23
CONTROL Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Control Tollgate Date: 25/09/08

Control Tollgate

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Lean Six Sigma project final phase.

Citation preview

Page 1: Control Tollgate

CO

NTR

OL

Lean Six SigmaImproving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw

QualitySFC Henry, Don H. II

Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08

Control Tollgate Date: 25/09/08

Page 2: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

Agenda Project Charter Review

Measure, Analyze, and Improve Phase Reviews

Revised Process Capability

Process Control/Response Plan

Measurement System Analysis

Standard Operating Procedures and Training Plans

Process Monitoring and Stabilization

Transition to Process Owner

Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits

Barriers/Issues

Next Steps

Project Contributors

Storyboard

Page 3: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.03

Control – Executive Summary

Improve tank maintenance quality by giving the 1/16 soldiers more time to perform maintenance during the draw.

The project starts at the FTX/STX2 T-6 IPR and ends when the tanks are ready for HETT transport. This project is contained within the Fort Knox Garrison and can transfer to other training support missions on Fort Knox.

We are feeling the pain in training and tank maintenance.

Soldiers fail to do a quality PMCS for the lack of time, training, and command emphasis.

Page 4: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

Project Charter Review

Scope: this process begins with the T-6 IPR and ends when 1/16 loads the tanks on HETT’s.

Goal: Improve tank draw quality

Problem/Goal Statement

Tollgate Review Schedule

Business Impact

Core Team

State financial impact of project Expenses-none Investments-none Revenues-potential savings in time 819 hours per year

Non-Quantifiable Benefits are increased tank maintenance quality, soldiers morale, maintenance fault tracking, and less training time lost.

PES Name MAJ Mackey, Andre PS Name MAJ Mackey, Andre DD Name COL Leopoldo Quintas GB/BB Name SFC Henry, Don MBB Name Nathan SpragueCore Team Role % Contrib. LSS Training CW2 Warren SME 20% none MAJ Aydelott SME 20% none MAJ Mackey SME 20% none SSG Jones SME 10% none CW4 Lucy SME 10% none SFC Henry BB 100% BB

Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete

Define: 04/30/08 - 04/29/08

Measure: 05/14/08 04/06/08 06/04/08

Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 08/05/08

Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 09/05/08

Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 09/29/08

Reduce rework during tank draw from 90% to 45%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.

Improve 5988-E fault tracking during tank draw from 10% to 85%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.

Improve tank bumper number accuracy from 10% to 90%, during the T-2 preparation week by 1 October 2008.

Problem Statement Soldiers of 1/16 express dissatisfaction with the Unit Maintenance Activities M1 series tank quality prior to mission support. Currently, 90% of the tanks drawn require maintenance for mission readiness. Approximately 10% of faults listed on the 5988-E ‘s completed by soldiers are tracked by UMA. Lastly, tank bumper number accuracy during T-2 is currently at 10% which causes excess work in the last days of the mission support draw.

Page 5: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.05

Measure ReviewBaseline Data

Tools Used

Process Capability

Recommended Quick Wins/RIEs

Root cause: BII requires excess resources to draw. The BII and tank draw compliment each other.

Quick Win #1-Use 5S to reduce the time and personnel required to draw BII and use those resources during the tank draw.

Detailed process mapping Measurement Systems Analysis Value Stream Mapping Data Collection Planning Basic Statistics Histograms

Operational Definitions 5s Generic Pull Dotplot Matrix

Baseline Quality #1: To-date, 33% of tanks presented for draw are not ready for issue.

Baseline Quality #2: To-date, 10% of 5988-E faults annotated by soldiers during tank draw is updated by UMA clerks.

Baseline Quality #3: To-date, 67% of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 at T-2 by UMA is actually drawn for mission support.

The current tank draw process is capable of issuing 2 tanks per hour with a 33% critical maintenance defect rate.

Page 6: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.06

Analyze ReviewImpact of Root Causes:

Hypothesis Tests

Tools Used

Reducing List of Root Causes

Prioritized Root Causes / Effects Root cause #1: No visual tracking method

Effect-in-accurate bumper numbers

Root cause #2: 5988-E’s not completed correctly

Effect-poor tank maintenance

Root cause #3: 5988-E’s are not updated regularly

Effect-poor tank maintenance

Root cause #4: Tanks issued that are not ready for issue

Effect-rework

Value Add Analysis Pareto Plot Histogram One-Way ANOVA

C&E Matrix Cause & Effect Diagram FMEA Process Capability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Deadlined Services Due QA/QC Needed Already Issued

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Page 7: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.07

Improve Review“To-Be” Process Map

Implementation Plan

Solution Selection

Pilot Results

QAQC

Maintenance Manager

Dispatch

Soldier

Issues prescreened bumper

number list to soldier

Hand receipt Vehicle signed over to

soldier

Avg.

