VDA - Band - Lessons - Learned - 1. Ausgabe 2020 - Englisch

Qualitäts Management Center
im Verband der Automobilindustrie
Quality Management in the Automotive Industry
Lessons Learned
Definition of “Lessons Learned”
in the Automotive Industry
Process description, application tips, and practical examples
Lessons Learned
1st edition, November 2020

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom
VDA-QMC Internetportal am 14.12.2020 um 10:13
Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Lessons Learned
Process description, application tips,
and practical examples
Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V. (VDA)


ISSN 0943-9412
Printed: November 2020
Copyright 2020 by
Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
Behrenstraße 35, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Production: Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH

Schwanheimer Straße 110, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Printed on chlorine-free bleached paper


03
Non-binding VDA recommendation

The Verband der Automobilindustrie (German Association of the Automotive Industry – VDA)
recommends that its members apply the following guideline when establishing and
maintaining QM systems.
Exclusion of liability
This VDA volume is a recommendation which is free for anyone to use. Anyone who
implements it is responsible for ensuring that it is used correctly in a specific case.
This VDA volume takes account of the latest state of technology at the time it is issued.
Implementing the VDA recommendations does not relieve anyone of responsibility for their
own actions. In this respect, everyone acts at their own risk. The VDA and those involved in
drawing up the VDA recommendations decline all liability in any circumstances.
Anyone using these VDA recommendations detecting incorrect information or the possibility
of incorrect arrangements is asked to advise the VDA without delay, so that any deficiencies
can be eliminated.
Copyright protection
This publication is protected by copyright. Its use outside the strict limits of the copyright
laws is prohibited without the permission of the VDA and is punishable by law. This applies
in particular to copying, translation, storing on microfiche, and storing or processing in
electronic systems.
Translations
This publication will also be issued in other languages. The current status must be
requested from VDA QMC.


04


CONTENTS 05
Contents
1 Goal and purpose 7
2 Definition of Lessons Learned (LL) 8

2.1 The term “Lessons Learned” 8
2.1.1 The term “lessons” 8
2.1.2 The term “learned” 8
2.2 Definition of Lessons Learned 9
3 Lessons Learned process 10

3.1 Input – Lessons from experience 10
3.2 Collection and documentation 12
3.3 Evaluation of lessons 12
3.4 Distribution of lessons 12
3.5 Application and implementation 13
3.6 Output – Establishing experiences 13
3.7 Roles and responsibilities 14
3.8 Process measurability 15
3.9 Outlook 16
4 Recommended documentation 17
4.1 Structure of a lesson 17
4.2 IT systems 18
4.2.1 Spreadsheets 18
4.2.2 Database 18
4.2.3 Integrated IT solution 19


06 CONTENTS
5 Application tips for successful

implementation of Lessons Learned 20
6 Practical examples 22
6.1 Glasses compartment confused with hand brake 22
6.1.1 Description of problem/initial situation 22
6.1.2 Root cause analysis/situation analysis 22
6.1.3 Lesson 23
6.1.4 Implemented Lesson and effectiveness tracking 23
6.1.5 Lessons Learned 23
6.2 Define specific meeting targets in advance 24
6.2.3 Lesson 24
6.2.4 Measure and effectiveness tracking 25
6.3 Lessons Learned from the FMEA analysis 26
6.3.3 Lesson 26
6.4 Sensor not tested after setup 28
6.4.3 Lesson 28
6.5 Cross-project Pareto analysis for maturity
level assurance 29
6.5.3 Lesson 30
6.6 Product optimization from production analyses 31
6.6.3 Lesson 31
6.7 Torque wrench 33
6.8 Insect attack Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom 34

CONTENTS 07
7 Appendix 36
8 List of abbreviations/Glossary 38


08 CONTENTS


1 Goal and purpose 09
1 Goal and purpose
Prior to this VDA Volume being issued, there were no uniform definitions of terms relating
to the issue of “Lessons Learned” in the automotive industry. The term “Lessons Learned” is
used in requirements of several standards (VDA 6.3, IATF 16949, etc.), without being
explained in more detail.
This VDA Volume closes this gap by defining the term “Lessons Learned” and supports
companies in targeted implementation of specific minimum requirements.
A uniform understanding and definition of the minimum requirements are necessary to

enable experiential knowledge (insights) to be sustainably used to improve a company.
Experiential knowledge contributes to improving employees’ expertise and behavior and thus
to continuous optimization of products, processes, and systems. It is essential to take into
account both positive and negative experiences and events, for example derived from faults,
complaints, or other incidents. The focus is on increasing customer satisfaction.
Sustainable and efficient management of knowledge is an important leadership task. There

is a good reason why knowledge is referred to as the fourth production factor, alongside
labor, capital, and land. Particularly in view of increasing globalization and the simultaneous
increase in product complexity, managing knowledge will be a key qualification for
tomorrow’s companies.
The LL approach gives the company an opportunity to consciously utilize past experiences.
From a long-term perspective, an organization’s ability to learn faster than its competitors
is a crucial competitive advantage. The LL process can be viewed as a key process on
the way to becoming a learning organization and is therefore increasingly important.
An open and constructive approach to failure is a fundamental requirement for the success
of a LL process, and thus a key requirement of the corporate culture. Management must
take responsibility for ensuring implementation throughout the company.


