Poka Yoke (Mistake Proofing)

Making it impossible for errors to be passed to the next step in a process

Poka Yoke - Content
What is it for?
• To eliminate the possibility or opportunity for passing on errors or
making mistakes in a process.

Where could I use it?

• In the development or improvement of any process.
• When you want to make wrong actions impossible or more difficult to do.
• When there is a need to make it possible to reverse actions – to “undo”
them – or make it harder to do what cannot be reversed
• When you need to make it easier to discover that errors occur.

How do I use it?

• Identify the errors/mistakes which could be passed on
• Develop potential solutions to prevent errors
• Develop potential solutions to detect errors
• Implement solutions

Risks and how to avoid them

Example
Poka Yoke - What is it for?
Uses of this tool:
• Used to develop solutions to prevent mistakes before they occur or to detect errors and make it
impossible for them to be passed on to the next step of the process.
• Can be used in the development of a new process or in an existing process where rework to correct
errors is hurting process effectiveness and efficiency.

Expected Benefits:
• Poka Yoke ensures that mistakes are not transferred to the next step of the process.
• Poka Yoke solutions are a simple and low cost way to reduce rework
Poka Yoke - Where could I use it?
Background:
• Mistakes are human errors that result from
incorrect intentions or executing correct
intentions that result in unintended outcomes.
• The term poka-yoke comes from the
Japanese words poka (accidental mistake)
and yoke (prevent). Also known as ‘mistake-
proofing’ or “error-proofing”.
• Shigeo Shingo developed poka-yoke while
working at Toyota in the 1960’s
Uses:
• Use it to eliminates the cause of an error at the
source or as it is being made.
• Use it to detect an error soon after it has been
made, but before it reaches the next operation.
• In the development or improvement of any
process.
• When you want to make wrong actions more
difficult.
• When there is a need to make it possible to
reverse actions – to “undo” them – or make it
harder to do what cannot be reversed
• When you need to make it easier to discover that
errors occur.
• When you want to reverse incorrect actions
 Poka Yoke - How do I use it?
Procedure and Guidance Notes:
• List potential mistakes / errors which could be transferred to the next Combine this with other tools (such as
Define the potential step in the process. brainstorming).
mistakes /errors

• Investigate and analyse root causes Use other techniques such as Fishbone and
Identify 5 Whys for this step
Root Causes

• Brainstorm potential solutions for preventing the error Find ways to make it impossible to do
Develop ways to something incorrectly
prevent errors

Make it obvious when something has been

• Brainstorm ideas to detect the error / deviation or mistake early
done incorrectly. E.g. make a system to identify
Develop ways to product defects by testing the product's shape,
detect errors size, color, or other physical attributes

• Develop solution to prevent or detect errors and test that it is effective. Consider characteristics of Poka Yoke
solutions:
Create & test Simple and low cost
solution Part of the process
In place where the mistake can occur
Does not let the mistake exit the process

• Implement solution and control output is effective (i.e. Errors are

prevented and/or detected)
Implement solution
Poka Yoke - Risks and how to avoid them:
Risks :
• Not all potential errors are eliminated or detected
• Solutions are duplicated at different stages of the
process.
• Potential solutions are complex and expensive
Steps to avoid them :
• Make a thorough list of potential problems – use other
techniques, such as brainstorming to help and use the
team. Use as many Poka Yoke devices as is
necessary.
• Use flow charts to visualize the process so that
mistake proofing solutions are not repeated
• Consider simple and cost effective solutions.
Error Proofing
Techniques
 QUALITY STEP CHART

ABC Company - Widget Assemblies

INCIDENTS PER
PART OR PPM
Current
SAMPLE CHART ACTION PLANS WITH
State ACTUAL OR EST. RESULTS
Improved
Processing = 140 ppm

Reduced
Handling = 120 ppm
QUALITY MEASURE
Visual
Management = 100 ppm

Error
Proofing = 80 ppm

Preventative
Maintenance = 60 ppm

TARGET

TIME
TIME FRAME OF
ACTION PLANS
© Copyright General Motors. All rights reserved.
 MAKE ALL PEOPLE DEFINE
AFFECTED AWARE CURRENT
PROJECT OF WHAT IS SITUATION
SELECTION GOING TO HAPPEN
• CUSTOMER QUALITY CONCERN
SELECT • PROCESS FLOW & DATA WORKSHEETS
• HIGH RPPM / REPEAT PR/R’s
• PART IN CONTROLLED SHIPPING
• CHRONIC QUALITY PROBLEM
TEAM MEMBERS • QUALITY RESULTS
• PROCESS MEASURES
• GM PRODUCT/PROCESS ENGINEER • PROBLEM DEFINITION
• HIGH WARRANTY IMPACT • SUPPLIER PERSONNEL (ENGR., MFG,
• HIGH COST OF QUALITY QUALITY, OPERATORS, ETC)
• PURCHASING
• SUPPLIER QUALITY ENGINEER
• CUSTOMER REPRESENTATIVE

IDENTIFY
LOOK FOR NEW
POSSIBLE
OPPORTUNITIES
CAUSES
• BRAINSTORMING

Process • 5 WHY’s
• CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM
• STORYBOARD
• COLLECT THE DATA
• RUN CHARTS
• FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
• PICTOGRAPH
RECOGNIZE • SCATTER DIAGRAMS
• PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY
• DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
EFFORTS OF • PROCESS DISSECTION

PEOPLE

EVALUATE
AND ADJUST
O PERATI O N: FRO M : ___
______
___
___
___
___
___
__Q UANTI TY PERSHIFT:___
___
___
___
__ CUSTO M ER CYCLETIME:______
___
___
___
___
TO : __
______
______
___
___
___
___
___ SHI FT: ________ O PERATO R CYCL ET
I ME:___
___
___
___
___
___
DESCRI PTI O NOF ELEM ENT TI ME STANDARD I N- Q UALI TY CRI TI CAL
PRO CESS STOCK O PERATI O N SAFETY
NO . O PERATI O N HAND WO
M ARCK
HWA
I NELK Q CHECK C

1 5
ANALYZE THE DATA
2

3
4
PLAN & IMPLEMENT SELECT GOOD IDEAS
• GATHER NEW DATA AS NECESSARY.
WO RKSTATI ONAREADRAWNTO S
CALE
03/ 23/ 94
CORRECTIVE ACTION • DEVELOP ACTION PLANS FOR CONTAINMENT,
CORRECTION, AND PREVENTION.
• EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE • BASED ON PROFOUND KNOWLEDGE • DOCUMENT RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND
ACTION PLANS. • OVERCOMING ROADBLOCKS ACTION PLANS.
• MEDIAN & RANGE CHARTS • ACTION PLANS PROCESSED ASAP • ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION TIMING AND
• AVERAGE & RANGE CHARTS RESPONSIBILITY.
• PROCESS CAPABILITY
 Error Proofing Techniques
Agenda

OPENING COMMENTS & INTRODUCTIONS

ERROR PROOFING OVERVIEW
WORKSHOP EXPECTATIONS - Why Are We Here Problem
Statement
DEFINE CURRENT STATE
ERROR PROOFING AWARENESS & TECHNIQUES
BRAINSTORMING - Problem Solving Solutions Utilizing
Error Proofing Techniques
DEVELOP ACTION PLANS & IMPLEMENTATION
CLOSING & WRAP-UP
PROBLEM SELECTION CRITERIA

• High Parts per Million

• High PR/R Frequency
• Chronic Quality Problem
• High Cost of Quality
• PFMEA Identified Areas
• High Warranty Cost
 WHY ARE MISTAKES A PROBLEM?

