Process Response

When asked of the current processes, testing staff had both positive and negative feedback, whereas engineering and management personnel seemed to have a more pessimistic view. The positive comments received by testing regarded weekly internal meetings, prototype build and hand over meetings, VPI workflow which clearly defines the responsibilities of job functions. On the other hand, negative feedback came from both groups and ranged from complaints regarding colleague personalities, to the lack of training / knowledge in areas such as H&S. Engineering also highlighted the rigidity of the VPI workflow and that it is not agile enough to respond to customer needs and the lack of following the system due to stringent timelines and unrealistic deadlines.

“At the moment not all of the info is readily available when the project is transferred to testing. Several times project milestones are changed which can have a significant impact on the facility. Still testing try to be as flexible as possible to these changes if this changes are minimized the testing facility performance would be greatly improved.”

When asked how processes could be improved, several issues were mentioned. Proper and smarter planning of tests and having a proactive rather than a reactive response was highlighted. Complaints regarding the documentation structure was also pointed out to improve the accessibility of information. Testing would like more time to work on prototype performance and avoid rushing tests to deliver to a deadline. Obviously, this would be a nice commodity but unfortunately in today’s market, time is always against product development projects. Customers want their products yesterday and subsequently at present, it is not envisaged that this could be improved. Another issue highlighted by testing was to change the mentality of not implementing lessons learned during testing in the products. This issue was

106

also noted by the researcher who believes that it is a lost opportunity that lessons learned are not filtering through to new products.

“More testing bays to improve utilization, apart from having more test cells the need for preparations areas would greatly help the testing team to improve their facility utilization. Each test cell should have a prep area where a prototype can be pull on to for servicing or maintenance.”

Issues relating to planning within the testing facility engineering included little buffer time is allocated especially when the testing requirements are vague. Unfortunately, this statement is very troubling because the testing requirements are set up in the first place by the engineer. In the current economic climate, one cannot rely on vague specifications and expect other people downstream to make good from vagueness. Another issue pointed out by engineering was the lack of testing ownership from testing staff. This was also noted by the researcher but, as they say, it takes two to tango; more ownership needs to be given from both sides. During observations, it was noticed that some tests could have been avoided if either the engineer was witnessing the test or the testing technician questioned the test or data. It is imperative to get this right the first time round. An interesting point was that better testing duration time data needs to be captured, so that it can be used for better planning in future. This point is quite simple and can easily be implemented by means of a proper utilization database which could result in dividends in time.

“I think the intentions are good and training and guidance is also good. However, there is often little buffer time allowed and things often go awry once a vague requirement cannot be met.”

“Planning is very reactive which puts us in a catch up position.”

In terms of planning from engineering and management point of view, the majority of testing personnel agreed that better planning from management is required and realistic deadlines should be given. This problem was highlighted

107

by both groups, but testing saw it as engineering management who were causing the problem, but from engineering management, it is a reflection of market requirements which are coming from sales. A further improvement request from testing is to enhance the supply chain of parts to be tested. Parts need to be on site at the appropriate time and having spares on hand would avoid lengthy stoppages due to failures. Obviously, it would be impossible to have all the spares on hand but a list of critical spares could be determined beforehand depending on risk; seconds could be purchased in order to avoid such problems.

The questionnaire then went on to ask about participant’s perception of the support they receive from other departments when problems arise; the responses was mixed. The bar chart, shown in Figure 39, shows a positive response from testing personnel, but this result is not accurate.

Figure 39. Support from other departments.

At present, when a problem arises, the testing technician asks the planning / supervisor for help, this is promptly given mainly because it’s an internal request within the testing facility. However, the channel to ask for help outside of the testing facility comes through the supervisor and, therefore, the testing technicians are buffered by the supervisor and, as a result, they do not face support problems directly. From an engineering group’s perspective, the response is balanced between yes, no and sometimes, which when quantified

108

would result in a 50-50 response which is a good indicator of ineffective teamwork.

Suggestions made by the testing team to improve current processes include: better communication mediums, better response time and timely action from TPL’s are required. Engineering noted that communication should be the main driver to improve any of the current processes. They also pointed out that more team building exercises are required to improve team work to achieve project targets. Another interesting point was to introduce remote access of current testing and provide the ability for engineers to review on-going work rather than wait for final reports.

“Clear and timely communication is required, more robust planning to be made for every project with a project leader will be able to build trust and show evidence that the project is holding to the plan. Implementation of preventive measures rather than being reactive to problems encountered during testing. One of the items could be having more parts to save guard against breakdowns.”

“People have to understand that everyone should have the same goal that of getting the product delivered to the customer at the given date. A lot of attention is given to team budgets and who’s being charge for a specific job. People’s energy should be focused on the product rather than the department’s expenses.”

As for training, both groups agreed that more training is required in several areas, but the most interesting point was that people should be more aware what work is involved so that they can better understand other people’s job functions, requirements and time to carry out tasks.