NG BB 55 CONTROL Tollgate

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)



Text of NG BB 55 CONTROL Tollgate

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

2. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Tollgate Requirements - Control NG CPI BLACK BELT TOLLGATE REQUIREMENTS PROJECT DELIVERABLESNGBCOMMENTS CONTROL Updated Financial / Operational Benefits Mandatory Standardize Process/ SOPs/Training plans MandatoryVaries by project Process Owner Accountibility Mandatory Includes transition plan Achievement of Results / New BaselineMandatory % goal achievement Process Control PlansMandatory Dashboard Replication OpportunitiesRecommended Leverage to other areas Visual Process ControlsRecommendedVaries by project Mistake Proofing Tools RecommendedVaries by project Storyboard / A3Mandatory1-page proj summary Barriers/Issues/RisksMandatory Quick Wins Recommended Lessons Learned Optional2UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 3. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Control 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 U S L 62.03O bserv ed P erformance% Total 62.03outside customer spec% < LS L0.00 % > U S L 65.25 Z Bench = -.31 % Total65.25 060 120180 240 300360420 Required Deliverable 37UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 38. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOProcess Constraint ID AnalysisTakt Rate Analysis compares the task time of each process (or process step) to other steps and customer demand to determine if the time trap is the constraint Takt Time = Net Process Time Available Takt Rate = Customer Demand Rate = Number of Units to Process Number of Units to ProcessNet Process Time AvailableValue Add Analysis - Current StateTakt Tim e = 5580Task Time (seconds)70605040302010 0 12 3 45 6 7 8 910 Task # - Example - CVA Time NVA-R Time NVA Time38 BB Optional DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 39. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOPareto Plot AnalysisPareto Chart 100150 80- Example - Percent10060Count 40 50 2000ut hr thste rsSoNoEa OthDefect Count100 50 15 6Percent 58.5 29.2 8.8 3.5Cum % 58.5 87.796.5 100.0The South and North contain over 80% of the defects. Ourproject will focus here and not on the East and West. 39 Optional Deliverable UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 40. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOCause & Effect Diagram (Fishbone)Materials Manpower Facilities & Equipment Wrong Location SpaceLack of SeatsNo Standardization of seatsLack of Knowledge Old Buildings Inequality in seatsNew CodesLack of Funds Lack of Controls Not Suited for Dedicated to Task Senior Leader Current Mission (Type of Space)No Suitable space to Assign Getting Seats Takes Time (Y) Effect:VagueReqmts Lack of Database PLT = 5 days People Unplanned Programs Multiple Paths Facilities (too long)Location (Competing for Same Space)Lack of Controls Senior Leadership - Example -Delays in elevatingToo Long (Time) CollocationImpasse issues Mold, HVAC CrashesApprovalsMethodsMother NatureMeasurements CAO/IPTTime Avail to UnforeseenFunding Decision Wait CircumstancesCompetency vs. PMA40 Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 41. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOXY Matrix (Root Cause Analysis)Ra ting ofImporta nce toCustome r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415 Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Total Proce ss Ste p Proce ss Input10203040506070809010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 0 0000000000000000 TotalLower SpecTargetUpper SpecThis table prov ides the initial input to the FMEA. W hen each of the output variables(requirements) are not correct, that represents potential "EFFECTS". W hen each inputvariable is not correct, that represents "Failure Modes".1. List the Key Process Output Variables2. Rate each v ariable on a 1-to-10 scale to importantance to the customer3. List Key Process Input Variables4. Rate each variables relationship to each output variable on a 1-to-10 scale5. Select the top input variables to start the FMEA process; Determine how each selectedinput varable can "go wrong" and place that in the Failure Mode column of the FMEA. 41Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 42. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOHypothesis Test Summary Hypothesis Test Factor (x) (ANOVA, 1 or 2 sample t - test, Chi Squared,p ValueObservations/Conclusion Regression, Test of Equal Variance, etc) Tested Significant factor - 1 hour driving time from DC Example: ANOVALocation0.030 to Baltimore office causes ticket cycle time to generally be longer for the Baltimore site Significant factor - on average, calls requiring Example: ANOVA Part vs. No Part 0.004 parts have double the cycle time (22 vs 43 hours) Significant factor - Department 4 has digitized Example: Chi SquaredDepartment0.000 addition of customer info to ticket and less human intervention, resulting in fewer errors South region accounted for 59% of the defects Example: ParetoRegionn/adue to their manual process and distance from the parts warehouse- Example -Optional BB Deliverable Describe any other observations about the root cause (x) data42UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 43. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUOOne-Way ANOVA: Root Cause VerificationBoxplots of Net Hour by Part/No(means are indicated by solid circles)After further investigation, possible 150 Boxplot: Part/ No Part Impact on Ticket Cycle Time reasons proposed by the team are OEM backorders, lack of technician- Example -Net Hours Call Open certifications and the distance from the OEM to the client site. It is also100 caused by the need for technicians to make a second visit to the end user to complete the part replacement.50 Next step will be for the team to confirm these suspected root causes. 0Part/No PartPart No PartAnalysis of Variance for Net HourBecause the p-value 450 have been selected to be implemented45 Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 46. 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 846Required DeliverableUNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 47. 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 47 UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO 48. UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO Pilot ResultsData Collected: PlanPilo