✓ Cost us money

✓ Cost us time

✓ Cause us danger/possible injury

THINGS DONE RIGHT 99.9% OF
THE TIME MEANS . . .
• One hour of unsafe drinking water per month
• Two unsafe landings at O’Hare Airport each day
• 16,000 lost pieces of mail per hour
• 20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions per year
• 500 incorrect surgical operations per week
• 50 newborn babies dropped each day by doctors
• 22,000 checks per hour deducted from wrong accounts
• 32,000 missed heartbeats per person each year
 THE ERROR PROOFING ATTITUDE

People CAN and WILL make inadvertent mistakes!

If one person makes a mistake - ANYONE can!
ONE mistake out the door is too many!!
Mistakes CAN be eliminated and MUST be eliminated for
us to become COMPETITIVE!!!!
 A SYSTEM IS NEEDED
TO COMBAT THESE DRAWBACKS:

• Detect an error in the process before a defective

product is passed to the next station; whenever
possible before a defective product is produced.

• Perform detection and notification of operator

immediately; i.e. for every unit of product.
 WHAT IS ERROR PROOFING?

Error Proofing is the activity of awareness, detection, and

prevention of errors which adversely affect:
Our customers (defects)
Our people (injuries)
and result in WASTE!

Awareness: Having the forethought that a mistake can be made, communicating the potential, and
planning the design of the product or process to detect or prevent it.

Detection: Allowing the mistake to happen but providing some means of detecting it and alerting
someone so that we fix it before sending it to our customer.

Prevention: Not allowing the possibility for the mistake to occur in the first place.
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques
• Design for Manufacturability
• “Poka-Yoke” System Devices
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques:
• Design For Manufacturability (DFM)
Technique that Results in Designs that Cannot
be Incorrectly Manufactured or Assembled.
This Technique can also be used to “Simplify”
the Design and therefore reduce its cost.
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques (Continued)
• “Poka-Yoke” System*
Set-Up Devices or Inspection Techniques that Assure that
Set-Up is Done Correctly; i.e. Produces 100% Good Parts
from the First Piece on

“Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection and the Poka-Yoke System” - Shigeo Shingo; 1986
 EXAMPLES OF ERRORS AT WORK . . .

Missing Parts
✓ Forgetting to assemble a part - screws, labels, orifice tubes...

Misassembled Parts
✓ Misassembly - loose parts, upside down, not aligned
e.g. - brackets (backwards), seals (not aligned),
screws (loose), labels (upside down), ...

Incorrect Processing
✓ Disposing of a part rejected at test to the wrong pile

Incorrect Parts
✓ Retrieving and assembling the wrong part from a model mix selection -
seals, labels, brackets, cases...
 Identify Error Proofing Opportunities
• PFMEA
IDENTIFY • Quality Data, PR/R, Warranty Data...
• Brainstorm (Questions to Ask, Free Form...)

Prioritize Opportunities (RPN, Pareto...)

Determine Level of Error Proofing

HOW
ANALYZE Brainstorm Error Proofing Mechanisms
• Build on past experience
• Can use more than one mechanism
TO
Select Error Proofing Mechanism
• Most cost effective
• Simple
ERROR
Plan (Process Mechanisms)
PLAN • Action plan
• Error Proofing Control Plan (EPCP)
PROOF
Implement Error Proofing Mechanism
•Installation
IMPLEMENT •Validation
• EPCP
•Check sheet/Log
•Operator Instructions

EVALUATE Evaluate Results

 TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS

Flow Chart Fishbone Diagram Pareto Chart

Problem

Histogram 5 Why’s Run Chart

Problem
Why
Why
Why
Why
Why
Root Cause

Scatter Plot Control Chart Pictograph

 ERROR PROOFING TECHNIQUES

BENEFITS

Assures 1st Piece Quality

Assures Consistency during Set-Ups
Prevents Production of Defective Parts
Makes Quality Problems More Visible
Creates a Safer Work Environment
Eliminates Waste of Inspection and Repair
Lowers Cost of Design (DFM) and Cost to
Manufacture (Poka-Yoke Devices)
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

SENSOR INFORMATION:
BASIC TYPES OF SENSORS
• Discrete sensors
• Analog sensors

TYPES OF PRESENCE SENSORS

• Physical contact
• No physical contact

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS

• Reed relays
• Inductive
• Capacitive
• Photoelectric sensors

ADVANTAGES OF THE VARIOUS TYPES

• Functionality
• Costs
• Areas of application
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

BASIC TYPES OF SENSORS:

ANALOG SENSORS
• Answer the question: “Where is the part?”
or
• “To what level have we filled the container?”

DISCRETE SENSORS
• The part is present or is not present.
• Most frequently asked question in a manufacturing
operation.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF PRESENCE SENSORS:

PHYSICAL CONTACT
• e.g. Limit switches
• Advantages - Can carry more current
- Gap between terminals

NO PHYSICAL CONTACT
• Advantages - No physical contact
- Better for counting sensitive surfaces,
e.g. painted or polished surfaces
- No moving parts
- Faster
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

REED RELAYS
• Target is magnetic
• Will not respond to non-magnetic targets
with reliability.

INDUCTIVE
• Based on metal targets; will not respond
to non-metallic targets with high reliability.

CAPACITIVE
• Cannot distinguish between the real target
and something else in the target region.
Must control what comes close to the target.

PHOTOELECTRIC
• Can be fooled by a non-target.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

REED RELAYS
Typical range: Up to 1.5 in. (approx. 4 cm)
• Two hermetically sealed metal foil reeds which make contact
with each other to close the circuit, when in the vicinity of a
magnet (permanent or electro-magnet).
• The differential is determined by differencing the point of first
contact from the point of last contact.
• Magnet approach must be in a direction parallel to the direction
of the line connecting the tow reeds.

Best applications for magnetically actuated switches in general:

• Security and safety
• to avoid false tripping
• security door interlock for heavy machinery; end of travel
for elevators, cranes, and the like.
• Sensing through walls (non-ferrous, e.g. Aluminum and
Magnesium).
• Pallet identification in synchronous automated assembly lines.
• Relative dirty environments (e.g. dust, dirt, sand, oil, or coolant
fluids).
• Whenever high response speeds are required.

Disadvantages - poor long-term reliability (moving parts)

 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

INDUCTIVE SENSORS
• Principle of Operation:
• Eddy currents are induced in the target (metallic)
by the electromagnetic.
• The target reacts with the Eddy currents as a
function of the distance from the field.
• Inside the field, the target attenuates the magnitude
of the Eddy currents.
• Outside the field, the target does not impede the
Eddy currents.
• This type of oscillator is referred to as a ECKO
(Eddy Current Killed Oscillator).
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:
CAPACITIVE SENSORS
• Principle of Operation:
• Senses all materials
• Contain a high frequency oscillator with one of its
capacitor plates built into the sensor.

• Method of Application:
• All materials are sensed through a change on the
dielectric characteristics.
• Ideal applications include bulk materials and liquids
in containers of glass and plastic.

