Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page 1
5 4 3 2 1
MEASURE DEFINE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
Please use this DMAIC Standard Work Template to help guide you in preparing a presentation that summarizes the key team based activities that drive both revolutionary and evolutionary improvement. Feel free to contact any of the following members of the Product Integrity Group listed on this board for help.
F/N=L:\HS\COMPONENT UTILIZATION TEAM\ACE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL\PM & STANDARD WORK\DMAIC Project Template.ppt
Page 2
Develop Business case for project. Identify Owner Define Mandate Select Team & Team Leader Set Team Norms Determine Customer and Business needs Define critical Input, Process and Output measures Define Process Start & End Define Process Inputs & Outputs Determine Customer Requirements Map As Is Process
Benchmark as Needed Establish MFA data collection method Establish QCPC data collection method Establish SPC data collection method Gather Data
Analyze current costs / potential savings Perform Waste analysis on As Is process. Understand process variation Understand process performance
Perform Root Cause Analysis on problems. Develop / select alternative solutions Map To Be Process Develop Action Plan Management Review Pilot changes and validate improvement
Implement Improvements / Mistake Proofing Devices Update Standard Work Implement Key Characteristics Monitor Metrics (Process KCs & Customer) to Verify Improvement Document savings Share Lessons Learned ID potential future projects.
Establish direction and Understand Pilot and accountability. Baseline Process Process Validation of Understand Performance F/N=L:\HS\COMPONENT UTILIZATION TEAM\ACE INTERNAL-EXTERNAL\PM & STANDARD WORK\DMAIC Project Template.ppt Opportunities Improvements current process.
Standardized Improvements
Page 3
Process Management
AQS GROUP IMPACT-MATURITY MATRIX
Reduce Reduce Reduce Internal PPM Build Supplier Customer by 30% Organizational PPM by 30% Escapes by 30% Strength
1 2 3 4
15 8 38
LCL=-468.6 0 1
Jan
PROCESS A B C D E F G H
WEIGHT
0.25 60 60 20 40 40 60 40
0.40
0.25 40 60 60 40 40 60 40 60
0.10 SCORE 20 20 20 51 56 46 36 44 56 42 39
Supplier Improvement Clinic Process AQS Standard Work/ Documentation Communication Supplier (external) CTQ/KC Management AQS Facilitation/ Consulting AQS/ Ito University Tools Training Internal (and Remote Site) CTQ/KC Management
Collect data
TOTAL
2
Feb
3
March
4
April
5
May
6
June
7
July
8
Aug
9
Sept
10000
20 60 Blank = None
Sample StDev
5000
UCL=5568 S=2958
LCL=348.1
Select Opportunity
Scrap Escapes Extra Inspection Warranty Rework Repair
Engineering Changes Recurring Service Bulletins Recurring Engineering Notices Extra Setups Long Cycle Times Non-Contractual Warranty
Hidden ?
Q-STARS NO.:
Date: 6/12/02
Dave Lewis, Operations Center Manager Project Sponsor (May be Client Requestor): The Northrop F-18 Ejector is experiencing a 100% MRA rate and high level of Customer dissatisfaction due to fit-up problems on the aircraft. Problem Statement: Perform a comprehensive process and product variation study utilizing the DMAIC approach. Incorporate needed process improvements. Initiate Activity Scope/Mission: appropriate design changes based on follow-up Process Capability Study for improved process. Goals & Expected Results: Reduce 100% MRA rate to zero. Achieve total Customer satisfaction. Prior History of Problem: Ejectors not fitting up properly at Northrop. Ejectors are built to an HS design by United Tool & Die, of W. Hartford, CT. Lack of robustness in both UTD welding process and design of product. Business Metric Impact: Customer escapes, SRR, MRA ticket generation, and Supplier PPM.
(i.e. Cost Reduction, Customer Satisfaction, Schedule Jeopardy) Estimated Annual Savings: TBD Current estimate is between $80,000 and $150,000 one-year savings via cost avoidance.
CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 AVERAGE 4.41 3.93 4.18 4.36 4.50 4.52 4.59 4.86 4.71 4.50 4.85 4.07 4.66 4.65
J. Strom Jack Strom (QE Supervisor), Chris Haddad (PE), Pete Teti (AQS), John Gaughan (AQS), Bob Kleza (Purchasing), Larry Tourigny (ME)
Estimated Expenses (Travel/Direct Charge) Estimated Project Timeline: Final Report Responsibility: Approximately 3 months; ECD: 8/15/02 Jack Strom and Pete Teti
NOTE: DOCUMENT SAVINGS INTO UTC Q-STARS ON-LINE SYSTEM CONTRACT SIGNATURES Client: _________________________ Jack Strom ____________________ Peter E. Teti ____________ Pete Teti Quality Authority/Manager: _________________ Bob Cleverdon
Team Leader:
Business Manager
Quality/CQE Resource:
4. Improve
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
UNITED TOOL AND ELM WOOD 17271 P R ES TO C AS TING C GLENDALE 18706 OHIO ALUM INUM IN C LEVELAN 18688 WALLINGF OR D S P IN WALLINGF 17370 M ITC HELL AER OS P A - S T LAUR E - 44417 HITC HC OC K INDUS T M INNEAP O 10817 P AR AM OUNT M AC HIN M ANC HES T 20481 HOR S T ENGINEER IN - E HAR TF O - 10838 C TL AER OS P AC E IN - C INC INNA 23073 KULITE S EM IC ONDU LEONIA - 11042
13
11
11
10
Supplier
Hamilton Sundstrand Supplier Quality Assurance, July 2002
Page 14
Repeatable
UCLx
Effective Efficient
X LCLx
Standard Work
Mistake Proof
, jh oiu blkjyt . , nb t f 8po jkb uy klkjuyt df nmh mgjkdglkng t nkdjg lr t bmr t k45i; w4, m jbk, jgoigj yi kjhv u kjgo 8 il jkh hv iu ou bj kl iu b nml jkut bn b kjlk g jk li g ul; iug ui; jkf klj hgj g lkjh gmn bh vbuiyo jklhg . , n blku t j. m, ngvo I m, n boi . ,
nmnt ekgjyu5nmnglkejr t n jh iui jko ih jhg c yt uyt uf uio p jb jhv iuh f i v jbhv kgh h g nbv hgc jhg h gc hgj h
Page 5
5 4 3 2 1
MEASURE DEFINE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
Page 6
Define
Define key metric trying to improve Define team players Define key process steps (flowchart) Define key measures (i.e., Key Characteristics)
Control
Summarize the types of MistakeProofing controls used to control the variation over the long term Describe any B/P changes, SPC Key Characteristics added, and Control Plans instituted
1
MEASURE DEFINE
Measure
5 4
CONTROL
Describe the type of data that was collected at this step in the project Describe characteristics of the data collection Describe the measurement system used to collect the data
3
2
ANALYZE
IMPROVE
Improve
Summarize the both process and product improvement ideas brainstormed at this step in the DMAIC process Describe some of the improvement tools used such as DOE, Waste Elimination, PFMEA, etc.
Analyze
Describe the analysis tools & techniques used by the team at this point (RRCA, Fishbone analysis, etc.)
Summarize the Teams conclusions (i.e., capability too low, accuracy off location, yield too low, cycle time too high, etc.)
Page 7
Problem
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Page 8
Objective
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Describe here briefly the project OBJECTIVE. You may show the top level metric chart here that your team is trying to improve.
Page 9
Project Mandate
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
On this page put a copy of the Team Mandate that is supported by management. Examples are CQE Project Contract Sheets, Passport Job Tickets, and Supplier Investigation forms.
Scrap Escapes Extra Inspection Warranty Rework Repair
Engineering Changes Recurring Service Bulletins Recurring Engineering Notices Extra Setups Long Cycle Times Non-Contractual Warranty
Hidden ?