10 2 Definition of
Lessons Learned (LL)
2 Definition of
Lessons Learned (LL)
2.1 The term “Lessons Learned”

Lessons Learned is an established term and the LL workshop is a standard process step
in project management; therefore, the concept is well established in the project-based
automotive industry. Linguistically, the term is easy to understand. For the sake of
completeness, it should be noted that some companies use synonyms.
The term is made up of the two words “lessons” and “learned”. To ensure a full
understanding, we will first look at their derivation and explain them.
2.1.1 The term “lessons”

“Lesson” refers to an insight that comes about as a result of experience. For this reason,
we often refer to “experiential knowledge” in this context. These experiences can be both
positive and negative. Experiential knowledge tends to be classified as “implicit knowledge”,
as it is initially hidden and not yet documented. As a result, the insights can be difficult to
communicate or pass on to others. There is also explicit knowledge, which is clearly
documented. Lessons communicate this documented knowledge.
2.1.2 The term “learned”

“Learned” should not be understood in its most literal sense when used in the compound
term. The term rather implies that appropriate experiences and insights have to be sustainab-
ly implemented in order to be “learned”. Knowledge alone – in terms of a new insight – does
not protect the company against having to undergo the same experience again.
It is when “lessons” are clearly identified and then implemented as a next step that the
company will benefit from them in the future.
Ideally, implementation of LL involves revising or redefining existing standards. By trans

forming the lesson into a standard (processes, specifications, work instructions, checklists,
test instructions, guidelines, standards, etc.) the company can ensure that the experiences
are continuously taken into account and
VDA-QMC are no longer
Internetportal forgotten
am 14.12.2020 (they are “learned”).
um 10:13

2 Definition of
Lessons Learned (LL) 11
The exact requirements for the process are clearly outlined in Chapter 3.
2.2 Definition of Lessons Learned

Term: Lessons Learned are managed activities in knowledge management1 designed
to ensure that insights based on experiential knowledge improve the expertise and
behavior of employees, as well as products, processes, and systems.
Process: The managed activities include collection, documentation, evaluation, provision,

and targeted distribution of experiential knowledge, and implementation of insights
and resulting measures.
Experiential knowledge can result from both positive (e.g. best practice) and negative
events (e.g. failures and problems).
1
Definition from Warth (2012): KnowledgeDokument
transfer processes in the automotive
wurde bereitgestellt vom industry, p.12, see Glossary

12 3 Lessons Learned process
3 Lessons Learned process
The following diagram2 is a schematic view of the general LL process. In practice,

similar existing and functioning processes in the company can also be used (e.g. best
business practice). The basic concept is not intended to replace any existing control loops.
It is a supplementary tool designed to generate additional potential.
Input Output
Collection and Evaluation of Distribution of Application and
Documentation Lessons Lessons Implementation
3.1 Input – Lessons from experience

Essentially, all standardized methods and processes in a company are suitable for generating
inputs for the LL process.
These insights can be generated from:
Research and development
• Pre-series development results

• Technological insights (materials, processes, etc.)
Series development projects
• Risk assessments (e.g. FMEA)

• Change management (correction loops)
• Design verification plan & report
• Launch phase
• LL collection in terms of project management
• Maturity level assurance
2
Icons designed by Freepik. Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Audits
• Internal and external audits (e.g. customer audits, certification audits):

System, product, and process audits
• Root cause analyses, corrective measures, and improvements from above audit types
Series production
• Series start-up
• Internal errors
• 0-km complaints
• Servicing and maintenance
Product and field monitoring
• Benchmark results
• Insights from field failures, field failure analyses, and product liability cases
• Market analysis
Problem solving processes (e.g. 8D)
• Customers, suppliers, and internal 8Ds (incl. root cause analyses,

corrective measures, preventive measures)
CIP
• Improvement projects (e.g. Six Sigma, Lean, value flow analysis)

• Idea management
Environment and work health and safety
• Circumstances of accidents and near misses