• Characteristics:
• Poor choice for metal targets.
• Is very sensitive to environmental factors.
• Sensing range depends greatly on the material being
sensed.
• Can be misled and therefore it is important to control
the material which is presented to the sensor.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

PHOTOELECTRIC SENSORS
Photoelectric controls need no physical contact and are ideal where sensed
objects must remain untouched. Photoelectric controls respond rapidly to
parts moving quickly and in varying positions along a conveyor, yet operate
dependably if actuated only infrequently. There are controls for indoor or
outdoor use, for varying ambient light conditions, for high vibration, for areas
restrictive in space, and even for explosive locations.

Typical applications include:

• Counting • Edge guide
• Labeling • Web break detection
• Conveyor control • Regristration control
• Bin level control • Food processing
• Parts inspection • Parts monitoring and sorting
• Feed and/or fill control • Batch counting
• Package handling • Robotics
• Thread break detection • Parts handling
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

PHOTOELECTRIC SENSORS
Conveyor Control
This application involves sorting brown cardboard boxes which are coded with up to four black marks per
box. The application is to sense the number of marks on each box.
Package Handling
A diffuse scan photoelectric control is used to detect the light reflected from the object in this application.
The control detects the light reflected off the box, turning ON and OFF the gluing machine.
Labeling
This application is designed to detect the leading edge of a black bar code on a read and write label. The
labels are edge to edge on a spool. When the bar code is detected the sensor output triggers a laser bar
code reader which reads the bar code.
Food Processing
This application monitors the level of an accumulator in a meat processing facility. A photoelectric control
detects a fill level of hot-dogs in the accumulator then turns on the conveyor for a preset time period. Side
walls of the accumulator are polished stainless steel. The equipment is subject to daily washdown.
Fill Level Control
This application inspects the fill level of various jars of food products. The photoelectric system produces
an output when either an under or over fill condition is detected.
Parts Handling
Fiber optics are ideal for areas too small for a standard photoelectric control. The fiber optic cables direct
the light from the base to where the sensing is needed.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors
THRU

Emitter Receiver

Thru:
• Light source (emitter) and
receiver are placed opposite
each other.
• The object to be detected passes
between the two.
Target
Advantages:
1. Most reliable when target is opaque
2. Long range scanning, most excess gain
3. Use in high contamination areas, dirt, mist,
condensation, oil film, etc.
4. Precise positioning or edge-guiding of opaque
material
5. Parts counting
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors

Target

Diffuse:
• Light beam is directed at the
object to be detected.
• Light will be reflected off the
object in many directions.
• Some of the light reflected from
the object will be sensed by the
receiver.
Advantages:
1. No reflector required.
2. Convenient for installation.
3. One sided scanning.
4. Senses clear materials when
distance is not fixed.
5. Ease of alignment
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

PHOTOELECTRIC SENSORS

Proximity (diffuse) Background Suppression

Background suppression utilizes 2 receivers behind the receiving lens. They are
aimed at a precise point in front of the unit and sense the presence of a target
when the output of both receives are equal.

Applications:

• Material handling - conveying systems

• Collision detection for AGV’s (Automatic Guided Vehicles)
• Car / truck wash
• Level sensing
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors

Reflector

Retroreflective

Target

Retroreflective: Advantages:
• Light beam is directed at a reflective target 1. One-sided scanning
(reflector, tape or other reflective object) - 2. Ease of alignment
one which returns light along the same 3. Immune to vibration
path it was sent.
• The object to be detected passes between
photoelectric control and reflective target.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors
Convergent Beam

Fixed
Distance Target

Convergent:
• Light beam is directed at object to be
detected (ignores background
surfaces)
• Object must be at a given distance in
relationship to photoelectric control
before light will be reflected to receiver
Advantages:
1. First choice for detecting clear
materials
2. Ignores unwanted background
surface reflection
3. Detects objects with low reflectivity
4. Detects height differential
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

TYPES OF NON-CONTACT SENSORS:

PHOTOELECTRIC SENSORS
Fiber Optic Sensors
What do you do when the physical constraints of the application don’t allow for
installing regular, self-contained sensors? Maybe the target is in a high temperature
or chemically aggressive environment. Perhaps the target is small or very fast-moving.
Fiber-optics, applied to photoelectric scanning, solves these problems.
Fiber Optics and Sensing
All fiber optic sensing mode are implemented using one type of amplifier which contains
both emitter and receiver in one housing.
Fiber Optic Thru-beam Scanning
Using two opposed, individual fiber optic cables, the object to be detected breaks the
beam. The target must be at least the same dimension as the effective beam, which in
this case, is the bundle diameter. Because the beam is very small, the detection can be
very precise. A typical application might be edge detection for a web printing press.
Needle tips reduce the beam dimension for use with extremely small targets, typical for
application in semiconductors and pharmaceutical industries.
Typical application:
• Small parts detection
• Edge detection
• High temperature environment (600 degrees F+)
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors
Thru

Target or
Reflector

Fiber Optic:
• Not a scanning technique but rather another way of transmitting light beam.

Advantages:
1. High temperature applications 4. Corrosive areas
2. Where space is limited 5. Noise immunity
3. Size and flexibility of fiber leads 6. Color sensing
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
Types of Non-Contact Sensors

Photoelectric Sensors

Special
Reflector
Polarized

Target

Polarized:
• Will work only with comercube
reflector or special polarized
reflective tape.
• Will not false trigger when
sensing shiny object.
Advantages:
1. One-sided sensing
2. Does not false trigger off
highly reflective object
3. Senses clear materials
4. Ease of alignment
5. Immune to vibration
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
APPLICATIONS FOR PHOTOELECTRIC SENSORS
APPLICATION SCAN TECHNIQUE
Small parts detection Fiber optics or Thru scan with aperatures
Long distance scanning Thru scan
High temperature sensing Fiber optic
Shiny object or film detection Polarized scan
Severe environment (Extreme dust or dirt) Thru scan
Limited mounting space Fiber optic
Explosive environment Thru scan or Retro
Washdown environment Thru, Retro-reflective or Diffuse
Analog position sensing Diffuse or Fiber Optic
Conveyor Monitor Polarized, Diffuse or Retro
- Jam detection
- Part count
- Part position
Vibratory Feeder Fiber optic
Lid or Cap detection Convergent beam or Fiber Optic
Clear bottle detection Polarized or Fiber Optic
Transparent material Polarized scan
Label detection Diffuse or Fiber Optic
Bin or hopper level Thru when using window Diffuse from above
Mold or die clear to close Thru scan or Fiber Optic (high temp)
Max height monitor (i.e. Fork trucks) Thru scan
Opaque material on semitransparent carrier Thru scan
Motion detection All scan type
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES APPLICATIONS
Magnet Operated - Inexpensive - Magnet required - Security and safety
(reed relay) - Very selective target - Sensitive to welding interlocking
identification fields - Sensing thru metal

Hall Effect - Complete switching - Magnetic target only - Keyboard

function is in a single - Extremely sensitive to
integrated circuit industrial environment
- Operates up to 150khz
- High temperature
(150 degrees C)
- Good resolution

Ultrasonic - Senses all materials - Resolution - Anti-collision on AGV

- Repeatability Doors
- Sensitive to background
and environment changes
- Distance limitation to
60mm

Inductive - Resistant to harsh - Presence detection on all

environments kinds of machines
- Easy to install - Very popular
- Very predictable

