Define Tollgate

DEFI

NELean Six Sigma

Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality

SFC Don H. Henry IIProject Initiation Date: 31/03/08Define Tollgate Date: 30/04/08

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Agenda Background Information

SIPOC

Process Map

Voice of the Customer

Voice of the Business

Team Selection and Launch

Communication Plan

Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan

Project Charter Validation

Lessons Learned

Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log

Next Steps

Define Storyboard

Sign Off

Tollgate Checklist

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Background Information

Soldiers perform unnecessary rework during the FTX/STX2 tank draw process drawing tanks that are not mission ready.

The tanks drawn are often fully mission capable (FMC) but have deficiencies that are consistently unaddressed by UMA personnel.

These deficiencies impact the serviceability of the tank and effectiveness of training.

3

DefineDefine

v 2.0

SIPOC MapInputs Process Outputs

• Tanks• Completed

5988-E’s

• 5988-E• EXSOP• RATSS• IPR• LRTC• Troop to

Task• Deadline

report• Service

sched.• AOAP sched.

T-6 IPRT2T

RATSS

T-5T2T

T-4T2T

T-3T2T

T-2IPR vehicleBumper #s

Given to unit

T-1Tank draw,

HETT,5988-E update

Input Metrics Process Metrics Output Metrics Number of tanks drawn from UMA by

1/16 not ready to support FTX/STX2 training (due for services, AOAP schedule, deadline report, or RATSS for another unit.)

Number of tank faults annotated on the 5988-E by 1/16 soldiers (based on the troop to task) during FTX/STX2 tank draw.

Number of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 at T-2 (based on the LRTC, IPR, RATSS, and EXSOP) by UMA for FTX/STX2 mission support.

Number of tank bumper numbers presented at T-2 by UMA actually drawn for FTX/STX2 mission support.

Number of total tanks drawn from UMA at day one of T-2 by 1/16 that are ready to support FTX/STX2 training.

Number of tank 5988-E faults updated during FTX/STX2 tank draw by UMA clerks.

% of tanks drawn from UMA by 1/16 soldiers during T-1 that are ready to support FTX/STX2 training.

% of 5988-E faults annotated by soldiers during FTX/STX2 tank draw that are updated by UMA clerks during.

% of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 for FTX/STX2 mission support at T-2 by UMA actually drawn by 1/16 soldiers during T-1 to support training.

M1 series Draw ProcessCustomers

• 1/16 Soldiers

Suppliers

• UMA

VOCVOB

• reduce rework by 50%

• Improve fault tracking

• Improve bumper # accuracy

Quality

Quality

Quality

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Basic Mission Support Process Map

T-6

T-4

T-5

Leadership attends T-6 IPR

RATSS updatedInitial Troop to Task

T-3

T-1

T-2

Verify contractsTroop to task revisedOther training aids

requested

Verify contracts

Troop to Task revisedBumper numbers

presented, gun cards checked

Tank draw begins

Tank draw continues Draw everything elseStage tanks and prep for HETT movement

Verify contracts

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Voice of the Customer (VOC)

Voice of the Customer

Key Customer Issue(s)

CriticalCustomer

RequirementWhat does the customer want from us? What does the customer

want from us? We need to identify the issue(s) that prevent us from satisfying

our customers.

We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and measurable requirements

Soldiers want to draw tanks that are mission ready.

tanks scheduled for services causes rework

Draw mission ready tanks that are not scheduled for service.

Updated 5988-E’s to reflect soldier PMCS work.

Poor PMCS and/or no fault updates by UMA

UMA updates 5988-E to reflect the soldiers PMCS

An unchanging list of tank bumper numbers by T-2 to facilitate the draw

Wrong tank bumper numbers presented during T-2/T-1 causes extra work.

Lock-in a solid tank bumper number list by T-2

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Voice of the Business (VOB)

Voice of the Business

Key Process Issue's

CriticalBusiness

RequirementWe should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and measurable requirements

Higher quality tank maintenance

UMA keeps tanks FMC but not to 10/20 standards.