CORRECTIVE ACTION #:
Expediting Costs
MATERIAL REJECT NO.: SUPPLIER NAME: Paramount SUPPLIER CONTACT: SUPPLIER CODE #: LOT DATE CODE:
Q-STARS NO.:
Date: 6/12/02
20481 HS RESPONIBILITY FOR C/A APPROVAL: Name & Tel #: Name & Tel #:
Dave Lewis, Operations Center Manager Project Sponsor (May be Client Requestor): The Northrop F-18 Ejector is experiencing a 100% MRA rate and high level of Customer dissatisfaction due to fit-up problems on the aircraft. Problem Statement: Perform a comprehensive process and product variation study utilizing the DMAIC approach. Incorporate needed process improvements. Initiate Activity Scope/Mission: appropriate design changes based on follow-up Process Capability Study for improved process. Goals & Expected Results: Reduce 100% MRA rate to zero. Achieve total Customer satisfaction. Prior History of Problem: Ejectors not fitting up properly at Northrop. Ejectors are built to an HS design by United Tool & Die, of W. Hartford, CT. Lack of robustness in both UTD welding process and design of product. Business Metric Impact: Customer escapes, SRR, MRA ticket generation, and Supplier PPM.
Specification: (if applicable) Ref drawing HS 816731. bottom view shows hole into filter cavity. Currently the hole is plugged somewhere between the filter and the exiting hole. Suspect cavity is filled with braze.
Problem Description: F18 valves are failing performance testing. Filter plugged
Notes: All hardware will be screened on the assembly floor. paramount is to screen all hardware in house for this problem.
(i.e. Cost Reduction, Customer Satisfaction, Schedule Jeopardy) Estimated Annual Savings: TBD Current estimate is between $80,000 and $150,000 one-year savings via cost avoidance.
J. Strom Jack Strom (QE Supervisor), Chris Haddad (PE), Pete Teti (AQS), John Gaughan (AQS), Bob Kleza (Purchasing), Larry Tourigny (ME)
Estimated Expenses (Travel/Direct Charge) Estimated Project Timeline: Final Report Responsibility: Approximately 3 months; ECD: 8/15/02 Jack Strom and Pete Teti
NOTE: DOCUMENT SAVINGS INTO UTC Q-STARS ON-LINE SYSTEM CONTRACT SIGNATURES Client: _________________________ Jack Strom ____________________ Peter E. Teti ____________ Pete Teti Quality Authority/Manager: _________________ Bob Cleverdon
Passage between filter and vent/sensing hole is plugged. Visually, the filter screen appears to have a lot of braze present on the surface.
Team Leader:
Business Manager
Quality/CQE Resource:
================================================================================================
Page 10
Part Function
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Describe here briefly the FUNCTION of the part if applicable using a bullet chart. Also include a picture of the unit.
Page 11
Team
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
List below the names of the TEAM members and their corresponding functions:
Quality Engineers name Manufacturing Engineers name Design Engineers name Purchasing Buyers name Supplier Contacts name Customer Contacts name etc.
Page 12
MEASURE
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Show examples of the data gathered from the process you are trying to improve.
Show an example of the data collection sheet filled in or an Excel spreadsheet of the data.
Page 13
ANALYZE
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Capability Histogram
UCL=0.05691 Mean=0.03499
Individual Value
0.050 0.025
Mov.Range
0.04
0.08
Last 25 Observations
0.075
Values
Within StDev: 0.0073089 Cp: 1.14 Cpk: 0.68 Overall StDev: 0.0109195 Pp: 0.76 Ppk: 0.46
I
Capability Plot
Process Tolerance Within
I I I I I
Overall
I
Specifications
I
0.02
0.07
Observation Number
Page 14
IMPROVE
2
4
3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
DEFINE
List bullets of each improvement idea being explored by the team List bullets of each improvement idea completed by the team List bullets of improvement ideas currently in the process of being implemented with a status Show illustrations of the tools used to drive improvement. For example:
Fishbone Diagram analysis Design of Experiments Process Failure Mode Effects Analysis etc.
Page 15
CONTROL
2 1
DEFINE
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Describe the Mistake-Proofing devices implemented into the process designed to control the variation, such as:
LEVEL I: Physical devices designed into the process that prevent an error from happening at the source. LEVEL II: Warning devices such as Control Charts for SPC Key Characteristics identified for a particular process step, buzzers, alarms, etc., that depend on a human reaction for mistake-proofing effectiveness. LEVEL III: Methods implemented that detect a nonconformance prior to shipping it to the Customer.
Page 16
5 4 3
CONTROL
IMPROVE
ANALYZE
MEASURE
Cost Avoidance
Scrap dollars prevented in the future Warranty costs avoided into the future Etc.
Customer Satisfaction
Page 17