Capacitive - Senses all materials - Very sensitive to - Level sensing with liquids
- Detects through walls environment changes and non-metallic parts

Photoelectric - Senses all materials - Subject to contamination - Parts detection

- Material handling
- Packaging
- Very popular

Piezo-electric - Torque (automated or

manual)
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

NEW APPLICATIONS:
• Pressure sensing
• Shape sensing
• Weight sensing
• Presence sensing
• Color sensing (dark vs light)
• Torque sensing (Piezo-electric)
• Position sensing
• Custom / adaptive size parts
• Vacuum sensing
• Flow sensing (e.g. gallon / minute)
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

POKA-YOKE Sensors at a Deming Prize Winner

1. Mechanical 9. Heat Sensor

2. Magnetic 10. Gas Sensor

3. Beam Cut 11. Force Sensor

4. Super Sonic 12. Torque Sensor

5. Image Sensor 13. Meter Relay

6. Counter 14. Vibration Sensor

7. Beam Reflector 15. Automatic Measurement

8. Pressure Sensor
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

THE MOST EFFECTIVE TYPES OF ERROR NOTIFICATION MEANS

Getting the Operator’s Attention:

• Visual Signal (flashing light is best)
• Audio Signal (loud and persistent, e.g. burglar alarm)
• Protective Barrier (to prevent defect or operator injury)
• When used: low defect occurrence rate and when
repairs can be made.

Shutting Down the Operation:

• Upon detecting a “non-conformance” the operation
is simply shut down, i.e. the next part will not be
processed.
• When used: relatively higher occurrence rates and
when repairs are not possible.
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

EXAMPLES OF POKA-YOKE’S
FOR THE THREE MOST COMMON PROBLEMS
Error Proofing Type of Type of
Problem Type
Installed Sensor Used Intervention Used
Missing Components Counter to verify Micro-switch Machine interlock
correct number of
components

Pre-counting the None None

number of components

Fixture at the operation Proximity switch Machine interlock

to detect the presence
of component from the
previous operation

Incorrect Processing Process sequence None (all fixtures None

fixturing specially designed)

Wrong Components Verifying component Light transmission Video or audio alarms

shape, weight, or
dimension switches
 ERROR-PROOFING TECHNIQUES
(Poka-Yoke) CONCEPT

BEST SENSING IDEAS

What is the best method for sensing fluid levels
for a machine?

What is the best method for sensing magnets for

electric motors?
What are three possible methods for sensing burs
on a cylinder bore?
What is the best method for detecting the presence
of an O-ring?
 Four Categories of Errors - Questions to Ask????

Missing Parts
– Is there a model mix such that some models require a
part while others require nothing at all in that location?

– Is the part assembled as a small part after some main

activity?

– Is the part difficult to see after being assembled?

 Missing Parts
Is the part :
Unseen or untouched in
subsequent process steps? Implement operator instructions,
Difficult to see during assembly? NO
visual aids and training as minimum
Difficult to assemble? requirement
Difficult to see after assembly?
Difficult to differentiate between pre
and post assembly?

YES
Can anything be done to resolve this
in design of product/process? YES
Can the part be combined with
another part?
Can the part be eliminated?

NO
What can be done to detect whether
the part has been assembled? Implement Error Proofing
(process/design change and/or
Detection device - torque detect/lock out device)
counter, photoelectric eye over
container, limit switch at Verify results
dispenser,....

Lock out subsequent operation if part

is missing.
Lock out device - limit switch,
conductivity sensor...
 Brainstorm Error Proofing Mechanism

Missing Parts - Thought Starters

• Make visible/obvious if missing
– Color contrast
– Visible at numerous operations and pack
– Use mirrors
– Position of part as moves down line
– Visual aid/picture posted with part present and highlighted
• Redefine process
– Assemble early in process
– Successive check
– Rearrange multiple write-up to eliminate “sometimes do/sometimes don’t”
• Monitor part supply
– Only supply parts needed for that model (no questions-if there are parts present, use
them)
– Lot control, count parts-must equal # pieces produced
• Sensors
– Photoelectric eyes to detect, lock out until corrected
– Limit switch to detect, lock out until corrected
• Modify design
– Eliminate part
Four Categories of Errors-Questions to Ask????

Misassembled Parts
– Is the operation difficult for the operator to see
as they perform the job?

– Is there an assembly or positioning operation

that can be completed incorrectly?
 Misassembled Parts
Is the part :
Difficult to see during assembly?
Difficult to assemble? Implement operator instructions,
Difficult to see after assembly? NO visual aids and training as minimum
Difficult to differentiate between pre requirement
and post assembly?
Lacking guides or fixtures for proper
assembly or proper alignment?

YES
Can anything be done to resolve this
in design of product/process?
(guides, fixtures, automation) YES
Can the part be combined with
another part?
Can the part be eliminated?

NO
Implement Error Proofing
What can be done to detect whether
(process/design change and/or
the part has been misassembled?
detect/lock out device)
Detection device - torque counter,
photoelectric eye, limit switch Verify results

Lock out subsequent operation if part

is misassembled.
Lock out device - limit switch,
conductivity sensor...
Brainstorm Error
Misassembled Proofing
Parts- Mechanism
Thought Starters
• Visual aids
– Visual aid/picture posted with correct position highlighted
• Redefine process
– Assemble early in process
– Successive check
• Workplace organization
– Organize for maximum ease and visibility
• Sensors
– Photoelectric eyes to detect, lock out until corrected
– Limit switch to detect, lock out until corrected
• Modify/design fixture
– Unable to assemble incorrectly
• Modify design
– Eliminate part
– Prevent misassembly - e.g. two sizes of studs
– Provide guides or references
Four Categories of Errors-Questions to Ask????
 Incorrect Processing
✓ Is there an operation that requires a recognition of some
characteristic to determine what to do with the part next?
GOOD REJECTS
 Incorrect Processing
Does the operation require recognition
of some characteristic to determine
what to do with the part? Implement operator instructions,
NO visual aids and training as minimum
(e.g. Red light indicates place in reject requirement
pile, visual inspection for pre-defined
defects)

YES
Can anything be done to resolve this
in design of product/process?
(fixtures, automation) YES
Can the part be combined with
another part?
Can the part be eliminated?

NO
What can be done to detect whether
Implement Error Proofing
the part has been incorrectly
(process/design change and/or
processed?
detect/lock out device)
Detection device - reset button,
photoelectric eye, limit switch Verify results

Lock out subsequent operation if part

is incorrectly processed.
Lock out device - limit switch,
conductivity sensor...
 Brainstorm Error Proofing Mechanism
Incorrect Processing- Thought Starters

• Visual aids
– Quality alert indicating high potential for error
– Fixture or template outlining pre-defined defects
– Bogey or sample boards for visual inspection
• Redefine process
– Reset or acknowledge but at the appropriate next operation
– Automate
• Workplace organization
– Separate and clearly label reject locations/containers
• Sensors
– Photoelectric eyes to detect, lock out until corrected
– Limit switch to detect, lock out until corrected
Four Categories of Errors-Questions to Ask????

 Incorrect Parts
✓ Is there a selection of parts in front of the operator that would
allow for the wrong part to be chosen and assembled?
 Incorrect Parts
Is there a selection of parts available
at the workstation?
Are similar parts assembled onto the Implement operator instructions,
product at the same location? NO visual aids and training as minimum
requirement

YES
Can anything be done to resolve this
in design of product/process?
(Consolidation, separate operations) YES
Can the part be combined with
another part?
Can the part be eliminated?