• Potential hazards (environmental, etc.)
• Energy efficiency measures


3.2 Collection and documentation

The lessons to be collected are generated by preceding processes or activities
(see Chapter 3.1). First of all, the root cause of the failure, the problem, the discrepancy
or the improvement (e.g. best practice) must be understood, and insights derived from it.
In addition to analysis of individual cases, insights can be viewed at a system level and
prioritized based on statistical evaluations (e.g. Pareto, correlation diagrams).
Subsequent centralized, formal, and standardized documentation is useful to put the

knowledge into a generally comprehensible form (see Chapter 4) and make it accessible
to all affected employees. For subsequent evaluation and communication of insights,
this process represents an important basis for identifying potential insights more quickly.
Then, a formal revision is carried out by the LL coordinator (see chapter 3.7) together
with relevant experts. After that, the knowledge can be accessed at any time during the
subsequent process.
3.3 Evaluation of lessons

The collected lessons are analyzed and evaluated by experts in terms of their potential
(e.g. comprehensibility, completeness, practicability, implementation obligations) and
their risk in terms of product safety. The experts provide a recommendation for the
subsequent management of the lesson in terms of distribution, the schedule, and the
process for operational implementation.
3.4 Distribution of lessons

If the evaluation is positive, the LL coordinator decides on the measures to be taken and
distributes them to a group of recipients. Here at least the persons responsible for the
measures (see chapter 3.7) and interested parties have to be considered.
3.5 Application and implementation

The people responsible for the measures implement specific measures for LL.
To increase willingness to implement them, the context of the lesson must be communicated
in a comprehensible way. Measures not implemented require a justification.
The LL coordinator reviews and reports on the implemented measures.


3.6 Output – Establishing experiences

Outputs are improvements that are ideally integrated in a company through
standardized methods and processes, or that create new standards.
These improvements can include
• Increase in employees’ expertise

• Changes or improvements regarding
• Products/services
• Effectiveness and efficiency of processes
• Systems
• Organizations
• Cooperation across departments or locations
• Customer/supplier relationships
• Risk analyses (e.g. FMEA, etc.)
• Production control plans
• Specifications
• Requirements specifications
• Checklists
• Design specifications
• Guidelines, standards
• Work and testing instructions
• Training documents
• Open failure culture
• Knowledge pool
The outputs can influence employees’ behavior in terms of their social, personal,
and methodical skills.
The knowledge pool that results from documentation of the collated lessons can be
used as an input for further improvements later on. Before starting and alongside activities
and projects, LL can be analyzed, and experience of similar issues taken into account.
The LL process can have a positive influence on customer satisfaction, for example
through prevention of repeated failures, and improved products and processes.


3.7 Roles and responsibilities

The following roles and responsibilities must be taken into account in association with LL:
Management responsibility
Management must show leadership and commitment in terms of LL by integrating LL
into the organization’s processes and demanding implementation. The respective
management function takes responsibility for implementation.
Management must use qualified employees and provide appropriate resources.
The results achieved must be monitored. The results of the LL process are to be integrated
into the relevant regular meetings/committees at management level.
Input provider (author)

The author documents the experience to be shared and the resulting lesson in a
comprehensive way (see chapter 1).
The input provider can be any employee who has experiences as part of their activities,
gains insights from them, and can cite at least one preventive measure. This can be done
by individual employees or in teams.
It is important to check whether a lesson already exists for the relevant insight.
If there are existing lessons, they can be supplemented.
LL coordinator
Ensures that the documentation is formally correct.
The coordinator ensures targeted/qualified transfer of documented insights to the
experts for evaluation. They update and monitor the status of the LL, communicate with the
people responsible for the measures, and make the lessons accessible.
LL evaluator
After submission of the lesson, an evaluator must evaluate its potential and approve
the lesson (or reject it with a justification). In the next step, the approval leads to publication
and/or implementation of the measures. The evaluation should be carried out by experts
of the corresponding field.
Person responsible for LL measures

The people responsible implement specific measures for LL. They involve all necessary
employees and ensure update of the necessary documents, and report to the LL coordinator
on the progress of the measures to be implemented.


3.8 Process measurability

To manage the LL process, objectively measurable key performance indicators
must be defined, and corresponding targets determined.
The key performance indicators can relate to both the quality and quantity
of the lessons, and to the level of implementation of the process.
Quantity
• Number of lessons submitted
• Number of people reached (recipients of distributed lessons)
• Usage data: e.g. number of users, entries, search queries, clicks, processing time,
length of stay (availability of this data depends directly on the tool used)
• Number of documented LL that have become established in a standard process
• Number of documented LL implemented in new projects
Quality
• Positive degree of fulfillment expressed as the ratio of initiated and realized
measures or changes
• Effectiveness of implemented measures
Concentrating on few useful key performance indicators is recommended, and not just using
the user statistics. Even if the quantitative indicators are relatively easy to acquire, measuring
the number of effectively implemented measures is the most important key performance
indicator for the LL process (quality before quantity).
3.9 Outlook
Past use of LL has primarily involved an analysis of products and their
manufacturing processes.
Extending LL activities to all business processes enables improvements throughout

the company across all hierarchy levels and thus can make a valuable contribution
to ensuring customer satisfaction (in terms of IATF 16949 resp. ISO 9001).
LL activities sustainably influence products, processes, and a company’s culture, and

therefore have a positive impact on long-term business success. As a result,
appropriately coordinated LL activities can support an efficient knowledge culture,
smooth the way to achieving an open failure culture, and increase employees’ motivation.


