Chapter 24
Gus's Garage

By Jake Snyder

Gus and I have been ironing out issues with his new process quality control system. We discovered last month that processing errors were identified and recorded on the new job control forms by employees. However, not all of them had corrective actions recorded on the new forms. The employees were recording corrective actions for the "re-work" and "parts" related problems but not listing corrective actions for other quality-related errors and problems discovered.

For example, employees found several files that did not have proper customer authorizations. After they discovered and recorded customer authorization processing errors on the repair order's job control form (Possible Quality Errors - #1 - "Customer authorization is not documented & recorded"), the employees did not have any corrective action comments written down to explain what was done to remedy the customer authorization error listed on the job control form.

For the customer authorization errors discovered, we expected to see employees write corrective action comments, such as: "called Mrs. Jones and received verbal authorization to repair hidden supplemental damages not included on the original estimate or repair order"; or "contacted Mr. Smith and advised him that used parts and aftermarket parts have been authorized by his insurance company in place of OEM parts for the repair of his vehicle."

Similarly, repair defects (Possible Quality Errors - #7 - "Repairs have defects") were being picked up by employees and noted on the job control forms, but no one wrote down what corrective actions (if any) were taken or needed to fix the repair problem identified.

I advised Gus that it was encouraging that his staff was at least inspecting, discovering, and recording quality problems. But, they were not taking the next quality step by seeking out a remedy to the problem, fixing it, and finally recording the corrective action taken.

Gus and I discussed the importance of assuring new process integrity and usage, and that his employees should not be permitted to use the process quality control system in a discretionary manner.

We have to make certain that employees are not allowed to compromise, misuse, or subjectively apply the new processing rules and standards. If employees start creating their own usage and procedural standards, the quality system will lose credibility and ultimately become useless.

In order for Gus's operations to fully realize the benefits of the new system, quality control processing actions need to be performed consistently and as designed. Buy-in, usage, and effectiveness of the new system will erode rapidly if employees observe that nothing is being done after quality processing errors or job related problems are identified.

Like any new process being rolled-out, Gus must conduct a management follow-up of the newly implemented process by one or more of the following methods:

• Improve training on the new process quality control system
• Create employee incentives (or disincentives) for using (or not using) the new system
• Review the possibility of making changes to the new system (redesign the process)
• Consider abandoning process quality control because it is not practical.

To get feedback on these issues, Gus and I asked employees why the corrective action piece of the process quality control system was not being completed 100 percent of the time.

Generally, employees gave three reasons for no corrective actions being performed or subsequently recorded on the job control forms that stayed with each RO File:

• "That's not my job": The employee who discovered and recorded the quality error was not the one who originally performed the process that failed and therefore should have been required to correct the mistake and record the corrective action taken;
• "I don't know what happened": Employees who discovered quality errors were either too busy, forgot, or were not sure what steps to take after discovering the problem or failure;
• "It was not worth creating a fuss over": The employees did not consider the quality error or job failure to be significant enough to require a corrective action record on the job control form.

The reasons the employees gave for not completing the corrective action step on all error types discovered, suggested either: better training was needed so that employees automatically understood who was to correct an error and when the correction action was to take place; or that the supervisor's approval or sign-off step was not consistently performed.

I had to take Gus back to March, when we first introduced the job control forms.

When an employee discovered a quality processing error and recorded it on the repair order's job control form, further job processing (either technical or administrative) had to cease until the quality error was corrected, recorded on the job-control form, and then approved by a supervisor (Gus or his son).

I said earlier that the employees were following the corrective action and recording steps for re-work and parts errors. I feel that these are typical quality processing errors employees and supervisors are used to seeing. Because of this familiarity, they automatically know what, when, who, and how to apply corrective actions (i.e. "order correct part", "align left door", "repaint hood", etc.). In addition, employees and supervisors also realize that these errors absolutely must be corrected or the job cannot be delivered.

Since there were no debates or misunderstandings among the employees regarding fixing re-work or parts errors, it was easier for them to record the quality errors and corrective actions.

As for the supervisor's job of reviewing and signing-off the error and corrective action on the repair order's job control form, Gus and his son were allowing job processing to continue when these error types occurred with the understanding that the employee who discovered the re-work or parts errors told one of them about the errors and corrective actions.

Because it was not always convenient for Gus and/or his son to fill-in the supervisor's sign-off on the repair order's job control form when the technician was ready, the supervisor's sign-off was taking place at some point later in job processing.

We plan to make three changes to improve the quality process:

1. Either have Gus and his son more available to supervise, or designate more employees as quality control supervisors to the staff who are authorized to 'sign-off' a corrective action (up to eight people)
2. Remove the Other option: Simplify the corrective action process by reducing the number of Possible Quality Errors that apply to process quality control (four for technical - four for non-technical)
3. Re-train the employees on corrective action procedures for their possible quality errors.

In summary, Gus's management follow-up to the roll-out of the new quality process included: soliciting employee feedback; changing or revising the new process; and conducting more training.

Jake Snyder, creator of the popular Gus’s Garage series, is interested in hearing from shop owners with real-life questions.
E-mail JJ the Remote Pro, Gus’s intrepid consultant.