Improve Tollgate

Embed Size (px)


Lean Six Sigma project phase four.

Text of Improve Tollgate

  • 1. Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Analyze Tollgate Date: 03/07/08
  • 2. Agenda
    • Project Charter Review
    • Measure and Analyze Phase Review
    • Potential Solutions
    • Evaluation Criteria
    • Selected Solution(s)
    • Solution Risk Assessment
    • To-Be Process Map
    • Pilot Plan
    • Pilot Results
    • Implementation Plan
    • Implementation Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan
    • Improve Summary
    • Lessons Learned
    • Barriers/Issues
    • Next Steps
    • Storyboard
  • 3. Improve 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 LTC Naething, Robert
    • GB/BB Name SFC Henry, Don
    • MBB Name Nathan Sprague
    • Core 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 04/06/08 Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 XX/XX/08 Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 XX/XX/08 Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 XX/XX/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.
  • 5. 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
  • 6. Potential Solutions Critical X Root Cause(s) Priority of Effort Potential Solution How Developed? Poor vehicle quality Incomplete PMCS 1 Employee PMCS Training Program Round Robin brainstorming session Lengthy issue times Inaccurate bumper number list 2 Vehicle tracking board 20 Questions Poor vehicle quality 5988-Es not updated 3 Update SOP 20 Questions Lengthy issue times Vehicles Issued not ready 4 Vehicle tracking board Round Robin brainstorming session
  • 7. Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Explanation for Weight Critical Customer Requirements - Y 1 Improve vehicle draw quality +3 Vehicle maintenance is preventative - Y 2 Improve bumper # accuracy +3 Accuracy increases quality and speed Critical Business Requirements - customer satisfaction +2 Essential for contract renewal - save money and improve quality +2 Operating costs should stay low - Implement changes by the end of FY 2009 +1 Establish a new SOP before relocating to Ft. Benning, GA - risk of implementation is low +1 Approx. 1 year away from relocating Regulatory/Other - Adherence to DA Pam 738-750 +3 Essential maintenance processes - Adherence to Technical Manuals +3 Essential service schedules - Adherence to applicable Army Regulations +3 Safety, supply systems, Environment, etc
  • 8. Selected Solutions
    • 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%)
    • Implementing Solutions A, B, & C achieve a 60% reduction in trackable causes for and
    • delays/rework. (Assumes no interaction effects of the solutions)
    • Original goal is a 45% reduction that can be achieved by A & B, or A & C, but all three areas can be improved and affect the overall tank issue quality.
    Solution A 75% Solution B 50% Solution C 50% Solutions Trackable Causes Accurate Bumper #s 40% Increased quality Maintenance ( training) 30% Improved vehicle tracking 30% Effect: The tank draw takes too long. Man Machine Material Method Spread thinly across multiple tasks Shortage of UMA maintenance personnel Deadlines, AOAP, Service Schedule, affect # of tanks available Tanks already in use by other units/missions BII draw uses excessive people and excess time RATTS Tanks are PMCSd Tanks are QA/QCd Tanks are dispatched Excessive delays from lack of UMA personnel 5988-E not updated by UMA
  • 9. Selected Solutions: Results The red box indicates two vehicles that were hard to locate on the tracking board due to the small size of the vehicle markers and the use of a single color for vehicle identification. Trial and Error Results Present during 4 or more vehicles drawn Present during 3 vehicles drawn Present during 2 or less vehicles drawn Solution A (correct bumper #s) All 5 of the bumper numbers issued to soldiers were drawn. Solution B (training) Properly completed 5988-Es and well trained mechanics Solution C (tracking board) Tracking board reflected vehicle locations
  • 10. Solution Risk Assessment: FMEA Significant changes in the Risk Priority Numbers Process Step / Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEVERITY Potential Causes OCCURRENCE Current Controls DETECTION RPN Actions Recommended Resp. Actions Taken SEVERITY OCCURRENCE DETECTION RPN What is the process step and Input under investiga-tion? In what ways does the Key Input go wrong? What is the impact on the Key Output Variables (Customer Requirements)? What causes the Key Input to go wrong? What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent either the cause or the Failure Mode? What are the actions for reducing the occurrence of the cause, or improving detection? What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? T-1 bumper number list not accurate excessive delays 7 lack of organization 7 none 7 343 Tracking Board UMA 4 3 1 12 PMCS not updated rework 7 lack of personnel 6 Army Policy 5 210 PMCS Training UMA 4 2 2 16 QA/QC not timely rework 4 lack of maintenance 4 EXSOP/Army policy 4 64 restructure of proc