QuickResponseQuality Control – concept of instant analysis of the

company's current problems1

Michał Teczke
Hubert Obora

1 Introduction

Nowadays, contemporary management is focused on instantly solving any problems

which may occur both inside and outside the organization. The speed of diagnosis and
effectiveness of the response are the basic factors determining the chances of maintaining a
favorable competitive position on the market. Certainly, complexity of the environment limits
possible reactions to problems that appear outside the organization. In spite of the efforts that
contemporary businesses put into reducing the complexity of the environment, supporting
actions designed to reduce the information noise and simultaneously strengthening the key
signals from the environment, the near and further environment are perceived as complex and
defying management activities. As indicated by J. Czekaj: "one of significant factors in the
functioning and development of a contemporary organization is continuous improvement of
the management system (Czekaj, 2013, p. 7). Following the indicated line of thinking, it can
be assumed that only with modern and effective management methods managers will be able
to diagnose potential problems in the functioning of the organization with proper advance,
solve them effectively, and hence prevent loss of the company's market position. In a
turbulent, complex and unpredictable environment today there are no companies which could
assume that in the near or more distant future they will not come across complex problems
which may threaten their existence. Being involved in a discussion concerning contemporary
organizations, the authors focus on what determines the effectiveness of their operations.
Predominant is quite a common belief that organizations must not only effectively adjust to
the approaching changes, but more and more often anticipate and initiate these changes
(Łasiński, 2007). Certainly, the possibility to predict all the upcoming problems is an ideal
state, but unfortunately very difficult, if possible at all. A significant part of the problems
faced by organizations may have random causes, some of them may be connected with the
1
Acknowledgement and Financial Disclosure - The publication was financed from
the statutory research funds of the Department of Management and Organization Methods of
the Cracow University of Economics

1
geopolitical situation, sudden changes in consumer preferences or result from smart moves of
their market competitors. As noticed by D. Jagoda-Sobalak (2015) the company which must
bear in mind the present and future market requirements, is in a way forced to take proper
steps towards improvement and modernization of its products, services as well as methods of
solving problems. However, among many organizational problems resulting from changes
taking place in the near and further environment, problems which may occur inside the
organization itself cannot be ignored

2 Typology of problems – theoretical perspective

The notion "problem" is very often used in casual speech, resulting in its inaccurate
intuitive understanding. A significant part of the situations, which are customarily called a
problem are nothing else but a task which should be performed. In the field of social sciences
there are many definitions of "problem", selected of them are presented below:
Kozielecki (1969) defines problem as a type of task (situation) which cannot be solved
with the held knowledge resource. Problem solution is possible as a result of productive
thinking activities which lead to enrichment of knowledge about the subject matter.
Szymanek (2001) determine problem as an issue expressed by a question. Its solution,
namely correct answer to the question asked, is not known at a given moment; but requires
taking proper research efforts: observations, analysis, discussion, thoughts, etc.
Nęcki (1994) believes that problem (problem situation) is created when the man aims
at some goal, better or worse formulated, but does not know how to transform the starting
state into the desired final state. In other words, in a problem situation the man must create
means - intellectual, but often also material ones, allowing transition from the existing state of
affairs to the intended goal.
Management problems have different forms and relate to single or many areas of the
organization. It should be also noted that management problems may be divided into
diagnostic and development ones. Diagnostic problems are the majority of management
problems observed in managerial practice. They consist in eliminating the present differences
between what is and what should be. On the other hand, development problems are such the
accurate effects of which are unknown (e.g. new product design) (Szarucki, Bugaj,
2016).Management problems occur at various levels in the hierarchy of the organization,
relate to diverse areas, are less or more complex, capital intensive, time-consuming. This
multi-faceted nature and complexity of management problems requires a specific typology to
be adopted, which would allow their identification and analysis in the context of selecting the

2
appropriate methods to solve them (Szarucki 2010). Łasiński (2007) also postulates division
of problems into theoretical (cognitive) and practical (empirical) problems. To find solution to
a problem, empirical methods of data acquisition and analysis are used. The basis for practical
(praxeological) problems is an attempt to change the situation. On the grounds of praxeology
a practical problem is a situation which can be described using questions concerning the
essence of actions, goals or conditions.
Practical problem solution consists of the cognitive and the facilitating (creative)
phase. In the first of them the researcher looks for an answer to questions allowing as good
diagnosis of the situation as possible. In the second one the ways of transition from the state
"is" to the state "is to be" are prepared. The diagram showing practical problem solving
phases is presented in Figure 1.
Figure. 1 Practical problem solving phases
Situation
Phase I

