Change Management Process - Who's Really Good?

As a manufacturer, we have the same issues constantly ... and this has been my similar experience for my 38 years in my field at several manufacturing sites.

On one end of the spectrum is total bureaucracy ... slow, but effective in creating a paper trail, and as already mentioned, absolutely necessary for high-risk / safety issues. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the total, out-of-control, seat-of-the-pants (albeit well intentioned) process where nothing is documented. For most 'common' applications, neither works very well.

The challenge will be to create a system that people will actually use (the best process in the world is useless if folks don't use it properly ... 'play by the rules') and in that (again for most manufacturing environments) that just means a process that documents all you really need, but is as simple as possible. While there may be 'canned' methods, like trying to implement ERP / MRP, you often end up with a great process tool of which you only need some small percentage.

If it were me (and it is 'me' in my own 'sandbox' ), I would focus on the basics, then add as needed until you are happy with the system you have created. Start with Development Engineering / R&D, and create a system that documents all design changes in the development process. If you can implement this within an ERP system (or just about any maintained database) these changes will also instantly reflect cost impacts, and possibly development schedule impacts as well. Then, depending on your internal process of transferring from design to mass production (everyone is different in structure and nomenclature ... DV, PV, MP and all the associated and varied validation steps), the MP released documentation (BOM, Process Docs, Support Drawings and other defining documents) usually begins again with their own 'rev level', then the task becomes one of controlling parts and part revisions, processes and process revisions, the effects these changes have on sub-assemblies and WIP, and the effects these things have on the final assembly.

Did I mention that at this point it becomes quite a nightmare? Consider this scenario: Receiving inspection receives part 123, but it is out of spec. MRB decides that it can be used by deviation, but using it requires a different screw and washer, so a deviation is also written for the sub-assemblies that are effected. The challenge then is how to structure the effectivity (not a real word, but the only one that works), or for how long the deviation is effective (either time or number of parts). Actually, the paperwork is easy, but the control of the deviated parts and subsequent sub-assemblies can be quite a nightmare. On the shop floor, there is a pallet of sub-assemblies XYZ, and another pallet of XYZ which must be assumed to be the same, but they're not, because some were assembled with a deviated part and different screws. Both XYZs have the same form, fit, and function, but is there any downstream impact? Probably no one thought of that.

All this means is that to properly control changes (design process, production release, deviations, ECO and ECN, revision levels, WIP, Inventory management, Effectivity, Phase in / Phase out), you may (depending on where your company is today) need to completely re-think your basic part numbering system and part numbering protocols. (honestly, few companies began their operation with a good system and I have yet to find an environment that sooner or later didn't require 'major surgery' when it came to the documentation protocols.)

Certainly the aerospace and aviation industries are TOPS at the control process, but again it is very top-heavy and may be more than you need. Automotive would be a small step down on the ladder of complexity, but only a small step. One company who has always impressed me with their process and production controls (albeit seen from afar) is John Deere. Consider the level of their quality, there inherent need to create products with interchangeable parts that really do interchange ... for years, the fact that for some products they do large volume runs, but for many they are extremely complex and in short runs, and the fact that they can, in effect, build 'one-offs', or said differently, and they can intercede in a mass production run and do at least some level of 'customization' on selected items on the assembly line. Consider also, they are just folks, and their suppliers also 'mess up', they also have loads of ongoing development and changes, they make deviations to keep things going, and on and on ... all the same things you and I suffer. Again, I only see them from a distance, but I can't help but put them on a pedestal when it comes to manufacturing control prowess.

Okay, I have talked A LOT, and I appreciate your patience, but I do truly understand the dilemma one faces when trying to increase the level of controls.

Good luck, and kind regards.