18 4 Recommended documentation
4 Recommended
documentation
Structured recording makes it easier to use the lesson and ensures that necessary
information is available for processing.
4.1 Structure of a lesson

The following items should be represented on a page in a compressed form.
Documentation items
• Title of lesson described in one sentence

• Creation date
• Coding for unique referencing
• Input provider (author)
• Description of problem/initial situation
• Root cause/situation analysis
• Specific solutions
• Gain in insight (= success story/benefits)
• Assignment to LL category (product, process, system, organization incl. key words,
technology, product family, etc.)
• Create reference to input (8D, development, CIP, audit, project, etc.)
• Recommended measures – what should be done?
• Recipients – Who has to be notified and whom does it affect?
• Monitoring of measures and review of effectiveness
• Background information on all previous items can be added using attachments
and images as required
4.2 IT systems
The LL process can be supported significantly by IT systems, although they are not
absolutely essential. Depending on the size of the company and the established LL process,
the IT systems can have very different designs.


4 Recommended documentation 19
We can make a rough distinction between storage in spreadsheets, a central database,

and an integrated IT solution, which would gather general advantages for larger companies.
4.2.1 Spreadsheets
With minimal work, structured recording of the issues in a spreadsheet can support
the process. In addition to central storage, this allows a quick full text search,
filtering by categories, where defined, and standardized presentation with predefined
information columns.
The weaknesses lie in the limited capacity and presentation options, and access,
which cannot be restricted or provided to multiple users simultaneously. Changes can
only be incorporated with additional work.
4.2.2 Database
A database, ideally with a web-based graphical user interface (web front-end), does
not have the disadvantages of a spreadsheet, and can provide significant additional
advantages. Simultaneous access with restricted access rights, versioning and archiving
functions ensure data availability and security. An advanced search using operators can
achieve significantly better results and allows faster search results with large collections
of topics. Multilingual capability and storage of images and additional documents
increase the information quality significantly. Automatic interfaces to other systems
(e.g. failure management systems) can also reduce manual work. Statistical analysis
functionalities help maintain an overview with larger data collections.
With this type of IT support there is a risk that the focus will be too much on storing
the knowledge rather than on active distribution and implementation.
4.2.3 Integrated IT solution

In addition to the database functionalities, special LL IT systems as an integrated
solution can also support the workflow for the process, distribution of tasks, and recording
of their status. This is particularly useful if lessons should be reviewed by experts in
central departments and derived measures shall be implemented at different international
locations (see chapter 6.7).


20 5 Application tips for successful implementation of Lessons Learned
5 Application tips for

successful implementation
of Lessons Learned
Experience has shown that introducing LL in a company is associated with certain

challenges. To make implementation successful, the following application tips should
be taken into account:
Management
• Make one person/organization responsible (process driver)

• Include LL activities in relevant job profiles and target agreements
• Report the defined process indicators regularly to management
• Make LL coordinators visible and public
Introduction
• Carry out a self-assessment/employee survey relating to the prevailing knowledge culture,

in order to identify potential and implement improvements (see appendix for example)
• Make sure that all process requirements (e.g. roles and responsibilities) are met
• Particularly for introduction/integration of the LL process, determine the level of
implementation (maturity)


5 Application tips for successful implementation of Lessons Learned 21
Execution
• Integrate LL into existing systems

• Avoid focusing purely on a knowledge database (i.e. take account of human
aspects/communication perspectives)
• Support for retrieval and research through an intelligent search function in IT tools
• Discuss LL issues in team meetings (regular meetings, project reviews)
• Support LL workshops by qualified personnel (e.g. LL moderator)
• Promote regular sharing of Lessons, also informally
• Provide the person responsible for LL measures with information on the
context/background to the lesson
• Check monitoring and effectiveness of measures taken using regular spot checks
Documentation
• First create the lesson in the language usually used at the location
• Translate the content after successful evaluation, if required
• Increase the comprehensibility using images and visualizations
Motivation
• Show respect and give feedback to those involved in the process on where and how
their insights have been implemented
• Note that both the creator and the person responsible for implementation can be
extrinsically motivated
• Demand and promote LL
• Explain the value of LL at events


22 6 Practical examples
6 Practical examples
Below are examples of LL from different companies. The examples differ in terms
of their concepts and visual representation (e.g. software and template) but follow a similar
structure.
6.1 Glasses compartment confused with hand brake
6.1.1 Description of problem/initial situation