Present Problem
analysis
condition

Transition from phase I to

phase II
Phase II

Search for Implementation Intended state

solutions of tasks

Source: authors' own study on the basis of (Łasiński 2007)

A slightly different typology of problems has been proposed by Penc (2007). He

indicated that, when analyzing problems according to their nature, they can be divided into:
 Deviation problems (dysfunctions) - are created in a situation when a unique
"defect" appears in the organization, and its causes are unknown. In order to
eliminate the deviation (deviation), it is necessary to carry out, collect exact
data and specify the way of action preventing its presence.
 Optimization problems – are created as a result of the need to introduce
changes being adaptive (adaptive/modyfying) in nature resulting from changes
taking place in the organization's environment. The actions undertaken are to
mostly result in the company's improved efficacy and operational efficiency.

3
  Creative (innovative) problems – are a consequence of innovative changes
inside and outside the company.
Antoszkiewicz (1999) pays also attention to differences in the classification of
problems resulting from the degree of structuring.
 Well structured problems – with a well defined structure which can be
formulated quantitatively (in numbers or symbols) and measured.
 Poorly structured problems – mixed problems, containing both quantitative
and qualitative elements (with the dominance of qualitative elements).
 Non-structured problems – with undefined structure. These are problems
which can be presented only qualitatively, as a verbal description.
The matter of problems in enterprises, in particular attempts to define and classify the
problem, is a basic factor contributing to the company's improved competitive position on the
market. Each emerging problem should be treated with attention and solved in a manner
ensuring as high effectiveness as possible. The presented attempted typology of problems
shows the vast complexity of the analyzed matter. The authors want to emphasize that the
presented considerations are only a fragment of a greater whole, and not a full classification.
3. Theoretical foundations of QRQC
The theoretical foundations of QRQC are: zero defects principle, Jidoka system and
Sangensugi concept.
Prepared and developed by Crosby (1979, p. 36), the zero defects principle is one of
the basic canons in the today's management by quality (Total Quality Management). Focused
on motivation of the personnel, it is a premise to avoid human errors in the course of work.
The main assumption behind this principle is not search and indication of who is to blame, but
determination and removal of the reasons for the existing non-conformities and problems. The
basis for the zero defects principle is the assumption that all errors can be eliminated, when
every employee cooperates with others in detecting and eliminating their causes. Employees
working according to this principle should: stop working badly and perform their work well
for the first and each next time, analyze on the current basis the work processes in which they
take part, solve problems in a team, strive to "embed quality into the process". The
implementation of this principle is possible only when the causes of the arising non-
conformities rather than only their effects are eliminated.

4
 Jidoka is a system being, next to Just-in-Time, one of the pillars of the Toyota
Production System (TPS). Japanese word jidoka is difficult to translate directly into Polish. It
consists of three parts (Ćwiklicki &Walczak, 2009, p. 54):
 Ji – independently, autonomously
 Do – change, movement
 Ka – "ation" ending
The first translation of the term jidoka from Japanese was made into English, in which
it appeared as "autonomation". The term has been translated from English into Polish as
"autonomatyzacja", namely the combination of the words: autonomy and automation. The
basis of the Jidoka concept is to equip machines and employees operating them with
possibilities to immediately detect errors and respond to them by halting the work process,
which eventually is to contribute to reduced costs and operating time. The basic Jidoka
components are: immediate solution of any emerging problems (including stopping of the
production line) and separation of work of machines and people (Kornicki 2006, p. 62). The
essence of Jidoka is thus (like in the case of the zero defects principle) embedding quality into
the process by providing relevant resources and the conditions of its implementation.
The third of the theories being the basis for QRQC is the Japanese concept of three
realities - Sangenshugi. The name of the said concept consists of three parts (Aoudia & Testa,
2011, p. 81):
1. San – is number three.
2. Gen – means real and up-to-date, and refers to the principle of objective approach to
the problem.
3. Sugi – refers to ideology or concept.
The Sangenshugi concept assumes that each problem can be solved by analyzing real
data, collected at a suitable place, leading to finding its actual, root causes. The Sangenshugi
concept is therefore an idea of making decisions on the basis of true data (Genjitsu), collected
on the basis of observation of specific, real objects and phenomena (Gembutsu) having their
place or taking place in the specific area (Gemba) (Wolniak 2003, p 23).