Fix all deficiencies IAW DA Pam 738-750 & AR 750-1 to prevent future deadlines.

More training time Support unit has little time for training.

Training to maintain is training.

No lost training time Vehicle draw time is extended from avoidable forecasting errors.

Issue tanks that are well maintained and not due for service during training.

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Team Selection/Launch

Team Member Role % Time Committed LSS Training

CW2 Warren Maintenance Officer 20% None

MAJ Aydelott Operations Officer 20% None

MAJ Mackey Squadron Exec Officer

20% None

CW4 Lucy Supply Officer 10% None

SSG Jones Maintenance NCO 10% None

Project Sponsor: MAJ Mackey, Andre L.Deployment Director: COL Naething, Robert R.Green Belt/Black Belt: SFC Henry, Don H. IIMaster Black Belt: Nathan Sprague

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Communication Plan

Project Sponsor

EmailMeetings

TollgatesUpdates

Various SFC Henry Weekly

Project Team

EmailMeetings

Updates Questions

Various SFC Henry As needed

MBB EmailMeetings

QuestionsAdvice


DeploymentDirector

Meeting Project Progress


AudienceAudience MediaMedia PurposePurposeTopics of Topics of

Discussion/Discussion/Key MessagesKey Messages

OwnerOwner FrequencyFrequency Notes/StatusNotes/Status

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Risk Analysis and Mitigation Personnel availability, process mapping, data collection, and

cooperation

Consequence

Lik

elih

oo

d

• Data Collection (Schedule)•Risk: More time may be needed for the Measure phase because of current mission schedule. •Mitigation Plan: Maximize data collection during missions to present reliable data to stakeholders.

• Personnel availability (Schedule)• Risk: Project team members have different

schedules and availability times. • Mitigation: communicate via email and in

person when possible. • Consequence: Low impact on project

completion

•Process Mapping (Performance)•Risk: The process is moderate in size but has numerous civilian personnel involved who could present concerns about job stability and resist change •Mitigation Plan: Explain the project and communicate the desire to make things better. Solicit feedback about the draw process and gain civilian participation. •Consequence: Resistance could delay the project during the measure and analyze phases up to three weeks.

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

• UMA cooperation (Change Management)• Risk: UMA personnel may reject any suggested changes

proposed by the 16th Cavalry• Mitigation: communicate changes through high level

supervisors and program managers for implementation. • Consequence: High impact on project completion

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Project Charter Validation

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 and material TBD

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 LTC Naething, Robert 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 - XX/XX/07

Measure: 05/14/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07

Analyze: 06/13/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07

Improve: 07/18/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07

Control: 08/23/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07

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.

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Lessons Learned

Application of Lean Six Sigma tools

Communications

Team building

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log

13

Lean Six Sigma Project Action Log

Last

Revised: 10/27/2005

No Description/ Recommendation

Status Open/Closed/

Hold

Due Date Revised Due Date

Resp. Comments / Resolution

1

2

3

4

5

Resource shortfalls-none Unexpected delays-none Team issues-none Organizational issues-none

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Next Steps Outline activities for Measure Phase

Develop data collection plan Develop operational definitions Collect baseline data Communicate consistently

Planned Six Sigma Tool use Value Stream Mapping Dot Plot Matrix NVA analysis Cause and Effect Diagram Histogram Check Sheets Frequency Plot

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Define 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 #s

Given to unit

T-1Tank draw,

HETT,5988-E update

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Sign Off

• I concur that the Define phase was successfully completed on XX/XX/08.

• If Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) financial and/or operational benefits were developed during the Define phase, they have been entered into PowerSteering.

• I concur the project is ready to proceed to next phase: Measure

CW4 David LucyResource Manager/Finance

COL Robert R. Naething Deployment Director

SFC Don H. Henry II Black Belt

Nathan SpragueMaster Black Belt

MAJ Andre L. Mackey Sponsor / Process Owner

DefineDefine

v 2.0

Define Tollgate ChecklistTollgate ReviewTollgate Review

StopStopHas the team defined the

opportunity from both business and customer

perspectives?