Delay30 min

Soldier conducts PMCS and updates 5988-E, turns it in to

maintenance supervisor

Passes QAQC

Receives signed QAQC sheet

Vehicle dispatched to soldier

YESNO

NVA time is in dark blue, Total delay time is reduced to .5 hours

Retrieves info from

RATSS system

Notify UMA of the # of tanks needed

Mechanics

Maintenance manager checks bumper number list and 5988-E, verifies faults

and makes repairs if needed

Solutions

Trackable Causes

Accurate Bumper #’s40%

Increased quality maintenance

30%

Improved vehicle tracking30%

Solution A = a 75% improvement in accuracy of bumper #’s (75% of 40%=30%)Solution B = a 50% improvement of maintenance quality (50% of 30%=15%)Solution C = a 50% improvement of vehicle tracking (50% of 30%=15%)

The pilot displayed the anticipated results.

The plan for conducting the pilot was effective.

Improvements that can be made are the usability of the vehicle tracking board and investigation into automation of the tracking board.

The solutions can be implemented “as-is” but minor changes would improve user satisfaction. These changes should be made

The solutions should remain in place in the maintenance bay.

Lessons learned from the pilot are that simplicity and defined roles of the mechanics and maintenance leader are very important and need to be applied during solution implementation to avoid confusion.

The goals of the pilot were achieved.

SteAction/Task Responsible

Accountable Consulted Informed

1Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process

1/16 Maintenance Officer

1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

2 Maintenance personnel PMCS trainingUMA Training manager

UMA Program manager

Human resources

UMA leadership

3 Tracking board updatesMaintenance leader

Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers

4 5988-E updatesUMA ULLS clerk

Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks

Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

5 Issue of bumper number list to SoldiersMaintenance leader

Maintenance leader

Mechanics/QAQC

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

6

Page 8: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

PROJECT NAME DIVISION DIVISION CHIEF DATE

10/1/2008BRANCH CHIEF PROCESS OWNERS RESPONSIBLE CONTROL MANAGER

Freq. Process StepTarget Value

Upper Control

Limit

Lower Control

LimitCurrent Reaction Plan

1 Tank Projections

16th Cav Leadership and UMA Program Manager

MonthlyProject vehicle needs 120, 90, 60, and 30, days out

100% Accurate

100% 90% 90%If tank projection accuracy drops below 90%, training time and quality will be adversly effected.

2 Tank Bumper number list

16th Cav Leadership and UMA Program Manager

Dailyprovide list to 16 Cav to draw

90% Accurate

100% 50% 10%If the bumper number list accuracy drops below 50% excess rework will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality

3 PMCS/5988-E completion16th Cav Soldier and UMA mechanics

Daily

maintain vehicle standards IAW DA PAM 738-750 and appropriate 10 level manual.

85% Accuracy 100% 50% 10%

If the vehicle PMCS/5988-E completion rate drops below 50% excess rework will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality

4 Vehicle TrackingMaintenance Supervisor Daily

Monitor vehicle locations and status

100% Accuracy 100% 80% 70%

If the vehicle tracking percentage drops below 80%, wasted time and resources will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality.

5 Vehicle Issue16th Cav Soldier and UMA mechanics

Dailysoldiers draw vehicles from UMA

4 tanks per hour n/a 2 per hour

2 per hour

if the tank issue drops below 2 per hour the mission requiring the vehicles will be adversly effected and training time will be lost or degraded.

Shelley Antle

UMA Program Manager Quarterly Report

Applicable Control Charts and MetricsControl Action

NumberControl Action

Responsible Individual

Improving Tank Draw Quality

Mr. Joe Massouda Fort Knox G-4

Unit Maintenance Activity (UMA)

Process Control/Response Plan

Page 9: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.09

Measurement System Analysis The measurement systems are acceptable. The data is considered to have no potential

for significant error. Will appropriately use the data during the Analyze Phase.

Type of Measurement Error Description Considerations to this Project

Discrimination (resolution)

The ability of the measurement system to divide measurements into “data categories”

Work hours can be measured to .25 hours. Tank draw times are measured to +- .25 hours.

BiasThe difference between an observed average measurement result and a reference value

No bias - Work hours and draw start-stop times consistent through the population.

Stability The change in bias over time No bias of work hours and draw data.

