The document provides a rating tool to evaluate a team's logical thinking in solving a problem. It rates the team on 9 items using a 4-point scale from strongly agree to disagree. The items cover understanding the problem, analyzing data to identify root causes, verifying findings, implementing countermeasures, communicating lessons learned, and institutionalizing the solution. The team scored 17 out of a possible 20 points based on the rater agreeing or strongly agreeing with most items, with one item marked disagree and one with something missed or unclear.
The document provides a rating tool to evaluate a team's logical thinking in solving a problem. It rates the team on 9 items using a 4-point scale from strongly agree to disagree. The items cover understanding the problem, analyzing data to identify root causes, verifying findings, implementing countermeasures, communicating lessons learned, and institutionalizing the solution. The team scored 17 out of a possible 20 points based on the rater agreeing or strongly agreeing with most items, with one item marked disagree and one with something missed or unclear.
The document provides a rating tool to evaluate a team's logical thinking in solving a problem. It rates the team on 9 items using a 4-point scale from strongly agree to disagree. The items cover understanding the problem, analyzing data to identify root causes, verifying findings, implementing countermeasures, communicating lessons learned, and institutionalizing the solution. The team scored 17 out of a possible 20 points based on the rater agreeing or strongly agreeing with most items, with one item marked disagree and one with something missed or unclear.
Strongly Item Question Agree Agree Disagree What missed or not clear enough? I could easily understand what was the problem and how 5W2H important it was, including what were the conditions when the problem occurred ( such as TLR, historical data ) X I could understand what the team learned from the sorting activity to assist in the analysis of good & bad parts Sorting comparison and quick response attitude (24 hours) has X been demonstrated The team demonstrated with facts and data the factors Compare which generated differences between good & bad parts using the FTA method for non-detection and occurrence X
I could understand that the team had verified each "why"
with data as evidence X Reproduce I could see clear evidence that the defect had been reproduced. Then, countermeasures have been quickly X implemented (within 5 days). In the LLC, 5W2H and root cause are described easily with picture and/or drawing. I could easily understand what was the problem, how important it was and what was the X root cause (depending of the type of LLC: occurrence, detection, management) The before and after explanation is linked with the type of Learn LLC identifying clearly what has been modified. This is X convincing me that solution is robust. Item area is reflecting what has been learnt in line with what have been modified. Method is explaining Who, When, How and Where to control the factor. Criteria is X showing what is good and not good results with data. LLC has been published quickly (within 10 days) after VTES committee validation and VTES committee has Share decided where and to whom share the LLC (at site level, in X project, to other sites, to the Branch,…) The “item-method-criteria” allow me to perform stability audit easily. Technical standards have been updated. LLC Keep has been integrated in generic FMEA and Design Review X check-list.
Number of ticks in column
FINAL Weight Number of points 8 X2 1 X1 1 X0 SCORE 17 / 20 Logical Thinking rating tool V2 2007