Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
Automotive industry · programme 01

Hunt down defects

Rally production teams around quality at every workstation.

Why this programme

A defect found by the customer costs far more than one stopped at the workstation. The programme trains operators, setters and quality technicians to spot non-conformities on projected parts and workstations, and to report them at the right moment. The visuals use your parts, your routings and your standards.

Quality is free. It's not a gift, but it is free.

Philip B. Crosbyquality engineer, champion of “zero defects”Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, 1979

What your teams experience

  1. The expert eye: find, against the clock, the defects slipped into projected parts.
  2. The next station: decide, part after part, what passes, what gets reworked and what gets stopped.
  3. The five whys: trace a recurring defect back to its cause as a team.
  4. The quality board: each team proposes a simple action for its cell, projected then voted on.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

More self-inspection at the workstation, defects reported earlier, and teams who see how their work affects the end customer.

Staging written for you

In your client area, a form specific to this programme collects your content, photos included: it is built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, exactly as you provide it. The look uses your logo and your colours. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart.

Follow-up, up to D+30

Your follow-up dashboard stays with the programme, from the order to the final results.

  • After the session: the session report, with the gap between the opening and closing measures.
  • At D+7: a reminder asks a few key questions again, and the D+7 report shows what has been retained.
  • At D+30: a second reminder, and the D+30 report shows what holds over time.

Follow-up: before, during, after

The sources of this programme

The published research that this programme's games, measures and debriefs refer to. You can check every reference.

  1. See, J. E. (2015). Visual inspection reliability for precision manufactured parts. Human Factors, 57(8), 1427-1442. 10.1177/0018720815602389
  2. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623-638. 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623
  3. Card, A. J. (2017). The problem with '5 whys'. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(8), 671-677. 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005849
  4. Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1), 5-28. 10.1177/0021886396321001
  5. van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228-1240. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228
  6. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
  7. Shingo, S. (1986). Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection and the Poka-Yoke System. Productivity Press (ouvrage).
  8. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. McGraw-Hill (ouvrage).
  9. Glover, W. J., Farris, J. A., Van Aken, E. M., & Doolen, T. L. (2011). Critical success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 132(2), 197-213. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.005
  10. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  11. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
  12. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
Further reading (3 references)

Other research we drew on to design this programme.

  1. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435(7041), 439-440. 10.1038/435439a
  2. Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59-69. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.59
  3. IATF 16949:2016. Quality management system requirements for automotive production and relevant service parts organizations. International Automotive Task Force (norme).
Shared foundations (7 references)

The mechanics of all our sessions (team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders) and the research that also underpins the other programmes in the same specialty or sector.

  1. Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315-324. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840
  2. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  3. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  4. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  5. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Review, 48(2), 197-221. 10.1177/001979399504800201
  6. Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149. 10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0
  7. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study (ouvrage).

Before you book

How is a Corporate Solutions experience different from team building?

It starts from a business objective, not an activity: onboarding new hires, preventing a risk, bringing your commitments to life. It is staged for your company, with your content, your figures and your brand. Your teams play in person, on their phones, while a big screen tells the story and a facilitator runs the room. And it is followed up: the session report, then the D+7 and D+30 reminders in your client area.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Hunt down defects” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo