Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
QS 726 – Quality Systems
Organization and Implementation of a New Quality System using LSSQTT
Fall 2006
Phase II
Overviewo Participantso Course Outcomes
oCourse FocusoLSSQTT Tools ReviewedoLSSQTT Tool Outcomes
o Project OutcomesoProject Description & StatementoProject ApproachoProject ObjectivesoProject Results
o Continuous Improvement
Participants
Fall 2006
Phase II
Participants
o Ted Lipperto Ted Mattiso Diane Olsono Nicole Radziwillo Kevin Van Dewarko Andrew Vollmar
Course Outcomes
Fall 2006
Phase II
Course Focuso QS 726 - Quality Systems
o Courseware designed by Dr. John SinnoTeam based oProject Oriented (chosen by team)oFocused on Lean Six Sigma Tools
o Composed of “tools” used to drive project towards completionoLSSQTT - Lean, Six Sigma, Quality
Transformation Toolkit
LSSQTT Tools Overviewo Tool 7: Team Building, Leadership, Communication
the Project and Change
o Tool 28: Data, Basis for Kaizen, Six Sigma, Quality Systems, Service
o Tool 19: Genealogy of Selected Lean, Six Sigma, Quality Management Systems Tools
o Tool 20: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Lean and Six Sigma: Infrastructure for Understanding Process
o Tool 21: Quality Management Systems for Continuous Improvement
o Tool 22: Synchronous and JIT Production: Lean, Six Sigma Best Practices
o Tool 23: Total Productive Maintenance, First Line Management for Improvement
LSSQTT Tool Outcomes
o Tool 7o Provided foundation for team to begin documentingo Further developed our project focuso Provided the fundamentals for team based project
management and “toolbox” methodology
o Tool 28o Provided exposure to various Lean and Six Sigma toolso Quality Systems Development Roadmap nodes startedo Determined that Roadmap can include other findings
from the literature or new flowcharts that we synthesize
LSSQTT Tool Outcomes
o Tool 19o Provided the fundamentals for exploring the
decision processes surrounding establishment of quality systems.
o Provided the fundamentals for exploring needs of organizations establishing quality systems
o Further developed our project focus,our roadmap should have the following general sections
o Strategy o Process Identificationo Process Description
o Continuous Improvement
LSSQTT Tool Outcomes
o Tool 20 o Provided the fundamentals of Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) development and implementation within a quality system.
o Developed the method for standardization of SOPso Provided a model for standard tools which support
a quality systemo Discussed the value of standardization in a quality
system including but not limited to:o Variation Reductiono Safetyo Trainingo Accountabilityo Commonization through Best Practiceso Continuous Improvemento Throughput and Job Velocityo Communication
LSSQTT Tool Outcomeso Tool 21
o Discussed ISO – International Organization for Standardization
o Provided detail on the Quality Systems infrastructure for the future
o Discussed Lean & Six Sigma to help further develop the project
o Provided insights to QMS (Quality Mgt. System) Integration
o Tool 22o Provided information on applying six sigma systems and
toolso Kanbano Takto SMEDo Fail-safe designo Poka Yoke design
o Discussed best practices, bench marking, auditingo Further developed best practices for QS Roadmap projecto More continuous flow process improvement approaches
LSSQTT Tool Outcomes
o Tool 23o Provided details on Total Productive Maintenanceo Further developed project by adding TPM as a
quality methodologyo Added insights to possibility of expanding the QS
Roadmap project to includeo Ergonomic principalso Safety mandateso Environmental issues
Project Outcomes
Fall 2006
Phase II
Team Project
o Projecto QMS (Quality Mgt. System) Roadmap
o Project Problem Statemento At present, there is no methodology or
solution strategy available for an organization that wants or needs to establish a new quality system. By providing this, organizations may be better able to select and effectively apply appropriate systems, methodologies and quality tools to solve relevant problems.
QMS Thought Process Map
Project Approacho Develop a Quality Systems
Development Roadmap using Design for Six Sigma (DMADV) for an organization to launch a new quality program using the LSSQTT. o Roadmap will be posted on-line due to
large file sizeo Located on-line at:
http://www.nrao.edu/~nradziwi/qs726
o Project phaseso Define (Objectives 1 & 2)o Measure (Objectives 3 & 4)o Analyze (Objective 5)o Design (Objective 6)o Validate (Objective 7)
Project Objectives
1. Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, focused on establishing a general approach (e.g. flowcharts, decision trees) for an organization to launch a new quality program using the LSSQTT.
2. Develop a team-based quality management model to assure that course and project outcomes are satisfied.
3. Explore general needs of organizations wishing to establish a quality system, and the value propositions surrounding quality system implementations.
4. Assess the environment, culture and needs of NRAO e2e Operations, identifying what work processes should be developed as part of the quality system for this service organization
Project Objectives - continued
5. Explore the decision processes surrounding the evaluation and selection of quality systems, methodologies, and the applicability of quality tools to different kinds of real world problems.
6. Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT toolkit as applied to the development of a new model quality system for a nascent organization.
7. Evaluate the applicability of the approach by applying it to development of a model quality system to be used by NRAO e2e Operations to manage and audit its own internal processes, and establish a basis for managing operations in software development, service delivery, and executing six sigma process improvement efforts. The validate stage may extend beyond the 16-week period.
Project FACR’sWhat main content/application findings and analyses (listed by tool) were used to address
the objective, to explain what was value adding, and how, to help solve the broader problem and project:
o * A branch of the overall project deliverable (flowchart) will have to investigate the use of statistical tools and their relativity to the quality system requirements. In some organizations process control, or statistical analysis, may not carry as much weight as in others. For the tool to be universal, statistical analysis must be a branch or decision path in the flow chart. We need to add another branch to the decision tree to decide who is responsible for deciding what decision to make.
o * With Tool 19 content applied to objective 1, it was determined that four categories at a minimum would be needed to organize our final roadmap: Strategy, Process Identification, Process Description, and Continuous Improvement.
o * Based on tool 28 content applied to objective 1, it was found that a branch of the roadmap could probably serve as the starting point. Specifically, a decision tree for attribute and variable control charts. The value of doing this is that the team is starting small and building on that piece to begin developing the overall roadmap. One branch of the roadmap should examine the steps that are needed to perform a process capability analysis, and the decisions required to choose which processes and variables to select, and what capability measures to apply.
o * Applying tool 20 content to objective 1, we integrated more robust methods for quality evaluation and identifying and describing standard operating procedures in the context of a new quality system.
o * Applying tool 23 content to objective 1, the roadmap was able to be significantly expanded to reflect common processes on the shop floor, ensuring the applicability of the roadmap to traditional manufacturing operations.
Project FACR’s -continuedWhat main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and
applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:o * Other investigators have focused on decision processes required to sort through vast amounts of detailed
material pertinent to subprocesses, such as Bothe (2001). As a result, it is important for our team to do two things: first, to provide an accurate conceptual framework for understanding how these decision processes fit together, and second, to aggressively pursue our literature reviews to determine what researchers have already fleshed out parts of this critical process and provided tools that we can integrate.
o * The total productive maintenance (TPM) portion of the roadmap drew from and extended the work of Venkatesh (n.d.).
o * The website http://www.skyenet.net/~leg/tqm.htm talked about Total Quality Management Diagnostics. The information directed the investigation of which POM tools could be used to help solidfy the team organization.
o * Mahalik (2000-2006) was useful for understanding how to integrate lean processes into a new QMS for an organization.
What main content/application findings and analyses were used to address the objective, to explain what was value adding, and how, to help solve the broader problem and project:
o * Tool 7, which addressed team management and interactions, was the most instrumental in helping the team achieve this objective.
o * As a result of reviewing Tool 19 content in the context of Tool 7 results from the previous week, a thought process map was added to the portfolio to serve as the basis for the team QM model. This guided the process
and auditability philosophy of the team for the remainder of the project.
Project FACR’s -continuedWhat main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and
applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:
o Sebastianelli and Tamimi (2003) identified that the remedies for a successful quality systems implementation were: train the team members in quality management skills, recognize contributions, train team members in problem identification techniques, train team members in group communication and discussion techniques, use cross-functional teams, and empower members to implement results. These are all outcomes supported by the toolkit approach and values we should adopt as we build our project team.
What main content/application findings and analyses (listed by tool) were used to
address the objective, to explain what was value adding, and how, to help solve the broader problem and project:
o * Tool 21 provided the most significant insights into the achievement of this objective, in particular, illuminating the challenges that many organizations have when they attempt to determine which quality tools should be used for which purposes.
o * Based on Tool 28 findings applied to Objective 3, it was found that many of the general principles of quality, such as effectively identifying which quality goals must be satisfied and building in quality rather than relying on mass inspective, were ubiquitous general needs
Project FACR’s -continuedWhat main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings
for this objective, and in what ways:
o * Most of the literature reviewed provided some insights that helped the team achieve this objective, and each addressed a specific guiding principle. For example, Chase (2004) illustrated that most organizations tend to invest in detection instead of prevention. Instead of reducing the root cause of a defect, there is a rush to build a detection device that will detect that a defect was generated from a process. Through the use of design for six sigma (DFSS), organizations are able to identify the items that are critical to quality and then design into their process the reliability that is necessary to achieve prevention instead of detection. By utilizing the tools of DFSS such as QFD, Pugh Concept Selection, DFMEA, MSE and NEM, you are able to design a process or piece of machinery that is capable of meeting the customer specifications. The best game plan for ensure that defects don't escape to the customer is not to sort out all defective product through inspection, but to rather build quality into the process and never make the defect in the first place.