Repeatability The extent variability is consistent

Not an issue. Labor and tank usage is based on course requirements, so it is historical and felt to be accurate enough for insight and analysis.

Reproducibility Different appraisers produce consistent results

Usage data deemed not reproducible, therefore was not considered in determining which were used during the tank draw

Variation The difference between tanks Tanks are either Fully Mission Capable or Non Fully Mission Capable.

Page 10: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Training Plans

SOPs Requiring Revision Responsible Status

EXSOP Joe Massouda and MAJ Douglas Aydelott

In process

Required Training Responsible Status

UMA employees (PMCS Training)

Reed Lyons In Process

16th Cavalry Soldiers (PMCS Training)

Various Troop Commanders

In Process

SOPs Requiring Revision

Required Training

Page 11: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.011

Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures

Takt time sheet to be used in vehicle issue times and monitor throughput

Page 12: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.012

Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures

Map board to be used in vehicle tracking and aid in bumper number accuracy

Page 13: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.013

Transition to Process Owner: RACI ChartR = Responsible – The person who performs the action/task.A = Accountable – The person who is held accountable that the action/task is completed.C = Consulted – The person(s) who is consulted before performing the action/task.I = Informed – The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task.Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

1 Map board updates

Maintenance supervisor (UMA)

Maintenance supervisor (UMA)

Mechanics and soldiers

16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager

2 Takt Time Sheet annotation

Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Mechanics

Maintenance supervisor (UMA)

16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager

3 Bumper number list updates

Maintenance supervisor (UMA)

Mechanics and Maintenance supervisor (UMA)

UMA program manager

16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager

4 Maintenance training (UMA)UMA program manager

UMA program manager

UMA program manager 16th Cav

Leadership

5 Maintenance training (soldiers)16th Cav Leadership

16th Cav Leadership

Unit Motor Officer

Unit Motor Officer16th Cav Leadership

Page 14: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.014

Modify performance review criteria for the mechanics and maintenance supervisors where necessary.

Modify the Process Owner’s performance review criteria to include long term vehicle issue times and improvement requirements.

Define and document long term metrics for the military and civilian leadership to analyze and brief quarterly.

Transition to Process Owner: Other Steps

Page 15: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.015

Transition to Process Owner: Lessons Learned Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools

Communications

Team building

Organizational activities

Other

Page 16: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.016

Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits Replication Opportunities within the Army

#1 Lean Kits for Basic Issue Items (BII) #2 Maintenance (PMCS) Training and visualized tracking methods

Financial Benefits Expenses $5000 (BII issue boxes estimate) Investments BII issue Boxes Revenues Saved an estimated 830 hours per year, $16500

Operational Benefits #1 Less time and personnel required to draw and issue BII #2 Higher quality vehicle maintenance with greater awareness of vehicle

status

Page 17: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.017

Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log Resources

Unexpected delays

Team or organizational issues

Updated risk analysis and mitigation plan

Revised project scopeLean Six Sigma Project Action Log

Last

Revised: 09/09/2008

No Description/ Recommendation

Status Open/Closed/Hold

Due Date Revised Due Date

Resp. Comments / Resolution

1 Leave of critical team member 14 May 4 May

2 Larger multi-colored Push Pins Closed 9 Sep. n/a SFC Henry

Identified on 3 Sep.

3 Investigate possible IT tracker Open TBD UMA program Manager

4

5

Page 18: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.018

Next Steps Key action for transition, updated SOP, Maintenance Training

Unresolved questions to answer, none at this time

Barrier/risk mitigation activities,

Page 19: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.019

Project ContributorsTeam Member Project Contribution

Andre Mackey, MAJ Champion

Douglas Aydelott, MAJ Assistant Champion

Joe Massouda, Program Manager Process Owner

Reed Lyons, Supervisor Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Richard Pryor, Basic Issue Items SME

Don Henry, SFC Black Belt (Project Leader)

Nathan Sprague Master Black Belt

These team members contributed to the success of this project!

Page 20: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Deadlined Services Due QA/QC Needed Already Issued

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Analyze StoryboardDefine

Problem: Poor tank quality at issue

Goal: Improve tank quality at issue, Reduce rework, improve fault tracking

Non-quantifiable BenefitsMorale, tank maintenance, fault tracking

Project CharterT-6 IPRT2T

RATSS

T-5T2T

T-4T2T

T-3T2T

T-2IPR vehicleBumper #sGiven to

unit

T-1Tank draw,

HETT,5988-E update

Measure

BII draw measured Tank draw measured 5988-E updates measured

RIE Baselines collected

Critical X’s Identified Potential Root Causes Identified

Root Causes PrioritizedAnalyze

Improve

Potential solutions identified Pilot test/results

S

Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

1 Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process

1/16 Maintenance Officer

1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

2 Hiring of more maintenance personnelUMA Hiring manager

UMA Program manager

Human resources UMA leadership

3 Tracking board updatesMaintenance leader

Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers

4 5988-E updates UMA ULLS clerk

Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks

Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

5 Issue of bumper number list to SoldiersMaintenance leader

Maintenance leader

Mechanics/QAQC

1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel

6

Implementation Plan developed

Control

Update SOP’s Train, train, train

Process owner takes over!