4. Genesis and essence of QRQC

QRQC is the methodology of fast response to the arising problems. Its purpose is
instant elimination of errors existing in any processes performed by the company. As
presented earlier, the methodology has developed as a result of combining three Japanese

5
management concepts: the zero defects principle, Jidoka system and Sangenshugi concept.
The zero defects principle is visible under the implementation of QRQC as a result of
pressure on the team analysis and elimination of the causes for the arising problems. QRQC
derives from the assumptions of Jidoka system the principle of rapid action aiming at
identification and elimination of the causes of the arising problems and the principle of
running problem analysis until the solution is found. An important element of QRQC is also
the principle of supporting analyses on facts – being the main assumption behind the
Sangenshugi concept. QRQC was applied for the first time in French company Valeo in 2002,
that is almost 10 years after publishing the assumptions of its Japanese prototype developed in
Nissan company – Sangenshugi. At the present moment, this tool is used not only in the
automotive industry (apart from Valeo and Faurecia this solution is also used by some of their
suppliers) but also in other industries, e.g. electronic (e.g. Phillips).
The combination of the earlier indicated 3 Japanese approaches to management is
reflected in the basic assumptions of QRQC presented by the creators as six principles
(Aoudia & Testa, 2011, p. 23):
1. Fast response
2. Specific people
3. Specific area
4. Specific object
5. Specific data
6. Logical thinking
Fast response is, on the one hand, to contribute to reduced costs related to the created
errors (problems), on the other hand, however, to protect the company from "sweeping
problems under the rug". If a problem arising on the given day is not identified and instantly
analyzed, it may be forgotten in two or three days as a result new problems coming up at that
time. Immediate, properly documented analysis is to prevent it. Any problems in the company
should be resolved by appropriate people. This is about the employees having knowledge,
experience and skills raising the likelihood of solving the problem. This principle is
implemented under QRQC by indicating 3 basic organizational levels at which problems
which are analyzed. Three subsequent rules are the effect of the application of the
Sangenshugi philosophy. In order to properly analyze and solve the problem, factual data that
describe it have to be collected. These data should be collected in the area in which the
problem has been created and should firmly describe a fragment of the reality connected with
its emergence. The data collected applying all the five previous principles should be then used

6
in the process of generating solutions to the problem. The last principle applies to the need to
apply certain algorithms in the problem solving process allowing systematic, logical analysis
of the facts and drawing the right conclusions from them. From the data collected, describing
the problem, one needs to skillfully proceed to the problem cause analysis ended by their
verification and finally to preparing as good solutions as possible.
In practice the QRQC methodology is applied on three levels of the organization.
referred to as (Introduction…, p. 22):
 APZ ((Autonomous Production Zone)
 APU (Autonomous Production Unit)
 Plant
The first from the assumed levels is the level of small production units, under which
employees report and try to solve their own, everyday problems. The purpose of analyzing the
problems at this level is to immediately remove on the current basis any emerging problems
related to the operation of the production line. Under APZ, the problems are solved by a team
composed of its employees within a time not exceeding 24 hours. The leader of such team is
most frequently the unit's manager. Actions on the APU level come down to solving problems
emerging at the contact of various autonomous production zones comprising an autonomous
production entity. The APU team is predominantly an interdisciplinary team, consisting of
employees from the production department, logistics, quality, operation maintenance, etc. The
problems solved are broader than on APZ level and may relate to e.g. customer claims and
complaints, ineffective solutions on APZ level, the unit not achieving the assumed goals. The
last of the problem analysis levels based on the QRQC methodology is the Plant level. At this
level, solved are problems that are important from the point of view of the company as a
whole, namely problems encompassing different areas of its functioning. Under daily
meetings, the operating managers, representing different areas of the company's operations,
cooperate with each other. In particularly significant matters the members of the board are
invited to such meetings. The presented QRQC analysis levels are related with one another.
When a certain problem remains unsolved on the APZ level, it reaches the APU level. By
analogy – any problems unsolved on the APU level are forwarded to the plant level for
analysis. The main principle behind this flow is that each problem should find its solution.
QRQC is performed on daily meetings. It is proposed on the APZ level that QRQC
teams meet everyday at the beginning of the shift. The meetings last on average 15-30
minutes and current problems are being considered on them. When some problems cannot be

