Control Tollgate

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Lean Six Sigma project final phase.

Text of Control Tollgate

  • 1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Project Charter Review

  • Scope:this process begins with the T-6 IPR and ends when 1/16 loads the tanks on HETTs.
  • 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 Sprague
  • Core TeamRole % Contrib.LSS Training
  • CW2 Warren SME 20% none
  • MAJ AydelottSME 20% none
  • MAJ Mackey SME 20% none
  • SSG Jones SME 10% none
  • CW4 LucySME 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 07/13/0808/05/08 Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/0809/05/08 Control: 08/23/08 09/13/0809/29/08

  • 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 StatementSoldiers 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. 5. Measure Review Baseline 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. 6. Analyze Review Impact 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-Es not completed correctly
    • Effect-poor tank maintenance
  • Root cause #3: 5988-Es 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

7. Improve Review To-Be Process Map Implementation Plan Solution Selection Pilot Results 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.

QAQC Maintenance Manager Dispatch Soldier Issues prescreened bumper number list to soldier Hand receipt Vehicle signed over to soldier Avg. Delay 30 min Soldier conducts PMCS andupdates5988-E, turns it in to maintenance supervisorPasses QAQC Receives signed QAQC sheet Vehicle dispatched to soldier YES NO 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 neededSolutions Trackable Causes Accurate Bumper #s 40% Increased qualitymaintenance 30% Improved vehicletracking 30% Step 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 Maintenance personnel PMCS training UMA Training manager UMA Program manager Human resources UMA leadership 3 Tracking board updates Maintenance 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 Soldiers Maintenance leader Maintenance leader Mechanics/QAQC 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 6 8. Process Control/Response Plan 9. 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.Bias The 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. 10. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Training Plans SOPs Requiring Revision Required Training 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 16 thCavalry Soldiers (PMCS Training) Various Troop Comman