On a premium class vehicle, after launch, multiple complaints were received about a
broken glasses compartment to the left of the steering wheel. The components supplied
were broken glasses compartments. As part of the field failure analysis, the corrective
measure of strengthening the compartment in several stages was adopted. After these
optimization loops, a load-bearing capacity of min. 70N was identified. Despite the resulting
high load-bearing capacity, further complaints regarding field failures were received.
As the situation or failure mechanism for the customer could not be explained by normal
use of the compartment for storage of glasses or small items, it was decided to conduct
a more in-depth investigation – a NTF process (“No Trouble Found” process, see VDA Volume
Field Failure Analysis).
6.1.2 Root cause analysis/situation analysis

As part of the data analysis during the NTF process, the data revealed no weighting by
partner company, age of vehicle buyer, vehicle use, features or similar.
Likewise, the system test on the surroundings in the dash panel and the process analysis
revealed no anomalies.
It was only an intensive survey of partner companies that showed a significant cluster
of complaints among customers listed as new customers, who previously drove a vehicle
from another manufacturer


6.1.3 Lesson
From this information, the customer confusing the glasses compartment with the release
lever for the hand brake was identified as the failure mechanism. The insight was
backed up by the fact that, in the same period, the manufacturer had switched from
a mechanically operated to an electric hand brake, which meant that the parking brake
was no longer visible.
6.1.4 Implemented Lesson and effectiveness tracking

The measure adopted, based on the analyses, was a small flyer, which was stuck into
the glasses compartment and read “Electric hand brake control is located in the central
console”. In addition, the partner companies were notified to specifically tell customers
about the positioning and use of the new electric parking brake during vehicle handover.
No further cases of damage occurred after implementation.
6.1.5 Lessons Learned

Particularly for vehicles with new technologies (e.g. comfort and assistance system),
customer service has been intensified.
For very complex vehicles, customers are offered an introductory course lasting up to
two days to learn about the new features.
On successor models, confusion is prevented by placing the glasses compartment

in a different location.
6.2 Define specific meeting targets in advance

The participants in project meetings gave feedback that the meetings were often too
long-winded and, above all, ineffective. The topics were defined in advance, which enabled
participants to prepare themselves, the right group participants to resolve the issues
were in attendance and minutes of the core content were written and distributed to assist
follow-up and monitoring of measures. However, it was identified that the same topics
were discussed repeatedly and almost no progress was achieved.


The situation regarding the meeting culture was investigated with the meeting participants.
Both preparation and follow-up were rated as good. Materials and the right participants were
always there. The communication culture was rated as good (particularly as a range of
soft skills and communication training has been provided in recent years). One participant
noted that he was sometimes not clear about what the meeting was intended to achieve on
a particular issue, as the agenda items were described in very general terms.
6.2.3 Lesson
There is a difference between specifying a topic or a specific objective in the invitation
and agenda. For example, there is a difference between a general discussion of the
“miter saw” as a topic and “deciding which miter saw to purchase”.
Meeting topics should be defined in such a way that all participants are clear about
what is to be achieved at the end of the meeting.
6.2.4 Measure and effectiveness tracking

Over several weeks the new procedure of defining all meeting topics as specific
objectives in the agenda was implemented within the project group. After an evaluation,
all meeting participants were unanimous that topics were discussed much more effectively,
and specific decisions were made more frequently.

The need to define meeting objectives in advance was standardized in the meeting form.
This has been rolled out successfully to all locations across the company.


6.3 Lessons Learned from the FMEA analysis

There are various equipment versions on control units. These versions are frequently realized
by leaving out components in the electronics. This means that the identical processor
has to actuate different inputs and outputs depending on the version.
Process inputs and outputs that are not wired lead to different current consumption.
As part of an FMEA analysis of a control unit, it came to light that equipment versions with
components left out can result in increased current consumption when the vehicle is idle.
This can discharge the battery and lead to breakdowns.

Equipment versions are not sufficiently considered in the programming. To date,
only the versions with the highest and lowest complexity were considered.
6.3.3 Lesson
Despite careful development, this programming error is common and is not covered by
tests specified in the past. All versions need to be considered.

The additional test “Measurement of potential at inputs and outputs” for release of
the relevant version has been introduced. This covers the programming error and allows
it to be resolved by a change. Since then, the fault has no longer occurred.



Considering product versions and the additional test have been added to the basic
design FMEA.
Wiring of the microprocessor inputs must also be ensured on a product version with
reduced features.
Complete version: Reduced version:

All inputs are connected, which means Some inputs are not connected, which
that there is no risk of increased current means that inputs have to be internally
consumption. connected to GND (ground) by the software
to prevent increased current consumption.
S1-S4 S1-S2
uC uC
VCC VCC
R1-R4 R1-R2
GND GND


6.4 Sensor not tested after setup

A plastic connector is not molded true to size (burr), which means that the counterpart
connector is not fitting. The burr was produced because the injection molding tool was
not completely closed (pressure loss).

The pressure loss could not be detected as the pressure sensor was not properly
installed after setting up the injection molding tool.
The function of the sensor was not tested.
6.4.3 Lesson
No procedure has been defined for testing the sensor (regularly, after maintenance
and setting up the tool).

The procedure “sensor check” after maintenance and setup has been defined for
this production line.
The procedure has been added to the checklist for setup and onto the maintenance
schedule.



Sensor-check procedures must be defined in all production processes for setup and
maintenance.
Use of the process must be ensured by a setup checklist and through the work instruction
for maintenance.
For new production lines, the sensor check must be established as part of the standard
checklist/work instruction.
6.5 Cross-project Pareto analysis for maturity level assurance

Maturity level assurance for new parts is part of management of new projects, model
updates or change projects (see VDA Volume Maturity Level Assurance for New Parts).
Based on standardized milestones with corresponding measuring criteria and defined

customer/supplier relationships, the evaluation is carried out using a traffic light system.
It has been identified that red evaluations occurred in different projects for the same
milestone.

In an analysis of multiple projects, cross-project weaknesses were identified. It became
clear that red evaluations occurred more frequently due to delayed contract awards.
6.5.3 Lesson
The following factors were identified as contributing to the delayed contract awards:
• Specification amendments and new supplier inquiries

• Iterations resulting from incomplete specifications
• Delays due to the approval process



In this case, the contract award process was optimized. The corresponding evaluation
point was no longer anomalous in subsequent evaluations.

Introduction of a regular cross-project analysis of maturity level assurance evaluations
by the process owner in order to identify systematic weaknesses. A Pareto analysis enables
prioritized processing to be carried out. Based on the weaknesses identified, the processes
can be analyzed and optimized. Success is ensured through effectiveness tracking.
The following diagram shows the improvement in process quality after analysis of the
evaluation of individual measuring criteria for a maturity level across all components.
Evaluation of process quality
Customer
Supplier
1. Development
2. Purchasing
3. Production
(Planning)
4. Logistics
5. Quality
management
6. Sales
Suppliers
Evaluation of component maturity level
6.6 Product optimization from production analyses

In assembly of vehicle components, the required cycle times in production could
not be achieved consistently.



The assembly times were analyzed in Kaizen workshops. The result of the Kaizen workshops
showed that attachment of the weather strip determined the critical path. The current
design with material and weather strip tape had to be produced by manual pressing with
an auxiliary tool.
Only experienced employees were able to achieve the cycle times sporadically.
This interrupted the one-piece flow.
6.6.3 Lesson
The original design was not suitable for the required cycle times. Therefore,
a switch to a new connection concept was required.

The design of the sub-components was modified to a version with pre-molded material.
In addition, the connection concept was changed to a clip connection. The cycle times
could then be consistently be achieved by any employees.

As part of fault prevention, the lines with comparable components were analyzed and
updated to the new version.
The “Design for manufacturing” standard was adapted in respect of the affected technology.
At the same time, the previous standard was designated as “not recommended”.
In addition, regular trainings for sales staff on innovations in the product range were
introduced.


6.7 Torque wrench

The example shows an actual template used in an international company
to document Lessons Learned.
Lessons Learned Template

Structure of a lesson
Author: Max Mustermann Organization: Plant Berlin Date: 2017-02-01

Title: 'Result + Topic + Approach'
Avoid overtightening screw connections by using a "slipper" torque wrench
Description of problem/initial situation
Root Cause analysis/situation analysis
Description: What was the initial situation? In which context did the root cause happen? Where does the lesson apply? Which conditions are important to remember?
The operator used an unsuitable torque wrench to check that the tightening torque had been achieved, the screw
connection was over-tightened, which led to the destruction of the screwed component.
The used CLICK-TYPE torque wrench enabled incorrect operation:

Funktion:
A fixed torque value is preset on the torque wrench.
Once the preset torque is reached, the wrench „nips off” to prevent using more
power on tightening.
Incorrect handling is possible::
If the technically maximum angle is exceeded, an additional torque is
transmitted and the screw is tightened further and the specified maximum
tightening torque is exceeded..
Lesson (= Insight)
Measure and effectiveness
Solution: What are the proven corrective actions? What results were achieved? Which conditions/restrictions do apply? How was the solution verified?
Incorrect handling can be avoided by using a “slipper” torque wrench
Function:
On reaching the set torque value the wrench triggers a clearly detectable
deflection and is then immediately ready for use again.
The special trigger mechanism ensures that the set torque values are
reliably achieved, but not exceeded.
The special slipping trigger mechanism reliably prevents

unintentional overtightening.
Conclusion:
For checking the tightening torque of screw connections a slipper torque
wrench should always be used.
Lessons Learned
Implementation Request / Call for Action: Recommendation for the systemic prevention.
1. The plant needs to check whether CLICK-TYPE torque wrenches are used and whether they have to be replaced
by slipper torque wrenches in order to avoid incorrect handling.
2. Add “usage of slipper torque wrench” to the procurement standard for test equipment.