NO
What can be done to detect whether
Implement Error Proofing
the incorrect part has been
(process/design change and/or
assembled?
detect/lock out device)
Detection device - bar code,
photoelectric eye, limit switch Verify results

Lock out subsequent operation if the

incorrect part is detected
Lock out device - limit switch,
conductivity sensor...
 Brainstorm Error Proofing Mechanism

Incorrect Parts- Thought Starters

• Make visible/obvious if incorrect part
– Color code - match part to product
– Visible at numerous operations and pack
– Position of part as moves down line
– Visual aid/picture posted with correct part present and highlighted
• Redefine process
– Assemble early in process
– Successive check
– Rearrange multiple write-up to separate assembly of like parts
• Monitor part supply
– Only supply parts needed for that model
• Sensors
– Photoelectric eyes to detect, lock out until corrected
– Limit switch to detect, lock out until corrected
• Modify/design fixture
– Unable to assemble incorrect part
• Modify design
– Eliminate part
– Prevent assembly of incorrect part
 “Quick Response / Quick Implementation”
Error-Proofing Process
Candidates for Error Proofing

First Time
Systematic Departmental
Quality Internal Customer
Problem Containment Warranty
(F.T.Q.) Plant Rejects
Solving Station Information
at Audit (PPM)
Process Network
Operation
Institutionalize
the Solution
and the Ongoing
Control
Continuous
Institutionalize Opportunity
Improvement
Problem Solving Docum entation

Prevent Select
5. Evaluate 1. Identify

The Error Proofing Process:

– Utilizes a multi-functional approach People
&
– Is driven by Customer Satisfaction and allows for Quick Teamwork
response and implementation of solutions 4. Implement 2. Analyze

– Is used to “Kill” problems

– Is documented in the ‘Problem Solving Document’ (PSD) 3. Plan
– Supports Continuous Improvement Methodology Correct Contain
– Is the ‘Contain’ step in the 5 Step Problem Solving
Process
 1% DEFECT RATE (99% YIELD)
OF ALL STATIONS
1% 1%
Defect Defect
Rate 1% Rate 1%
1% 1%
Defect Defect
Defect Defect
Rate Rate
Rate Rate
Cell 1 Cell 2
1% 1% 1% 1%
Defect Defect Defect Defect
Rate Rate Rate Rate

1% 1%
Defect Defect
Rate 1% Rate 1%
1% 1%
Defect Defect Defect Defect
Rate Rate Rate Rate
Cell 4 Cell 3
1% 1% 1% 1%
Defect Defect Defect Defect
Rate Rate Rate Rate

RESULTS IN 78%
CONFORMING PRODUCTS
 PROCESS FALLOUT TABLE
Centered Process

Process capability ratio Parts per million defective

0.50 133,600.00
0.75 24,400.00
1.00 2,700.00
1.10 967.00
1.20 318.00
1.30 96.00
1.40 26.00
1.50 6.80
1.60 1.60
1.70 0.34
1.80 0.06
2.00 0.0018
DIDN’T WASH
HANDS
 ERROR PROOFING
Implementation Procedure:
• Product Tooling Design Phase
¶ Predict Potential Quality Defects during
Product Tooling Design Stage.
Use DFM to modify Tooling Design to
Prevent Potential Defects from Occurring in
Production based on Potential Defects
Identified.
Build Poka-Yoke Devices into the Process
where Design “Fixes” can not be
Incorporated.
 ERROR PROOFING
Implementation Procedure (Continued):
• Production Phase
¶ Retro-fit Poka-Yoke Devices into Existing
Tooling
Use Quality History to Target Potential Error
Proofing Application Sites
Obtain Set-Up Operator Input as to Where to
Apply “Error Proofing” Devices as well as
the Type of Devices to Use.
 ERROR PROOFING
Some Error Proofing Guidelines:
• Standardize Press Shut Heights
• Utilize Digital Process Parameter Gages
• Apply Locating Devices to Dies, Fixtures, Etc.
• Gages Pre-calibrated prior to Start of Set-Up
• Utilize Common/”Quick Connect Fittings and
Clamping Hardware
• “One Way” Loading
• 100% Component Presence Check
• Verify “Machine Cycle Completed”
• Detected “Error” Stops Process
CASUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN DEFECTS AND HUMAN ERRORS

Strongly Connected Connected

Misunderstanding

Non-Supervision
Misidentification
Human

International

Inadvertent
Errors

Amateurs

Slowness
Forgeful

Surprise
Causes

Willful
of Defects

Omitted Processing
Processing Errors
Errors Setting Up Workpieces
Missing Parts
Wrong Parts
Processing Wrong Workpiece
Misoperation
Adjustment Error
Improper Equipment Setup
Improper Tools and Jigs
SOURCE: NKS/Factory Magazine “Poka-Yoke”
 ERROR PROOFING TECHNIQUES

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE

To improve the PROCESS by helping

people prevent ERRORS and increase the
chances of DETECTION, so that FAILURE
MODE occurrences are
ELIMINATED.
 W o r k s h o p A c tio n Ite m s

S u p p lie r: L o c a t io n :

G M B u y e r: C re a t ivit y T e a m :

A c t ivit y T y p e : SDE:

A c t ivit y D a t e : F o llo w u p D a t e s : -

No. A c ti o n Ite m R e s p o ns i b i li ty T a rg e t P ro g re s s
D a te C o m m e n ts
 Error Proofing Technique Workshop DATE OF WORKSHOP:_________________
SHORT TERM F/U DATE:_______________
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
LONG TERM F/U DATE:________________

S UP P LIER:__________________________________________________________________________________
GM S P ONS ORING DIVIS ION:___________________________________________________________________
P ROCES S :__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
P P AP REQUIREMENTS ADDRES S ED (Y/N):____________________________
CREATIVITY TEAM NAME & NUMBER:___________________________________________________________

AFTER WORKS HOP

PARAMETERS BEFORE IMPROVED S TATE (CURRENT WEEK) S HORT TERM (0-6 MOS ) LONG TERM (6-12 MOS )
WORKS HOP MEAS URE % IMPROVEMENT MEAS URE % IMPROVEMENT MEAS URE % IMPROVEMENT
COS T OF
FORECAS T
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

FIRS T TIME
FORECAS T
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

PROCES S
FORECAS T
CAPABILITY
_________________
ACTUAL

OVERALL QUALITY
FORECAS T
MEAS URE
_________________
ACTUAL

COMMENTS :

P le a s e indica te the me a s ure s us e d: Exa mple s of Cos t of Qua lity improve me nts = re duce d / e limina te d s cra p &/or re work, re duction of e xce s s inve ntory.
(Not a ll me a s ure s ne e d to be us e d during works hop) Firs t Time Qua lity = improve me nt in e nd of line qua lity re s ults .
P roce s s Ca pa bility = improve me nt in proce s s ca pa bility.
Ove ra ll Qua lity Me a s ure = de fe cts pe r pa rt or rrppm.

TEAM LEADERS :

P HONE:

© 1995 Copyright General Motors. All rights reserved.

WHAT IS NECESSARY TO BE
SUCCESSFUL?