Key Deliverables: SIPOC

Process Map and/or Value Stream Map

Communication Plan

Validated Project Charter

Initial Work plan

Risk Mitigation Plan

Has the project been chosen because it is in alignment with Army goals and the strategic direction of the ‘business’? Have other similar projects been completed in Power Steering?

What is the problem statement – detailing (what) is the problem, (when) was the problem first seen, (where) was is it seen, and what is the (magnitude or extent) of the problem. Is the problem measured in terms of Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency, not expected financial benefits? Ensure there is no mention or assumptions about causes and solutions.

Does a goal statement exist that defines the results expected to be achieved by the process, with reasonable and measurable targets? Is the goal developed for the “what” in the problem statement, thus measured in terms of Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency?

Does a financial business case exist, explaining the potential impact (i.e. measured in dollars) of the project on the Army, Major Commands, Subordinate Commands, Budgets, Net Operating Results, etc.?

Is the project scope reasonable? Have constraints and key assumptions been identified? Have IT implications been addressed and coordinated with IT managers?

Who is on the team? Are they the right resources and has their required time commitment to the project been confirmed by your local Command and Team?

What is the high level work plan? What are the key milestones (i.e. dates of tollgate reviews for DMAIC projects)?

Who are the customers for this process? What are their requirements? Are they measurable? How were the requirements determined?

Who are the key stakeholders? How will they be involved in the project? How will progress be communicated to them? Do they agree to the project?

What kinds of barriers/obstacles will need assistance to be removed? Has the development of a risk mitigation plan to deal with the identified risks been developed?

DefineDefine

v 2.0

DC/ProjectSponsor/

LeadershipChoose Project &Assign Black Belt

DC/PS/LeadershipConduct ProjectIdentification &

Selection Process

DMAIC Methodology - Define

Review ProjectCharter, ValidateHigh-Level Value

Stream Map &Scope

Validate Voice ofthe Customer

(VOC) and Voiceof the Business

(VOB)

IdentifyStakeholders &

CompleteStakeholder

Analysis

Validate ProblemStatement and

Goals

Evaluate ProjectRisk & Create

RiskManagement

Plan

InitialWorkplan

Communication Plan

Value StreamMap(s)

(High Level)

Risk Mitigation Plan

Select andLaunch Team,

Develop ProjectSchedule

Critical Customer& Business

Requirements(CCR’s & CBR’s)

Conduct 'Define'Tollgate Review

Project Entered/Updated In Project

Tracking System (PTS)

UpdatedCharterin PTS

Benefit Type (1,2,3) Benefit Category

(Revenue Increase,Cost Reduction,Asset Reduction)

Economic ProfitCalculation

SIPOC Map Customer Surveys,

Interviews, FocusGroups

Listening Posts Existing Customer

Data KANO Analysis QFD Operational Metrics

(Quality, Speed, Cost)

Risk MitigationSpreadsheet

Corporate Goals &Objectives

Gap Analysis Pareto Analysis Top-Down Project

Identification Bottoms-up Project

Identification Project Selection Matrix Project Charter Value Stream Mapping Financial Analysis Tools Multi-Generational

Project Planning (MGPP)

StakeholderAnalysis Template

Project Charter SIPOC Map Process Mapping Swim Lane Map Value Stream Map Non Value-Added

Analysis Multi-Generational

Project Planning(MGPP)

Project SelectionGrid

Analytical HierarchyProcess (AHP)

Black BeltAssignment Matrix

Team Ground Rules& Guidelines

Project Plan/GanttChart

RACI & Quad Charts Effective Meeting

and Facilitation Skills

Storyboard Project

Presentation Project Tracking

System (PTS)

StakeholderAnalysis

SIPOC

CreateCommunication

Plan

CommunicationPlan Matrix

Validate FinancialBenefits

ValidatedProjectCharter

Deployment Champion, ProjectSponsor, Leadership Team

Activities

Initial Project Charter