6.8 Insect attack

The example shows a screen of a LL software solution (see chapter 4.2.3).
The fundamental requirements for Lessons Learned are shown in the screen.
The buttons shown will not be explained in more detail here.
11044 – Avoid blocked deliveries due to insects in wooden pallets by

using heat-treated wood
Mustermann, M ax
Bauer, Chr istine
Meier, Markus
Division Sensors
Lo gistic
Berlin
P roblem Description:
US Customs fo und insects in wo oden p allets and b lo cked the entire delivery. The delayed delivery led to a line stop at the customer’s
p r oduction and thus to escalations and additional co sts. The sup plier change
no p ar t o f the p allet
R o o t c a u s e:
Action 1 : P lant lo gist
The sup plier o f the wo oden p allets has used heat-treated wood fo r the p roduction o f p allets in accordance with the sp ecification.
However, at the p allet manufacturer, the heat-treated wood was mixed with untreated wood, which r esulted in insect larvae fr om the untr eated Action 2 : Central lo g
wood colonizing all the p allets in the delivery.
Action 3 : Central lo g
The customer had insisted o n r eceiving the delivery o n wooden p allets in o r der to avoid the effort o f r eturning plastic p allets.
8D
heat tr eatment; wooden p allets; tr ansport; packaging material; b ugs; insects
P roductgroup Sensors, Lo gistics, P ackaging, Supplier Q uality
| 20


s by
stomer’s
The sup plier changes the p r oduction p rocess and o nly carries o ut the heat tr eatment after the p allets have b een p r oduced. Thi s ensures that
no par t o f the p allet is left untreated.
Action 1 : P lant lo gistics must ensure that all suppliers o f wooden p allets carry o ut the p o st -production heat tr eatment.
tion.
r om the untr eated Action 2 : Central lo gistics must change the sp ecification fo r wooden p allets.
Action 3 : Central lo gistics checks the feasibility o f converting fr om wooden pallets to plastic p allets.
.
Div. Sensor P lant Amsterdam

Div. Sensor P lant Berlin
Div. Sensor P lant Budapest
Div. Sensor P lant Dublin
Div. Sensor P lant Helsinki
Div. Sensor P lant Co penhagen
Div. Sensor P lant Lisbon
Div. Sensor P lant London
Div. Sensor P lant Madrid
Div. Sensor P lant O slo
Div. Sensor P lant P aris
Lo gistic


34 7 Appendix
7 Appendix
The Knowledge Culture in your company
Aspect/Characteristics of Level 0 – Initial Level 1 – Proactive
Knowledge Identification
External Knowledge Import There is hardly any exchange on There is a sporadic exchange of individual
external technical expertise (e.g. departments with external technical exper-
institutes, universities) outside the tise (e.g. institutes, universities)
company
Internal Experience Exchange The exchange with other departments Occasional exchange of experiences with
is only reactive (due to incidents) necessary interfaces in daily work
Knowledge Transparency The skills of technical experts are The department and the process partners
known at most in their own depart- know about the skills of the technical
ments by discussions and/or seniority experts required in the work process only
through contact persons, company affiliati-
on or decentralized written lists or similar
Knowledge Acquisition In the case of ignorance, the emplo- Knowledge is also acquired selectively and
yee takes steps in an uncoordinated specifically through personnel develop-
manner in order to solve a problem ment
Knowledge Development The knowledge within the company is The creativity and problem-solving ability
built up through individual work expe- of individual employees is used to develop
rience, learning and benchmarking of new knowledge
existing external applications
Knowledge Sharing Occurring problems and topics are Information on process/product topics is
distributed to employees who are also distributed to all employees at the location
involved and responsible via email and/or in the CoC
Knowledge Use Employees benefit from their own ex- At the start of a project and at milestones,
periences as well as from experiences the experiences of old projects are resto-
of known interfaces/process partners red and included into the approach of the
new/current project
Knowledge Conservation New employees are used as multi- Accumulated knowledge is filed and saved
pliers in order to anchor the gained in the respective projects (servers)
experiences in a "broad basis"


