NG BB 51 IMPROVE Tollgate

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Text of NG BB 51 IMPROVE Tollgate

  • 1. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Black BeltImproveTollgate Briefing Project NameDEPMS Project NumberName of BeltOrganizationDate UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

2. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Tollgate Requirements - ImproveNG CPI BLACK BELT TOLLGATE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DELIVERABLESNGBCOMMENTSIMPROVESolution Prioritization / Selection MandatoryBrainstorm/prioritizeFuture State Process MapMandatoryImplementation / Improvement Plan Mandatory Action planPilot Plan / Pilot ResultsRecommendedNew Process Capability / Sigma Level / DPMO MandatoryBased on data typeNew Control ChartsRecommended Not appl to all projectsStoryboard / A3 Mandatory 1-page proj summaryBarriers/Issues/Risks MandatoryQuick WinsRecommendedLessons LearnedOptional 2 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 3. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Improve Tollgate Templates NOTE: THIS IS A TEMPLATE FOR ALL NG CPI BELTS NG has developed this template as a basic format with standard deliverables to help guide NG CPI belts through the NG tollgate requirements for certification. It is recognized that each project is unique and has unique deliverables withunique flows. Therefore, this format does not have to be followed exactly to theletter of the law for your project.(DELETE THIS SLIDE FOR YOUR PROJECT)3UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 4. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Define Charter and Timeline Team MembersName Role AffiliationDACIBlack BeltDriverMaster Black Belt DriverTake awayProject Sponsor Approver message goesProcess Owner Approver here Project Charter(impact ofProblemproblem)Statement:Business Case:Project TimelineGoal Statement: PhaseStartStopStatusUnit: Definemm/dd/yy mm/dd/yyDefect: Measure mm/dd/yy mm/dd/yyCustomerAnalyze mm/dd/yy mm/dd/yySpecifications:Improve mm/dd/yy mm/dd/yyProcess Start:Control mm/dd/yy mm/dd/yyProcess Stop:4Scope: Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 5. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOMeasure Overview Baseline Statistics Process CapabilityProcess Capability of Delivery TimeP otential (Within) C apability VOC / VOBLSL TargetUSLCpC PL 1.16 2.22 Unit (d) or Mean (c) W ithinC PUC pk 0.10 0.10 O v erallC C pk 1.16 Defect (d) or St. Dev. (c)O v erall C apability Pp 1.24 DPMO (d) PPL2.37 PPU0.11 PCE: (Cycle Time Only)PLT: (Cycle Time Only) - Example -LS L P pk C pm0.110.35P rocess D ata10T arget 20USL 30S ample M ean 29.1203 Sigma Quality Level S ample NS tD ev (Within)2662.87033S tD ev (O v erall) 2.6915412 16 202428 3236 MSA Results: show the percentage result of the GR&R or otherO bserv ed P erformanceE xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L0.00measurement systems analysis carried out in the project P P M < LS L 0.00 PPM < LS L 0.00 PPM > USL281954.89PPM > USL 379619.67 PPM > USL 371895.18 P P M T otal 281954.89PPM T otal379619.67 P P M T otal371895.18 Baseline As Is PerformanceTools UsedSummary for Delivery Time A nderson-D arling N ormality Test Detailed process mapping Time Series PlotA -S quared 1.95P -V alue 450 have been selected to be implemented7 Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 8. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Implementation PlanPROJECT NAME DIVISION GREEN BELT DATEPROJECT SPONSORSERVICE AREA / FUNCTION / SERVICEBLACK BELTResponsibleImplementationControl ActionTarget/ ActualSolutionImprovement Action Individual/Issues/Barriers Risk Mitigation Current Status/ Comments Number NumberComplete Date Solution Owner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 9. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Pilot PlanPilot Description Success Criteria Test Team ScheduleTest Sample Check-in Data Sets to be entered in Hand- Data Set Entry Accuracy BR, KM, plus Start 3/1 Hand- Chek device < 3.4 DPMOHot-Chek Complete 3/3 Chek/ Sample Data Sets Transmitted to Hot-Chek System Data Set Entry Time < tech rep Hot-Chek All Hotel Floors, All Hotel Rooms 6 Seconds Interface Confirmation Data Received from Hot-Chek to Data Set Transmission/ TestHand-Chek Device All Hotel Floors, All HotelReception Accuracy < Rooms 3.4 DPMO Sample Guest Data Entered in Hot-Chek System Data Set Entry Accuracy BR, KM, + 6Start 3/6 (variety of room requirements)< 3.4 DPMOCheck-in Complete 3/7 Guests (Hotel Employees) Walked Through Data Set Entry Time < Staff Check-in6 Seconds Check-in Process (90% Pre-Registered, 10% Non- Verificatio Data Set Transmission/ Pre-Registered) n TestReception Accuracy < Volume Stress Test Simulated Arrival 20 Guests in a Tour Bus3.4 DPMO Design Scorecard CCRs Process Measurements recorded via Observer (see Design Scorecard); Guest Observations Recorded. 25 Guests invited to experience new hotel check-in Data Set Entry Accuracy BR, KM, + 6Start 3/10 p < 3.4 DPMOCheck-in Complete Guests pre-registered with their room Data Set Entry Time < Staff3/10 Check-inrequirements in Hot-Chek system.6 Seconds Validation Guests Walked Through Check-in Process (90% Data Set Transmission/- Example - TestPre-Registered, 10% Non-Pre-Registered) Reception Accuracy < Process Measurements recorded via Observer (see 3.4 DPMO Design Scorecard) Design Scorecard CCRs Guests Debriefed Following Experience. Recommended Deliverable 9 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 10. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Pilot ResultsData Collected: PlanPilotMeasure Targetx sComments PLT1 minute0.5 min.0.05 min. Improved PLT Data Accuracy< 3.4 DPMO 100 DPMO Decreased DPMOPCE< 10 %< 15 % Improved PCEPilot Observations: 1) Data Entry sequence was confusingGAP Analysis/Root Causes:1) SOP wasnt clear; need to lay it out betterbefore implementation 2) Order of questions needs to be reevaluatedFollow-up Actions: 1) Revise SOP on order of questions asked and flow, and run pilot again- Example - Recommended Deliverable 10 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 11. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOFailure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) O OProcess Step / Potential FailurePotential Failure Potential RootDActions D S C Current ControlsResp. Actions Taken S CInput Mode (X)Effects (Y)Causes E RecommendedE E C E CTT What is theIn what ways does What is the impact V What causes the Key U What are the existingWhat are theWhat are the V UEE Rprocess step the Key Input goon the Key Output EInput to go wrong? R controls and proceduresactions for reducing completed actions E RC RPNC Pand Input wrong?Variables (CustomerR R (inspection and test) thatthe occurrence of taken with theR RTT N underRequirements)? I E prevent either the cause the cause, or recalculated I EII investigation?T Nor the Failure Mode?improvingRPN?T NOO Y Cdetection? Y CNN E E UpdatingIneffective Discrepancies: POI vs Adjust templates toIneffective reviews5 4None5 100PMO 5 2 2 20 Tollgates templates Templates match POI Users and leadersSlide purposes notAdjust slide titles 4None4 80 PMO 1 2 10 dont buy-in to LSS clearand notes Redundant and NVA Eliminate NVA 3None4 60 PMO 1 2 10 slides slidesIncomplete SOP orDevelop "read me" 3None5 75 PMO 1 2 10"Help" within PSslides UpdatingToo many steps toLink templates to Inefficient updating3NVA steps5None4 60 PMO 3 3 2 18 Tollgates build/update PS Phase Users get frustrated Too many choices Eliminate NVA; 4None4 48 PMO 2 2 12 and delay projects between templatesgroup in folders Inconsistent file Simple names; 3None4 36 PMO 1 26 names and locations group in folders LSS ToolNot all LSS tools & User cannot findNot all tools availableRevise list of tools 4 5None4 80 PMO 4 2 2 16Access refs in PS tools & referencesin PS and joggers Project completion isPoor explanation inDevelop direct 3None3 36 PMO 2 2 16delayedsome references access pdf file LSS ToolToo many steps to Inefficient retrieval of Multiple means for "Read me" file; one 2 3None5 30 PMO 2 2 28Access retrieve tools LSS tools/refs accessing tools folder Eliminate NVANVA steps3None5 30 PMO 2 28 steps- Example - 11 Required Deliverable UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 12. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUODescriptive Statistics / Process Capability As Is Process CapabilityNew Process Capability Process Capability Analysis for CholesterolProcess Capability Analysis for ControlUSL USL Process DataProcess Data220.000STSTUSL220.000et*LTLTTarget **LSL*193.133Mean184.967 le N30Sample N 30v (ST)26.0455v (LT)22.4931 StDev (ST)20.4206StDev (LT)16.3662ntial (ST) Capability * Potential (ST) Capability0.34Cp * *0.34CPUCPLProcess Capability Analysis for Cholesterol Cap0.57 * Process *Cpk 0.57 120 140160180200220240260Cpm* 140160 180 200 220 240erall (LT) Capability *Observed Performance PPM < LSL*Expected ST Performance PPM < LSL*Expected LT PerformancePPM < LSL *USLProcess Data Overall (LT) CapabilityObserved PerformanceProcessST PerformanceExpected Data Expected LT Performance0.40 PPM > USL133333.33 PPM > USL 151146.50 PPM > USL 116152.65 Pp* PPM < LSL* PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * * PPM Total USL133333.33 PPM Total 220.000 Total151146.50 PPM 116152.650.40 Target *- Example - PPUPPLPpk0.71 *0.71 PPM > USL PPM Total USL 0.00 0.00 TargetPPM > USLPPM Total220.000 43119.06 43119.06*PPM > USLPPM Total 16153.51 16153.51 LSL* LSL* Mean 193.133 Mean 184.967 Sample N30 Sample N30 StDev (ST) 26.0455 StDev (ST) 20.4206 StDev (LT) 22.4931 StDev (LT) 16.3662Potential (ST) Capability 12 Cp *Required DeliverablePotential (ST) Capability Cp * UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 13. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOControl ChartP Chart for Total Defectives 0.10- Example - Feb/Mar Data Confirms Process HasRemained In Control 3.0SL=0.08162Proportion 0.05 P=0.03817 0.00-3.0SL=0.00E+00050 100150Sample Number Recommended Deliverable 13 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 14. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO As Is vs. To Be Process Map As Is ProcessTo Be Process- Example -Required Deliverable 14 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 15. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUORelated Project ConsiderationMulti-Generation Project Plan(MGPP) Generation 1 Generation 2Generation 3 (Date) (Date)(Date)VisionProcess Generation Platforms / TechnologyOptional Deliverable 15 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 16. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Project Barriers/Issues/Risks Barriers Issues Risks Required Deliverable 16 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 17. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Improve StoryboardDefine1.2 DayProjec