• Management Support
• Team Members who:
• Are team players
• Communicate well
• Not afraid to contribute
• Are empowered
• Have the desire to solve problems
• Can make it happen
 Error Proofing Techniques

TEAM RECOMMENDATION

KEY AREAS:
• OPERATORS & INSPECTORS FROM STUDY
AREA
• PROCESS AND DESIGN ENGINEER
• QUALITY REPRESENTATIVE
• SKILLED TRADES

• MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE - MIDDLE

TO UPPER LEVELS
• MANUFACTURING REPRESENTATIVE

OPTIONAL AREAS:
• MAINTENANCE REPRESENTATIVE

• OTHER TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVES:

• INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER
• UNION REPRESENTATIVE
 Error Proofing Techniques
TEAM MEMBERS DESIRED BACKGROUND

• KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE PROCESS BEING

STUDIED.

• POSSESSING A TEMPERAMENT TO WORK IN TEAMS AND

CONTRIBUTE TO TEAM GOALS.

• WILLING TO MAKE CHANGE AND THINK BEYOND NORMAL

PRACTICES.

• EMPOWERED TO SPEAK FOR ORGANIZATION AND

KNOWLEDGEABLE TO WHOM TO REACH FOR CRITICAL
DECISIONS OR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

• INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE THINKING PROCESS.

• ABILITY TO REPRESENT AND CONVEY ATTITUDES OF AREA

/ FUNCTION REPRESENTED.

• AWARE OF INDUSTRY AND COMPANIES COMPETITIVE

SITUATION, AND NEED TO CHANGE.

• UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT THE WORKSHOP

PROCESS MAY INVOLVE LONG HOURS.
 SUGGESTED INFORMATION
FOR REVIEW
• PFMEA Data
• Internal Audit Information
• Control Plan
• Process Flow
• Root Cause Analysis Performed to Date
• Process Capability
• Customer Rejections/Warranty Information
• Scrap Rate Information by Cause
• Poka-Yoke Devices
• Other?
 CHECKLIST
S TATUS ITEM
CONFERENCE ROOM-KICKOFF MEETING DAY ONE, TIME TBD, LARGE ENOUGH FOR TEAM MEMBERS , S TAFF, AND VIS ITORS .
- TRANS P ARENCY P ROJ ECTOR
- VHS TAP E MACHINE
- EAS EL WITH MARKERS
CONFERENCE ROOM-WRAP -UP MEETING LAS T DAY, TIME TBD, LARGE ENOUGH FOR TEAM MEMBERS , S TAFF, AND VIS ITORS .
- TRANS P ARENCY P ROJ ECTOR
- VHS TAP E MACHINE
- EAS EL WITH MARKERS
CONFERENCE ROOM-FOR EACH WORKS HOP TEAM FROM DAY ONE TILL LAS T DAY LARGE ENOUGH FOR UP TO 15 P EOP LE.
- TRANS P ARENCY P ROJ ECTOR
- EAS EL WITH MULTI-COLORED MARKERS AND P LENTY OF EAS EL P AP ER
- VHS TAP E MACHINE
- MAS KING TAP E
- LAYOUT OF ROOM CONDUCIVE TO GOOD TEAM INVOLVEMENT (NOIS E, FURNITURE CONFIGURATION, TEMP ERATURE CONTROL).
- ACCES S TO COP Y MACHINES FOR COP IES AND TRANS P ARENCIES .
- LOCATION CLOS E TO WORKS ITE FOR IMP LEMENTATION WORKS HOP .
- BLANK TRANS P ARENCIES AND MARKERS AVAILABLE.
BREAKOUT ROOM(S )-FOR WORKS HOP TEAM TO MEET IN S UBGROUP S AT VARIOUS TIMES .
WORKS HOP TEAM MEMBERS S ELECTED.
P ARTICIP ANT REVIEW OF P ROCES S AND P URP OS E/EXP ECTATIONS (GM TO AS S IS T? ).
WORKS ITE AND AFFECTED AREA REVIEW OF WORKS HOP P LANS AND P URP OS E/EXP ECTATIONS (GM TO AS S IS T? ).
MES S AGE CENTER ARRANGEMENT ES TABLIS HED FOR P ARTICIP ANTS AND VIS ITORS ,
NAME TAGS FOR EACH TEAM MEMBER (NOT S TICK ON TYP E).
REFRES HMENTS FOR MORNING AND AFTERNOON (COFFEE, P OP , FRUIT, WATER) FOR TEAMS AND KICKOFF MEETING.
LUNCH ARRANGEMENTS TO MINIMIZE TRAVEL TIME (IF P RES ET MENU, KEEP ON LIGHT S IDE).
P ARTICIP ANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE.
- WRITING P AD & P EN
- S AFETY EQUIP MENT
- WORKS HEETS (GM TO P ROVIDE)
- CLIP BOARD OR HARD WRITING S URFACE
OTHER ATTENDEES FOR KICKOFF AND WRAP -UP MEETING IDENTIFIED.

Page 1 of 2
 CHECKLIST

S TATUS ITEM
WORKS HOP WORKS ITE INFORMATION P ROVIDED/AVAILABLE:
- P LANT LAYOUT OF WORKS ITE AREA S HOWING P RODUCT FLOW AND OP ERATORS (ON 8 1/2 X 11 P AP ER).
- CUS TOMER S P ECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS .
- EQUIP MENT P ROCES S CAP ABILITY AND P ERFORMANCE RECORDS AVAILABLE.
- INTERNAL P LANT AUDIT INFORMATION.
- CUS TOMER REJ ECTIONS BY TYP E AND CAUS E
- REJ ECTION RATE (IN-P ROCES S S CRAP )
- S ETUP REQUIREMENTS (P EOP LE & TIME)
- CHANGEOVER TIME
- EQUIP MENT DOWNTIME OR UP TIME
- P FMEA DATA
- P ROCES S FLOW INFORMATION AND CONTROL P LAN DATA
DRES S CODE ES TABLIS HED AS CAS UAL P LUS P LANT S AFETY REQUIREMENTS (E.G. HARD S OLE S HOES , LONG S LEEVES , ETC).
TRANS P ARENCY DES CRIBING ADMINIS TRATIVE DETAILS :
- LAYOUT AND LOCATION OF CONFERENCE ROOMS .
- RES T ROOM LOCATIONS .
- LUNCH ARRANGEMENTS
- LIS T OF ATTENDEES /P ARTICIP ANTS BY NAME, COMP ANY, AND TITLE
- S AFETY REQUIREMENTS
- MES S AGE CENTER(S )
- P HONE LOCATIONS
- S MOKING REGULATIONS (NO S MOKING IN CONFERENCE AND TEAM ROOMS REQUES TED)
FINALIZE OP ENING KICKOFF S P EAKER IDENTIFICATION, TIMING, AND CONTENT.
MTG ARRANGED FOR END OF EACH DAY WITH TOP MANAGEMENT AND TEAM LEADERS TO REVIEW S TATUS /ADDRES S ROADBLOCKS .
LOGIS TIC ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO ALLOW GM P ERS ONNEL TO DRIVE DAILY ON P LANT P ROP ERTY TO WORKS ITE/MEETING ROOMS .