7
solved on the line level they are forwarded to the APU level. QRQC team meetings on this
level are held predominantly in the lunch time and are devoted to solving problems emerging
between various lines and problems of particular lines which could not have been solved by
the teams of the lower order. QRQC team meetings on the Plant level are held predominantly
in the evening and apart from resolving matters typical of this management level, they address
problems which could not have been solved on the lower level (APU).
Problem analysis with QRQC assumes four basic action stages [Aoudia, Testa 2011, p.
17]:
1. Detection
2. Communication
3. Analysis
4. Verification
The above stages of the procedure correspond to four phases in the Deming cycle and
the way of performing them depends on the analysis level.
The procedure typical of QRQC begins with problem detection. Regardless of the
analysis level, the meeting participants are to identify any problems emerging on the current
basis in their work.
Regardless of the level where the QRQC analysis is implemented, another important
stage in the procedure is communication. It includes presentation of the essence of the
discussed problem based on the collected data being quantitative and qualitative in nature.
The purpose of this stage is presentation of the data needed for the analysis to the QRQC
performing team. Events that have occurred and their place and time of occurrence are
reported. In the case of the APZ analysis level, there is no need to prepare accurate data. A
different case is analysis on the APU level and the Plant level, where the information
describing the problem should be exhaustive and detailed. In order to ensure it, one of the
methods can be applied at this point, concerning characteristics of the so-called problem
background, e.g. 5W&2H analysis.
The principles and methods of data analysis in the QRQC process mostly depend on
the organizational level where it is performed. In the case of analysis on the APZ level a
quarter-long team meeting at a flipchart is sufficient, when the problem causes are discussed,
and the suggested solutions are prepared on their basis. The analysis conducted on this level is
not as complex and deep as on the other levels, due to the nature of the majority of the
problems considered. Gathered around the flipchart, the employees are to indicate any
problems that have appeared on the line since the last team meeting. Further, the causes of the

8
indicated problems are determined. At this level, the problem cause analysis tools such as:
Ishikawa chart, FTA or 5x why analysis, are rather not used due to the time regime and the
nature of the problems being solved. Problem causes are found by observation of the process,
documentation analysis and interviews conducted with operators. For particular problems,
corrective actions are planned and adopted, their results are checked and verified. While the
whole conceptual work is realized within 15-30 minutes on the team meeting, the team has 24
hours to implement repair actions, assess their results and verify them. Most frequently the
practice is that the verification of the conducted repair actions takes place on the team meeting
on the next working day. When the verification of the undertaken actions renders negative
results, the problem is automatically sent to the workshop level for analysis (APU). Usually
approximately 90% of the identified problems are solved on this level. The analysis on the
APU level and the Plant level is more demanding, and suitable methods and auxiliary
techniques are applied as part of it. The main work tool on these 2 levels is the G8D concept
prepared by Ford engineers. Under the stage of analysis, the teams on the APU level and the
Plant level perform G8D stages marked from D2 (problem description) to D5 (preparation of
solutions and their implementation methods.2
The output from this stage in the procedure is planning actions designed to eliminate
the causes for the analyzed problem. Problem analysis most often finishes the meeting. After
its completion, the team participants try to implement the conclusions obtained the course of
the meeting (for solving the problem).
The last QRQC stage takes place most often on the next team meeting. Its essence is to
verify the effects of the earlier proposed and already introduced solutions to the problems. In
the case of the APZ teams it comes down to answering the question whether the goal assumed
by team to solve the problem has been achieved. In the case of the teams operating on APU
and Plant levels, this action is performed based on steps D7 and D8 in G8D concept. They
come down to discussion of the actions necessary to protect against the problem being
repeated in the future and a summary of the whole procedure by indicating what the team
participants have learned in the course of it.

5. Summary
The Quick Response Quality Control concept, though not popularized sufficiently until
now in the subject literature, is becoming increasingly popular in practice. This is due to the
2
Owing to the range of this problem and a high degree of G8D popularization in the
subject literature, this topic has not been addressed by the authors of this study.

