Robinson Presentation Slides 2.3.08

279 views

Published on

A level 4 evaluation in a manufacturing environment

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
279
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Robinson Presentation Slides 2.3.08

  1. 1. A Level 4 Evaluation of a Structured On-the-Job Training Intervention at a North American Paper Mill Pamela L. Robinson, Ph.D.
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>Quality Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase in customer returns/complaints </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Training Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No training center </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No training coordinator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No up-to-date operator manuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No structured program </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Needs Assessment <ul><li>Obtained support of senior management </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment developed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Other training coordinators input </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management input </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assessment completed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Production workers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mill management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assessment Reviewed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Management meeting </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Items Identified <ul><li>Quality concerns </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased number of customer returns/complaints </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of effective operator training </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of operator manuals </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of training center and training materials </li></ul>
  5. 5. Program Developed <ul><li>Driven by identified objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Developed by training team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Division training coordinator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mill training coordinators (SME’s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mill superintendents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality engineer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational Development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Utilized input from operators </li></ul>
  6. 6. Evaluation Conducted <ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey of Participants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Tests Results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Checklist Completion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 3 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Observations and Sign-Offs by Supervisors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 4 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis of Operator-Controllable Error Metrics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey of Training Team to Identify Success Factors </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Questions <ul><li>Did training have desired effect on specified quality metrics? </li></ul><ul><li>What factors contributed to success or failure of training? </li></ul>
  8. 8. Isolating the Effects of Training <ul><li>Metrics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operator controllable errors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Operator positions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Back or “dry” end </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Time periods </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assignment changes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Machine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Team </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. The dry end operator-controllable defects <ul><li>Bad slit/not slit/poor slit quality </li></ul><ul><li>Improper/poor splicing </li></ul><ul><li>Incorrect quantity </li></ul><ul><li>Incorrect slit width </li></ul><ul><li>Incorrect stencil/label/packaging </li></ul><ul><li>Rolls not separated </li></ul><ul><li>Soft rolls/loose winds/telescoped </li></ul><ul><li>Wrong roll diameter </li></ul>
  10. 10. Excluded Factors <ul><li>Quality of raw materials </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Front or “wet” end operator positions </li></ul>
  11. 11. Excluded Defects/Complaints <ul><li>Slime spots on paper </li></ul><ul><li>Damage in warehouse </li></ul><ul><li>Damage in shipment </li></ul><ul><li>Late shipment </li></ul>
  12. 12. The Results What the Metrics Revealed
  13. 13. Training
  14. 14. OCE Metrics
  15. 15. The Rest of the Story Looking Beyond the Obvious
  16. 16. Training
  17. 17. Quality Metrics
  18. 18. Machines
  19. 19. Teams w/ Improved Metrics <ul><li>Machine 1 Team D </li></ul><ul><li>Machine 2 Teams A, B, C </li></ul><ul><li>Machine 3 Teams A, B, C, D </li></ul><ul><li>Machine 4 Teams A, B, C, D </li></ul><ul><li>Machine 5 Teams C, D </li></ul>
  20. 20. Survey <ul><li>Sent to members of the training team </li></ul><ul><li>Questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What factors contributed most to success of training intervention? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How would you rank them? </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Survey Results <ul><li>The respondents to the survey ranked these factors in the following order. </li></ul><ul><li>Support of upper management </li></ul><ul><li>Effectiveness of the Training Coordinators </li></ul><ul><li>Structured training and certification process </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of the training materials </li></ul>
  22. 22. Survey Results (Cont.) <ul><li>5. (tie) Location of training center </li></ul><ul><ul><li> Diversity of training materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> Focus on safety </li></ul></ul><ul><li>6. Standardization of training and qualifications </li></ul><ul><li>7. Hourly Workforce Training Survey and Needs Assessment utilized to determine top training needs </li></ul><ul><li>8. Effect on employee morale </li></ul>
  23. 23. Summary <ul><li>Management support </li></ul><ul><li>Needs analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Specific business goals </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Isolate the effects of training </li></ul><ul><li>Use appropriate metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Measure appropriate units </li></ul>

×