7 Appendix 35
Level 2 – Intelligent Level 3 – Innovative
Cooperation (opportunities) with external experts/ Management/executive level actively supports cooperation
important networks are regularly pursued by the in expert committees, most of the employees maintain
employees contact with external expert networks
Regular active exchange of experiences with Regular exchange of experience across all departments
interfaces and their process partners – also from supposedly "independent" departments
("experience workshops")
All employees' skills are systematically recorded Both internal and external collaboration/cooperation
centrally and the technical experts are accessible between departments and individual employees are sys-
to all employees through targeted searches tematically recorded and an overview of these networks is
available to all employees ("knowledge map")
Employees with a lack of knowledge in required/ Employees are given time to regularly entrust themsel-
responsible subject areas are sent to training/ ves with future/future-oriented topics and/or to initiate
further education preventive training measures
Steering elements are in place (experience groups, Framework conditions have been created (internal aca-
think tanks, etc.) which, through emergence ("A demy, learning arena, etc.) to e. g. build up new knowled-
system is more than the sum of its parts"), use the ge in a structured way based on scientific findings
skills of employees to generate new knowledge
New acquired knowledge from positive and negati- All employees (company-wide) are regularly informed
ve experiences and developments is made availab- about innovations and improvements from (project-rela-
le to all potentially interested process partners ted) experiences that affect both their area of responsibili-
ty and their technical expertise
The employees perceive themselves as customers The accumulated experiences are integrated into the stan-
in order to use accumulated internal knowledge in dard processes or further developed into new (generally
the relevant context applicable) standards
The experiences from projects are stored in a Only knowledge worth preserving is brought together
system across departments and locations centrally (in a database) and the clearing up of the
growing amount of information, which is becoming unma-
nageable, is ensured


36 8 List of abbreviations/Glossary
8 List of abbreviations/
Glossary
8D: Standard problem solving method for dealing with a
complaint between a supplier and customer
BBP: Best business practice
DFM: Design for manufacturing
DIN: Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V

(German Institute for Standardization)
FMEA: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
IATF: International Automotive Task Force
KPI: Key performance indicator
CIP: Continuous Improvement Process
LL: Lessons Learned
NTF: No Trouble Found
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
PDP: Product development process
PPAP: Production part approval process
PPA: Production process and product approval
Q failure cost reporting: Quality failure cost reporting
QMC: Quality management center
QM system: Quality management system


8 List of abbreviations/Glossary 37
Q planning: Quality planning
Q review: Quality review
MLA: Maturity level assurance for new parts
SPC: Statistical process control
Tier X: Position of a supplier in the supply chain - the “X”

is the level below the OEM
TPM: Total productive maintenance
VDA: Verband der Automobilindustrie

(Automotive Industry Association)
Knowledgemanagement: Knowledge management is a conscious and systematic

attempt to deploy a variety of interventions aimed at problems
in dealing with knowledge to create an environment
within organizations that enables members of the organization
to learn and thus to contribute to shaping the organization
in such a way that the organization’s objectives can be
achieved more effectively.


38

The current version of published VDA volumes regarding quality management
in the automotive industry (QAI) can be found at http://www.vda-qmc.de.
You can also place orders directly on this homepage.
Reference:
Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
Behrenstraße 35, 10117 Berlin, Germany

Telephone +49 (0) 30 -89 78 42 235, fax +49 (0) 30 -89 78 42 605
E-mail: info@vda-qmc.de, website: www.vda-qmc.de

Qualitäts Management Center
im Verband der Automobilindustrie
Lessons Learned
Process description, application tips, and practical examples
Lessons Learned


VDA - Band - Lessons - Learned - 1. Ausgabe 2020 - Englisch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA - Band - Lessons - Learned - 1. Ausgabe 2020 - Englisch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitäts Management Center

im Verband der Automobilindustrie

Quality Management in the Automotive Industry

Process description, application tips, and practical examples

1st edition, November 2020

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

1st edition, November 2020

Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V. (VDA)

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Production: Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH

Printed on chlorine-free bleached paper

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Non-binding VDA recommendation

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

1 Goal and purpose 7

2 Definition of Lessons Learned (LL) 8

3 Lessons Learned process 10

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

5 Application tips for successful

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

1 Goal and purpose

A uniform understanding and definition of the minimum requirements are necessary to

Sustainable and efficient management of knowledge is an important leadership task. There

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

2.1 The term “Lessons Learned”

2.1.1 The term “lessons”

2.1.2 The term “learned”

Ideally, implementation of LL involves revising or redefining existing standards. By trans­

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

2.2 Definition of Lessons Learned

Process: The managed activities include collection, documentation, evaluation, provision,

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

3 Lessons Learned process

The following diagram2 is a schematic view of the general LL process. In practice,

3.1 Input – Lessons from experience

These insights can be generated from:

Research and development

• Pre-series development results

Series development projects

• Risk assessments (e.g. FMEA)

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

• Internal and external audits (e.g. customer audits, certification audits):

Product and field monitoring

Problem solving processes (e.g. 8D)

• Customers, suppliers, and internal 8Ds (incl. root cause analyses,

• Improvement projects (e.g. Six Sigma, Lean, value flow analysis)

Environment and work health and safety

• Circumstances of accidents and near misses

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

3.2 Collection and documentation

Subsequent centralized, formal, and standardized documentation is useful to put the

2 Definition of Lessons Learned (LL) 8

5 Application tips for successful

Ideally, implementation of LL involves revising or redefining existing standards. By trans

5 Application tips for