9
effects that can be obtained in the company as a result of its implementation. Among the most
often indicated ones, we can mention (QRQC…, p. 9):
 quick and effective solving of current problems,
 quick and effective transfer of information about any problems and the ways to
eliminate them,
 preventing already solved problems from being repeated in the future,
 significant reduction in quality problems,
 improvement in designs of both the processes and the products based on the data
pertaining to the errors committed by the company in the past,
 continuous development of the personnel so as to ensure that they are able to solve the
emerging problems,
 development of autonomy and accountability among the employees of the production
teams,
 assessment and continuous review of the standards (production, quality, efficiency,
etc.) as adopted by the company.
Defects of this concept that are most frequently indicated by employees in companies
using QRQC include long time of analysis on APU and Plant levels and the need to get teams
(also interdisciplinary ones) involved in the process of problem solving. The assessment of
effects obtained as a result of QRQC indicates, however, that the time and efforts devoted to
this type of analysis result in a smaller quantity of problems in the future and shorter time
needed for the employees to "extinguish fires" namely take corrective actions only after the
problem has occurred. The introduction of QRQC is therefore a path to organizational
learning, and in the field of problems – a mechanism for gaining knowledge and experience
needed to eliminate the majority of them once and for all, thanks to the introduction of actions
counteracting their causes.

References:
1. Antoszkiewicz J.D. (1999) Metody heurystyczne. Twórcze rozwiązywanie
problemów. Warszawa, PWN
2. Antoszkiewicz J.D. (1997)Firma wobec zagrożeń. Identyfikacja problemów,
Warszawa, Poltext
3. Aoudia H., Testa Q., (2011)Perfect QRQC, Paris Maxima
4. Crosby Ph. B., (1979)Quality is free,New York, McGraw Hill.

10
5. Czekaj J., (2013) Metody organizatorskie w doskonaleniu systemu zarządzania,
Warszawa, Wydawnictwo WNT
6. Ćwiklicki M., Walczak M., (2009)Autonomatyzacja (jidoka) – od automatyzacji do
humanizacji pracy, „Zarządzanie Jakością”, no. 2, p. 54-63.
7. Introduction to QRQC, Materiały szkoleniowe Faurecia, http://www.doc88.com/p-
7945940435998.html, [access time: 12.04.2018]
8. Jagoda-Sobalak D. (2015) Wykorzystanie metod twórczego rozwiązywania
problemów do wzrostu potencjału innowacyjnego przedsiębiorstwa. In Knosala R.
(eds.) Innowacje w zarządzaniu i inżynierii produkcji. Opole, Oficyna Wydawnicza
Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją, p. 69–78
9. Jagoda-Sobalak D. (2017) Narzędzie wspomagające dobór metod inwentycznych do
projektowania rozwiązań innowacyjnych, Przedsiębiorstwo we współczesnej
gospodarce - teoria i praktyka nr2/2017 pp. 83-92
10. Kornicki L., (2006) Jidoka – sposób na doskonalenie jakości i produktywności,
„Zarządzanie jakością”, no. 4, pp. 62-63
11. Kozielecki J., (1969) Rozwiązywanie problemów, Warszawa, Państwowe Zakłady
Wydawnictw Szkolnych i Pedagogicznych
12. Kulig M. (2016) Doskonalenie przedsiębiorstw. Kryzys drogą do sukcesu, Warszawa,
PWN
13. Leniewicz E. (1971) Dyrektywy praktyczne. Konstrukcja i uzasadnienie, Warszawa,
PWN
14. Łasiński G., (2007) Rozwiązywanie problemów w organizacji – moderacje w
praktyce, Warszawa, PWE
15. Nęcka E., (1994) Twórcze rozwiązywanie problemów, Kraków, Oficyna Wydawnicza
Impuls
16. Penc J., (2007) Leksykon biznesu, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Placet
17. Penc J., (2005) Decyzje w zarządzaniu, Kraków, WPSB
18. QRQC & PDCA FTA. Training for Suppliers, materiały szkoleniowe Valeo,
http://www.doc88.com/p-992198908894.html.[access time: 18.04.2018]
19. Szarucki M., Bugaj J., (2016) Metody identyfikacji problemów zarządzania w
organizacji – próba typologii, Zarządzanie i Finanse Vol. 14, No. 2/2/2016 pp. 435-
450

11
20. Szarucki M (2010) Przesłanki wyboru metod rozwiązywania problemów zarządzania.
In Adamik A., Lachiewicz S. (eds.) Dilemmas in organization management in the
contemporary economy, Łódź, Monografie of the Łódź University of Technology
21. Szymanek K., (2001), Sztuka argumentacji. Słownik terminologiczny, Warszawa,
PWN
22. Wolniak R., (2003)Gemba – japońska technika zarządzania, “Przegląd Organizacji”,
no. 7-8, pp. 22-25.

Author(-s) data:

Hubert Obora
PhD
Cracow University of Economics
Department of Management and Organization Methods
Poland

Michał Teczke
PhD
Cracow University of Economics
Department of Management and Organization Methods
Poland

12