The quality problems that face Dynamic Seal at the outset of implementation of the SPC system include quality control issues at the United Aircraft shell that takes up about a small proportion of the manufacturing area, and is self-contained. Furthermore its work area is small enough for SPC to be applied. The performance of United Aircraft is also wanting, despite the god factors surrounding it; the united aircraft cell has dismal financial performance. The United forms 14% of the sales that the Dynamic Seal make, as such; it is expected to be one of the most profitable branches of the company. Unfortunately, it is not, since the company is anticipating a huge order from United soon, the problem of complacency with the existing system and reluctance to change lurks. In addition, employees at Dynamic seals seem to be having cohesion and team-oriented capabilities that are integral for a Statistical Process Control, especially at inception when employees are expected to learn about the system on their own.
The following is the provided estimates of the scrap dollar values for a United Aircraft cell.
Work Centre
Scrap Dollar Value
The internal failure costs for the United Aircraft cell can be estimated at $8400 per month. It is noteworthy that the internal failure costs are difficult to compute for UA cell sue to several reasons, foremost is the ascertaining of the exact values that can be applied to phenomena such as rework, which need tight scheduling so as not to interrupt the production system.
There are several critical issues that should be considered in the action plan of Dynamic seal in the implementation of the SPS and the realization of its benefits, they include: the organizational culture, while the organizational culture of the company is pegged on quality it can be seen that the different sections of the company seem to be performing differently. As such, systems should be put in place to shape the organizational culture to one of uniformity. The other factor to be considered is the commitment of management, as can be seen from the deliberating some managers of sections such as Scott Palmer present cases of overworking of the inspectors. Given the tedious and intricate nature of SPS, the employees could derange the process of working towards a fully SPS-run system. The process of training employees for the new system is also time-consuming and costly. As is witnessed from the discussion no single section’s manager would like the SPS applied wholly on their section as a pilot project. Gordon Jenkins should report to the Quality Assurance manager and not the production manager as the Quality Assurance Manager is much better placed to understand SPS systems and the mandate falls squarely on him. This is important in avoiding a conflict of interest and a breakdown of communication protocol. The SPS system developments are best executed from the quality assurance department.
It is also wise to consider taking only a small section of the company, for example one cell. This will ensure that all the dynamics of the SPS are simulated lessons derived and the best approach to its company-wide implementation devised. This will give the process a value for demonstration, make the investigation easier and encourage verification as there will only be one client to determine if the system is working as designed or not.
