Sie sind auf Seite 1von 51

SIX SIGMA PROJECT

KNOWLEDGE NOTEBOOK
Viracon
33.154 Reduce Variation in Quoting and Charging for Sizes Below
Coating Minimum
Sandee Keane, Black Belt
Competitive
Advantage

Breakthrough
Improvement

Knowledge
Sustained
Business
Results

Customer
Satisfaction

Problem Statement
The criteria used to classify coated glass lites
as Below Coating Minimums is hard to
understand for us internally, and extremely
confusing for the customer
Estimating Issue

The charge is hard to enforce due to order


entry system constraints.
Order Entry Issue

Objective:
Reduce the value stream defects

Define

Team Members
IPO Diagrams
Pareto Chart / Priority Identification
Baseline Historical Performance of the
Process
Process Flow Chart

Define
Team Members

Sandee Keane, Black Belt


Carolyn Stangl, Estimator
Cheri Olson, Estimator
Jeff Minear, Estimator
Lori Holland, Project Manager
Monica Raney, Project Manager
Seth Madole, Project Manager

Jill Sawyer, Process Owner


Pat McDermott, Process Owner

IPO Diagram
33.145 Quote Formatting Process (Parent Project)
Input

Output
Missed Revenue
(reduce)
- $ and # of Customer Missed Items

QuoteRequestComplexity/Sophistication
- Size of Job

$ &# of Upfront Negotiated Items


$ & # of Credited Items

- # of Type of Make-ups

CustomerSatisfaction
(increase)
- # of Comments per Quote or Make-up

- Take Off / Sizes Provided


QuoteFormattingSOPs

TechnicalReviewSOPs

ManufacturingLimitations

ISTool / Aurum
EstimatorTraining

EstimatorExperience

CustomerExperience

(Including 33.154)

- $ and # of Project Manager Missed Items

- SpecificationSophistication

Pricing Assignment SOPs

Output Addressed
in Individual Projects

Aurum
Quote
Formatting
Process

- # of Pages Returned per Request or


Make-up
- %and # of Unnecessary Comments
- # of Complaints
- $ & # of Customer Unexpected Charges Paid
-Customer Perception ofPrice Presentation
I.e. %up charges vs flat rates
vs sq. ft. adds
"HiddenCosts"Perception
VariationofFormat
- Font
- Page Breaks
- Orderof Comments
-ConsistencyofCommentWording
CycleTime

Outputs Addressed
in Parent Project

Pareto Chart
Pairwise Comparison for Priority Identification
Items that we may negotiate/credit due to customers misunderstanding/misinterpreting the quote.
60

54
Silkscreen Charges are the easiest to misinterpret HOWEVER
50

Under Coating Minimums charge more opportunity for improvement.

44

41

41
38

40

38
35

33
29

30

28
24
18

20

17

15

10

es

rg

te

ha

uo

C
M

is

on
e
ag
ot

Fo
q.

ht
ig
p
ee

ol
h

ir

um

pa

ut

li n

of

rs
ce

ts
A

dd

fo

ve

rs

iz

tT

ed

re

at

ni

in

es
ea

te
at
P

rn

.M

in

ha

im

rg

um

ge
Ft
q.
S

ne
E

ff

rg

se

tC

ur

ha

ch

rg

ar

es

t
gh
ei
Fr
d
an

g
in
ox
B

ig

nd

er

ilk

oa

sc

tin

re

en

in

ha

im

rg

um

es

IPO Diagram
33.154 Reduce Variation in Quoting and Charging
for Sizes Below Coating Minimum
Estimating
Inputs
Estimating SOP's

Process

Project Management
Outputs
% and # of Occurrences of Units
Below Coating Minimums on Takeoff

Inputs

Process

Quote

- Placement of "Below Coating


Minimums Comment"

Order Processing SOP's

"Below Coating Minimums"


definition

"Below Coating Minimums"


definition

Quote Request Accuracy

- Take-off of sizes provided

Quoting "Units
Below Coating % and # of Quotes with the Under
Minimum"
Coating Minimums Comment
Process
included

Viper Capabilities/Limitations

Manufacturing Limitations

Outputs
% of Occurrences of Lites
Below Coating Minimum and
the additional sq. ft. minimum
was charged (Increase Yield)

Count of Occurrences of Lites


Below Coating Minimum and
the additional sq. ft. minimum
was charged (Increase Yield)

Charging for
"Units Below
Coating
Minimum"
Process

Missed Revenue (Reduce)

Manufacturing Limitations

PM Experience

- $ Value of additional revenue


collected

Estimator Experience

PM Training

% and # of Occurrences of Lites


Below Coating Minimum

Estimator Training

Customer Experience

Customer Experience

% and # of times the Under


Coating Minimum Comment was
Required on Quote

Primary Output
Measured

Opportunity Cost (Lites Below


Coating Minimum)
- $ value of charging the
additional charge for lites "Below
Coating Minimum" minus $ value
of actual price charged

Value Stream
2%
Estimating

Order
Processing

Process Yield

9%
Revenue Yield

Variation

of Including

Comment
Comment Confusion
Internally and Externally

Order

Entry Limitations

Inability

to view sizes
when entering charges
Comment Confusion
Internally and Externally

Define
Problem Statement:
Estimating Issue
The criteria used to classify coated glass lites as
Below Coating Minimums is hard to understand for
us internally, and extremely confusing for the
customer.
Order Processing Issue
The charge is hard to enforce due to order entry
system constraints.