What main content/application findings and analyses were used to address the objective, to explain what was value adding, and how, to help solve the broader problem and project:
o * Tool 21 encouraged the team to reflect on the foundations of quality management systems, and as a result, a roadmap element to support organizational assessment was introduced into the portfolio.
o * In Phase II, the APQC model was applied to the technical and management processes of the customer organization.
o 7.3.4.2 What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:
o * Literature reviewed outside the context of the toolkits was most useful in understanding the culture issues, in particular, technical memos from within NRAO describing the evolution of the organizations that led to the creation of e2e.
o * The APQC (2006) model was most useful in the achievement of this objective because it provided a tested framework for process identification in the context of quality goals.
Project FACR’s -continuedWhat main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as
findings for this objective, and in what ways:
o * Literature reviewed outside the context of the toolkits was most useful in understanding the culture issues, in particular, technical memos from within NRAO describing the evolution of the organizations that led to the creation of e2e.
o * The APQC (2006) model was most useful in the achievement of this objective because it provided a tested framework for process identification in the context of quality goals.
What main content/application findings and analyses (listed by tool) were used to address the objective, to explain what was value adding, and how, to help solve the broader problem and project:
o * Based on Tool 19 applied to this objective, several approaches for selecting which data should be collected and which analysis mechanisms should be applied were reviewed. The end result was a better understanding of which applications should be integrated into an organization's unique QMS.
o * Based on Tool 22 as applied to objective 5, there were many approaches uncovered in the literature which mapped the decision process within one aspect of a quality system, in particular benchmarking and
best practices.
Project FACR’s -continuedWhat main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and
applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:
o Nicholas & Ledwith (2003) was an extremely informative report and described a model for the role of benchmarking as part of the new product development process, in terms of a capability maturity model. A Delphi (panel of experts) approach was taken in the study, and only large firms were studied. The basis of the model is that the voice of the customer is identified through market research studies. As a result, market research is the key process area in focus within the maturity model that is developed. The model includes five stages, which are typical of similar models, and include: the initial/launch stage (Level 1), the under development stage (Level 2), the stage at which market research processes are well defined (Level 3), the stage at which market research is not only defined but managed according to metrics (Level 4), and the optimized stage in which metrics are fed back into the process through continuous improvement. The authors conclude that the key finding of the work was to identify best practices in new product development and see how those could be used in a maturity-based benchmarking model, clearly illustrating the link between best practices and benchmarking. An incidental benefit of this article is that it provides a comprehensive source of reference materials in reputable journals on the intersection of benchmarking and innovation. The potential exists for generalizing this model to other decision processes as a QMS is established. Mathaisal et al. (2003) proposed a mechanism for identifying and documenting best practices so they can most effectively be integrated into operations.
Project Results
oQMS Roadmap Created (Integrated tools and processes discussed in LSSQTT)
oOrganization Evaluationo Maturityo Strategy
oQuality Methodologieso PDCAo Six Sigmao Leano TPM
o TPM Principalso OEE Calculator
Project Results -continuedoQMS Roadmap Created
(Integrated tools and processes discussed in LSSQTT)
oQuality Systemo Malcolm Baldridgeo ISOo TQM
oQuality Toolboxo Interpersonal Skillso Process Tools
o Standard Operating Procedureo FMEA for NRAOo 8D Form
o Measurement Toolso Process Capabilityo Control Chartso 5 Why’s
QMS Roadmap High-Level Structure
o Located on-line at:http://www.nrao.edu/~nradziwi/qs726
QMSRoadmapStructure
1.0OrganizationEvaluation
2.0Quality
Systems
3.0Quality
Methodologies
4.0QualityToolbox
QMS Roadmap Process Structure
QMSRoadmapStructure
1.0OrganizationEvaluation
1.1Strategy
Evaluation
1.2Quality
Evaluation
2.0Quality
Systems
2.1ISO
2.2MalcolmBaldrige
2.3TQM
3.0Quality
Methodologies
3.1Lean
3.2Six Sigma
3.4PDCA/PDSA
4.0QualityToolbox
4.1InterpersonalSkills Tools
4.2Process
Tools
4.3Measurement
Tools
1.3Culture & Maturity
Evaluation
3.3Lean / Six Sigma
2.4Industry Specific
Certification
3.5TPM
Continuous Improvement
Fall 2006
Phase II
Continuous Improvement
The team recognizes that although the QMS Roadmap developed in
this course lays a good foundation for an organization wanting to implement a new
quality system it, like any quality system, is subject to continuous
improvement through the addition or modification of its
elements.
