automotive Industry, or VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie), have been cooperating in automotive quality management systems since the advent of the second edition of ISO/TS 16949 in 2002. The integration work that started with ISO/TS 16949 naturally evolved into an integration effort of the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) standards. The two FMEAs are quite different from each other in approach. Some of these differences will be illustrated in this article.

The current work is the outcome of three years of collaboration by a team of AIAG and VDA FMEA stakeholders. These comments are based on the draft document released for public comments on Nov. 27, 2017. It is assumed that the final release will incorporate these and other suggestions.

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

When Philip Crosby announced zero defects as a philosophy during the 1970s, it was met with incredulity. There were already many articles written on the fallacy of such a strategy and the enormous costs of moving toward zero defects. Fast forward 40+ years, and zero defects has become a reality.

The automotive and semiconductor/high-tech industries that we have worked with have achieved this strategy over a 30-year time period. The strategies to shift organizations that were at 20,000 to 50,000 defective parts per million (PPM) during the late 1980s to 1,000 PPM to 100 PPM and even parts per billion are now quite straightforward. Let us understand how this is done.

New-product development, defect prevention, and FMEA

Quality improvement and defect prevention start with a disciplined, new-product development process that includes phase gates. Most important, three tools are key to overall success:
1. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) that is used with design and processes
2. Design for manufacturing (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA)
3. Upfront involvement of manufacturing in design

These are not the only tools, but they are the most important that contribute to overall success. This article will focus primarily on FMEA. 

Chad Kymal’s picture

By: Chad Kymal

Globally, there are more than 68,000 organizations certified to ISO/TS 16949:2009 that will need to undergo a transition audit to the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) international automotive quality standard, IATF 16949:2016. As of April 2017, 181 of these audits have been completed, resulting in an average of 5.3 nonconformities and nearly one major nonconformity (0.73) per audit.

There is a lot we can analyze and learn from these audits. What areas are receiving nonconformities? What surprises lie in these nonconformities? What are third-party auditors finding or not finding? For example, who thought “total productive maintenance” was going to be one of the top nonconformities? The list of nonconformities can be used as a preventive measure to ensure key registrar nonconformities are addressed before your transition audit.