Page 21: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.021

Sign Off• Policies & Procedures for the Improve and Control phases were documented and

communicated on 25/09/08.• I understand the New Policies and Procedures.

• I understand and take responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the Control/Response Plan.

• I will report the progress on this subprocess on a regular basis to the customer (internal or external).

• I have reviewed this project’s final financial and/or operational benefit estimates with the Deployment Director, Sponsor, and Resource Manager and they have been entered into PowerSteering.

• I understand the corrective action procedure and am responsible for ensuring that action items are completed to hold the gains and capture the benefits.

CW4 David LucyResource Manager/Finance

COL Leopoldo Quintas Deployment Director

SFC Don H. Henry II Black Belt

Nathan SpragueMaster Black Belt

MAJ Andre L. Mackey Sponsor / Process Owner

Page 22: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.022

Control Tollgate Checklist

Has the team prepared all the essential documentation for the improved process, including revised/new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), a training plan, and a process control system?

Has the necessary training for process owners/operators been performed? Have the right measures been selected, and documented as part of the Process Control System,

to monitor performance of the process and the continued effectiveness of the solution? Has the metrics briefing plan/schedule been documented? Who owns the measures? Has the Process Owner’s job description been updated to reflect the new responsibilities? What happens if minimum performance is not achieved?

Has the solution been effectively implemented? Has the team compiled results data confirming that the solution has achieved the goals defined in the Project Charter?

Has the Financial Benefit Summary been completed? Has the Resource Manager reviewed it? Has the process been transitioned to the Process Owner, to take over responsibility for managing

continuing operations? Do they concur with the control plan? Has a final Storyboard documenting the project work been developed? Has the team forwarded other issues/opportunities, which were not able to be addressed, to

senior management? Have “lessons learned” been captured? Have replication opportunities been identified and communicated? Has the hard work and successful efforts of our team been celebrated?

Tollgate Review

StopStop Has the team implemented the solution, and a control plan to insure

the process is robust to change?

Deliverables: SOP’s

Training Plan

Process Control System

Financial Benefit Worksheets (Type 1 or 2 savings)

Benefits Realization Schedule, validated by Resource Manager

Validated Solution

Replication/ Standardization Plan

Lessons Learned

Transitioned Project

Project Risk Performance

Green Belt/Black Belt Actions:

Deliverables Uploaded in PowerSteering

Deliverables Inserted into the Project “Notebook” (see Deployment Director)

Page 23: Control Tollgate

Control

v 2.0

DMAIC Methodology - Control

Develop StandardOperating Procedures(SOP’s), Training Plan

& Process Controls

Complete‘Control’ Tollgate

Review

Transition Projectto Process Owner

Identify ProjectReplication

Opportunities,Document

Lessons Learned

ImplementSolution and

Ongoing ProcessMeasurements

EvaluatePerformance ofRisk Controls

Project RiskPerformance

SOP’s

Financial RepPeriodicallyValidates

Financial Benefits

TrainingPlan

Implementation Plan Training Plan Communication Plan SOP’s Process Control

System

ProcessControlSystem

RevisedCommunication

Plan

Risk ManagementSpreadsheet

Replication/Standardization

Plan

Create BenefitsRealization

Schedule in PTS

Close-OutProjectin PTS

Response Plan Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP’s) Communication Plan Implementation Plan Process Control

System Chart Plan-Do-Check-Act

(PDCA) Visual Process Control

Tools Statistical process

Control (SPC) -Control Charts

Flow Control Plan/Generic PullStabalization

FinancialBenefits

CalculationPlan

ValidateBenefits

Realizationin PTS

Recognition Event Team Evaluation Success Stories Lessons Learned Additional LSS

Projects Identified

ProcessPerformance

Metrics

Financial RepAgreement

ProjectTransition Plan

Project TransitionDocument

DocumentedLessonsLearned

ConfirmAttainment ofProject Goals

ApprovedSolution

Project Charter,i.e. Opportunity &Goal Statement

Project TrackingSystem (PTS)

Project Presentation Storyboard