Page 2 of 2
 ERROR PROOFING TECHNIQUES
ATTENDEES
NAME COMPANY CURRENT JOB ASSIGNMENT BUSINESS PHONE
 W o r k s h o p A c tio n Ite m s

S u p p lie r: L o c a t io n :

G M B u y e r: C re a t ivit y T e a m :

A c t ivit y T y p e : SDE:

A c t ivit y D a t e : F o llo w u p D a t e s : -

No. A c ti o n Ite m R e s p o ns i b i li ty T a rg e t P ro g re s s
D a te C o m m e n ts
 Error Proofing Technique Workshop DATE OF WORKSHOP:_________________
SHORT TERM F/U DATE:_______________
SUMMARY OF RESULTS LONG TERM F/U DATE:________________

SUPPLIER:__________________________________________________________________________________
GM SPONSORING DIVISION:___________________________________________________________________
PROCESS:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PPAP REQUIREMENTS ADDRESSED (Y/N):____________________________
CREATIVITY TEAM NAME & NUMBER:___________________________________________________________

AFTER WORKSHOP
PARAMETERS BEFORE IMPROVED STATE (CURRENT WEEK) SHORT TERM (0-6 MOS) LONG TERM (6-12 MOS)
WORKSHOP MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT
COST OF
FORECAST
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

FIRST TIME
FORECAST
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

PROCESS
FORECAST
CAPABILITY
_________________
ACTUAL

OVERALL QUALITY
FORECAST
MEASURE
_________________
ACTUAL

COMMENTS:

Please indicate the measures used: Examples of Cost of Quality improvements = reduced / eliminated scrap &/or rework, reduction of excess inventory.
(Not all measures need to be used during workshop) First Time Quality = improvement in end of line quality results.
Process Capability = improvement in process capability.
Overall Quality Measure = defects per part or rrppm.

TEAM LEADERS:

PHONE:
 DEFINE CURRENT STATE
• AREAS OF INVESTIGATION AND CONFIRMATION:

• PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

• REVIEW OF PROBLEM AREA
• PFMEA
• INTERNAL AUDITS AND INFORMATION
• ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS EFFORTS TO DATE
• CUSTOMER REJECTIONS
• CONTROL PLANS

• COMPLETE “SUMMARY OF RESULTS” CURRENT STATE

 POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) FMEA Number ________________________________
Page _________ of ___________________________
Item________________________ Process Responsibility______________________ Prepared by __________________________________
Model Year(s) / Vehicle(s)_______________________ Key Date________________________________ FMEA Date (Orig.)________________ (Rev.)________
Core Team____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Process C O D Action Results

Function l Potential c e
Potential Potential S a Cause(s)/ c Current t R. Responsibility S O D R.
Failure Effect(s) E s Mechanism(s) u Process e P. Recommended & Target Actions e c e P.
Requirements Mode of Failure V s of Failure r Controls c N. Actions Completion Date Taken v c t N.

EPFORM-L.PPT Pg.1
02/13/00
 W o r k s h o p A c tio n Ite m s

S u p p lie r: L o c a t io n :

G M B u y e r: C re a t ivit y T e a m :

A c t ivit y T y p e : SDE:

A c t ivit y D a t e : F o llo w u p D a t e s : -

No. A c ti o n Ite m R e s p o ns i b i li ty T a rg e t P ro g re s s
D a te C o m m e n ts
 ERROR PROOFING CONTROL PLAN
Potential Error EP # Error Proofing Mechanism Level of Install Operator Process Audit
Control Date Instruct. # Method Frequency Responsible
 DATE: __________

Error Proofing Techniques SUMMARY OF RESULTS SHORT TERM F/U DATE:________

LONG TERM F/U DATE:_________

SUPPLIER:__________________________________________________________________________________
GM SPONSORING DIVISION:_____________________________________________________________
PROCESS:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PPAP REQUIREMENTS ADDRESSED (Y/N):____________________________
CREATIVITY TEAM NAME & NUMBER:_____________________________________________________

AFTER WORKSHOP
PARAMETERS BEFORE IMPROVED STATE (CURRENT WEEK) SHORT TERM (0-6 MOS) LONG TERM (6-12 MOS)
WORKSHOP MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT MEASURE % IMPROVEMENT
COST OF
FORECAST
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

FIRST TIME
FORECAST
QUALITY
_________________
ACTUAL

PROCESS
FORECAST
CAPABILITY
_________________
ACTUAL

OVERALL QUALITY
FORECAST
MEASURE
_________________
ACTUAL

COMMENTS:

Please indicate the measures used: Examples of Cost of Quality improvements = reduced / eliminated scrap &/or rework, reduction of excess inventory.
(Not all measures need to be used during workshop) First Time Quality = improvement in end of line quality results.
Process Capability = improvement in process capability.
Overall Quality Measure = defects per part or rrppm.

TEAM LEADERS:

PHONE:
 WHAT IS
ERROR
PROOFING?

HOW AND
WHERE DO WE
APPLY IT?
 WHAT IS ERROR PROOFING?

Error Proofing is the activity of awareness, detection, and

prevention of errors which adversely affect:
Our customers (defects)
Our people (injuries)
and result in WASTE!

Awareness: Having the forethought that a mistake can be made, communicating the potential, and
planning the design of the product or process to detect or prevent it.

Detection: Allowing the mistake to happen but providing some means of detecting it and alerting
someone so that we fix it before sending it to our customer.

Prevention: Not allowing the possibility for the mistake to occur in the first place.
WHY DO WE SUGGEST ERROR PROOFING?

PURPOSE OF ERROR PROOFING EFFORT:

• Drive simple and inexpensive devices into our processes
to help people notice errors

KEY CONCEPTS / ASSUMPTIONS:

• People want to do a good job
• People make mistakes
• An error only becomes a defect if it’s passed on
• The only way to notice errors is to have devices do
100% inspection (not people)
 SOURCES OF DEFECTS

• OMITTED PROCESSING
• PROCESSING ERRORS
• ERRORS SETTING UP WORKPIECES
• MISSING PARTS
• WRONG PARTS
• PROCESSING WRONG WORKPIECE
• MISOPERATION
• ADJUSTMENT ERROR
• EQUIPMENT NOT SET UP PROPERLY
• TOOLS AND JIGS IMPROPERLY PREPARED
DIFFERENT KINDS OF ERRORS
• FORGETFULNESS
• ERRORS DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING
• ERRORS IN IDENTIFICATION
• ERRORS MADE BY AMATEURS
• WILLFUL ERRORS
• INADVERTENT ERRORS
• ERRORS DUE TO SLOWNESS
• ERRORS DUE TO THE LACK OF STANDARDS
• SURPRISE ERRORS
• INTENTIONAL ERRORS
 FIVE TYPES OF
DEFECT OCCURRENCES

1. INAPPROPRIATE STANDARD OPERATING

PROCEDURES OR METHODS.
2. TOO MUCH VARIABILITY IN ACTUAL
OPERATIONS EVEN THOUGH STANDARD
METHODS ARE APPROPRIATE.
(CARRY OUT PROPER MAINTENANCE BEFORE OPERATIONS
BEGIN)

3. DAMAGED MATERIALS OR EXCESSIVE

VARIABILITY IN THICKNESS.
(USE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS AND INSPECT CAREFULLY ON
RECEIPT)
FIVE TYPES OF DEFECT OCCURRENCES

4. WORN MACHINE BEARINGS

OR TOOLS
(CARRY OUT THOROUGH MAINTENANCE AND
TOOL MANAGEMENT)

5. SIMPLE MISTAKES OR
IMPERFECTLY
CONTROLLED TASK
EXECUTION
 ZERO QUALITY CONTROL
COMPONENTS
• SOURCE INSPECTION:
• Checks for factors that cause errors, not the resulting defect.
(Locator pin)

• 100% INSPECTION:
• Uses inexpensive Poka-Yoke devices to inspect automatically
for errors or defective operating conditions. (Limit switch).

• IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION:

• Operations are stopped instantly when a mistake is made and
not resumed until it’s corrected. (Machine is shut down)

• RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE ARE HUMAN AND USE

POKA-YOKE DEVICES TO FULFILL “CHECKING
FUNCTIONS”.
 SOURCE INSPECTION
MANAGEMENT CYCLE
CAUSE
4. These are multiple RESULT
assembly operations.
1. Shingo wants to set-up
many of these small
circles.

Defect
Error (small cycle)

Conventional Defect
Management Cycle
Check (large cycle)
Action and 3. Shingo wants to
discourage these
feedback or make shorter.
Check
Action and
feedback

2. View these as one 5. This is an end of line

operator’s station. inspection station.
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques
• Design for Manufacturability
• “Poka-Yoke” System Devices
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques:
• Design For Manufacturability
(DFM)
Technique that Results in Designs that Cannot
be Incorrectly Manufactured or Assembled.
This Technique can also be used to “Simplify”
the Design and therefore reduce it’s cost.
DESIGN STAGE - BEST OPPORTUNITY TO
IMPACT QUALITY & COST

CHANCES FOR
QUALITY & COST COST TO
IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENT

COST

TIME START OF PRODUCTION

 ERROR PROOFING TECHNIQUES
DESIGN PREVENTS MISASSEMBLY
 ERROR PROOFING

Techniques (Continued)
• “Poka-Yoke” System*
Set-Up Devices or Inspection Techniques that
Assure that Set-Up is Done Correctly; i.e.
Produces 100% Good Parts from the First Piece
on

“Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection and the Poka-Yoke System” - Shigeo
Shingo; 1986
 ERROR PROOFING TECHNIQUES
ERROR PROOFING THE PROCESS

Problem: Missing Weld Nuts

Welding Machine

• Automatically
Up Up
Stops Process
• Provides Visual
Down Down
& Audio Control
Height of Nut
Nut
Product
Effective Error Proofing
techniques can reduce or
eliminate our dependence
on operator knowledge and
vigilance, therefore
reducing the number of
defects we send to our
customers!!
 Levels of Error Proofing

No Instructio Training / Visual Containment* Defect Detection Avoidance

Controls n Visual Aids Control - 100% Inspect - Stops Process - Robust Product /
s Process Designs
- Autonomation

AWARENESS DETECTION PREVENTION

* 100% inspection for containment of a defect should be implemented only as a temporary fix, as it, too, is subject
to operator vigilance.
BASIC FUNCTIONS OF A
POKA-YOKE SYSTEM

• SHUTDOWN

• CONTROL

• WARNING
 DETECTION DEVICES FOR
POKA-YOKE SYSTEMS

• CONTACT DETECTION DEVICES

• NON-CONTACT DETECTION DEVICES
• DEVICES THAT DETECT PRESSURE,
TEMPERATURE, ELECTRIC CURRENT,
VIBRATION, CYCLES, TIME, TIMING AND
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION
CONTACT DETECTION DEVICES

• LIMIT SWITCHES
• MICRO SWITCHES
• TOUCH SWITCHES
• DIFFERENTIAL
TRANSFORMERS
• TRIMETRONS
• LIQUID LEVEL RELAYS
NON CONTACT DETECTION DEVICES

• PROXIMITY SWITCHES
• PHOTOELECTRIC SWITCHES
• BEAM SENSORS
• FIBER SENSORS
• AREA SENSORS
• DIMENSION SENSORS
• DISPLACEMENT SENSORS
• METAL PASSAGE SENSORS
• COLOR MARKING SENSORS
• DOUBLE-FEED SENSORS
• WELDING POSITION SENSORS
• TAP SENSORS
• FLUID SENSORS
FIVE BEST POKA-YOKE

1. GUIDE PINS OF DIFFERENT SIZES

2. ERROR DETECTION AND ALARMS
3. LIMIT SWITCHES
4. COUNTERS
5. CHECKLIST(S)
 Where Poka-Yoke Incorporate
is technically Poka-Yoke
or economically functions
unfeasible in into successive
self-check system... check systems.
 EXAMPLES OF ERRORS AT WORK . . .

• Missing Parts
– Forgetting to assemble a part - screws, labels, orifice tubes...

• Misassembled Parts
– Misassembly - loose parts, upside down, not aligned
e.g. - brackets (backwards), seals (not aligned),
screws (loose), labels (upside down), ...

• Incorrect Processing
– Disposing of a part rejected at test to the wrong pile

• Incorrect Parts
– Retrieving and assembling the wrong part from a model mix selection -
seals, labels, brackets, cases...
WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE????
 PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS

For Customer Satisfaction

Continuous
Institutionalize Opportunity
Improvement

Prevent Select
5. Evaluate 1. Identify

People
&
Teamwork
4. Implement 2. Analyze

3. Plan
Correct Contain
 Identify Error Proofing Opportunities
• PFMEA
IDENTIFY • Quality Data, PR/R, Warranty Data...
• Brainstorm (Questions to Ask, Free Form...)

Prioritize Opportunities (RPN, Pareto...)

Determine Level of Error Proofing

HOW
ANALYZE Brainstorm Error Proofing Mechanisms
• Build on past experience
• Can use more than one mechanism
TO
Select Error Proofing Mechanism
• Most cost effective
• Simple
ERROR
Plan (Process Mechanisms)
PLAN • Action plan
• Error Proofing Control Plan (EPCP)
PROOF
Implement Error Proofing Mechanism
•Installation
IMPLEMENT •Validation
• EPCP
•Check sheet/Log
•Operator Instructions

EVALUATE Evaluate Results

 TEAM PROCESS
STEP:
1. IDENTIFY FAILURES
PRIORITIZE FAILURES
SELECT ONE
DOCUMENT CURRENT CONDITION

2. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

WHY - WHY
FLOOR REVIEW
INVESTIGATION

3. BRAINSTORM ERROR PROOF DEVICES

SELECT BEST IDEAS
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

4. IMPLEMENT IDEAS
COMPLETE BEFORE AND AFTER DOCUMENT

5. COMPLETE FUTURE ACTION PLANS

DOCUMENT NEW CONDITION

SELECT NEXT FAILURE AND BEGIN STEP 1

 TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS
Flow Chart Fishbone Diagram Pareto Chart

Problem

Histogram 5 Why’s Run Chart

Problem
Why
Why
Why
Why
Why
Root Cause

Scatter Plot Control Chart Pictograph

 IMPLEMENTATION
• TRY DIFFERENT IDEAS
• Error Proofing Device / Tool
• New Containers
• Different Process (ask Employees to try)
• Different Flow of Materials
• Detection of Defects
• Re-route

• CALL SOMEONE
• Packaging
• Design Changes
• Layout Changes
• Approvals from Division

• PAPERWORK
• Write P.M. Process
• Re-Write Process Steps
• Purchase Order
• Revise / Revised Layout