Estimating
Baseline definition of Below Coating Minimums:
IF we can figure out which sizes qualify

What we publish externally:


Minimum coating capacity is 12 x 36 (305mm x 915mm) or 24 x 24
(610mm x 610mm) due to fabricating equipment limitations. Sizes below
these minimums are not included in this quotation. However, Viracon may
approve a limited number of sizes below these coating minimums if design
changes cannot be made to accommodate fabrication limitations. Due to
special equipment manipulations, a 15 square foot (1.39m2) minimum charge
per unit is applicable for all glass types, if approved.
Then we charge

What we publish internally:


TS Coating 085 (A.K.A. The Mike Diedrich Rule)

Estimating
T S -C o a tin g -0 8 5
9 /8 /9 7 R ev . O rig .
Page 1 of 1
( R e p la c e s T S - M a r c o n - 0 8 5 - 6 /2 8 /9 5 )

To:
V ira c o n In s id e S a le s T e a m
F ro m : M ik e D ie d ric h
S u b j: M in im u m S iz e s
T h e f o ll o w in g o u t lin e s th e m in im u m s i z e s th a t y o u c a n ta k e o n o r d e r s /q u o ta tio n s w ith o u t a p p r o v a l b y
m y se lf :
T h e fo llo w in g m in im u m siz e s a p p ly to g la ss 3 /1 6 th ic k o r th ic k e r :
R e c ta n g le s = 2 0 x 2 0
N O T E : O n e d i m e n s i o n c a n b e u n d e r 2 0 , d o w n t o 1 2 , a s l o n g a s t h e o t h e r d i m e n s i o n i s a t l e a s t 2 4 ( i .e . ,
12 x 24)
If o n e d im e n s io n g o e s u n d e r 1 2 , a s th in a s 4 , th e o th e r d im e n s io n m u s t b e a t le a s t 4 8 ( i.e ., 4 x 4 8 )
R ig h t T r ia n g le s = 3 6 x 1 2 B lo c k
N O T E : W ith tr ia n g le s , o n e le g m u s t a lw a y s b e a t le a s t 3 6 a n d th e o th e r le g c a n n o t b e le s s th a n 1 2 .
T h e fo llo w in g m in im u m siz e s a p p ly to g la ss 1 /8 th ic k :
R e c ta n g le s = 2 4 x 1 6
N O T E : If o n d im e n sio n g o e s u n d e r 1 6 , d o w n to 1 2 , th e o th e r d im e n s io n m u st b e a t le a st 3 6
( i.e . 1 2 x 3 6 )
If o n e d im e n s io n g o e s u n d e r 1 2 , d o w n to 8 , th e o th e r d im e n s io n m u s t b e a t le a s t 4 8 ( i.e . 8 x 4 8 )
R ig h t T r ia n g le s = 3 6 x 2 4 B lo c k

Define
Problem Statement:
Estimating Issue
The criteria used to classify coated glass lites as
Below Coating Minimums is hard to understand for
us internally, and extremely confusing for the
customer.
Order Processing Issue
The charge is hard to enforce due to order entry
system constraints.

Process Flow Diagram


Order Entry Baseline Process
PM processes PO
with lites "Below
Coating Minimums"

PM or AAR
processes PO per
SOP's (up to and
including entering
sizes)

y
y
y
y

< 12" x 36" or


< 24" x 24" or
Viper Flag or
TS-Coating-085 Rules

Yes

Write down the line #


for the lites "Below
Coating Minimums"
on PO Team Sheet

At pricing step 1,
change Sq. Ft.
minimum (for line #'s
written down), to
quoted minimum for
lites "Below Coating
Minimums"

No

The criteria for identifying sizes


Below Coating Minimum is very
difficult for us to understand
internally, and even more confusing
for the customer.

The order entry process for sizes


identified as Below Coating
Minimum is completely manual,
and easily overlooked.

Manual Process.

Very Confusing!
Are there sizes
"Below Coating
Minimums"?

Finish processing
PO per SOP's

END

Order Entry
Baseline Process
Order Entry Screen Sq. Ft. minimum is changed for lites
Below Coating Minimum (12 x 36 or 24 x 24)

Charged Sq. Ft. Minimum


Individual lines can be changed.

Where are the dimensions?


How does the person
entering the order know
which lines to change?

Analyze to Define
Current Definitions...
Published
Definition

24" x 24"

Unit Size

4 sq. ft.
New Definition...

Published
Definition

12" x 36"

Internal
Requirements

TS - Coating - 085

Minimum size
producable
without special
handling

20" x 20"

16" x 24"

Unit Size

3 sq. ft.

Unit Size

2.78 sq. ft.

Unit Size

2.67 sq. ft.

All Coated
Lites < 3
sq. ft.

New SOP
Paradigm Shift:
3 Sq. Ft. Definition for Estimating and
Order Entry SOPs
Simplifies Estimating
Reduces Customer Confusion
Order Entry Friendly
Now we can establish a Baseline!

Baseline Historical Performance


Actual Additional Revenue vs. Potential Revenue
Charging a 15 sq. ft. Minimum for Coated Lites < 3 sq. ft.
Data Annualized From Line Data 6/1/04 11/1/04

$ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 2 ,1 9 2 ,8 0 6
$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

We only charged for 9%

$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

of the Potential Revenue!


$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 1 9 2 ,7 4 3
$-

P o te n tia l A d d itio n a l R e v e n u e C h a rg in g a 1 5 s q . ft. m in .

A d d itio n a l R e v e n u e A c tu a lly
C h a rg e d

Baseline Historical Performance


Count of Coated Lites < 3 sq. ft.
Data Annualized From Line Data 6/1/04 11/1/04

40,000

36,512

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

A 15 sq. ft. minimum was only


15,000

charged 2% of the time!


10,000

758

5,000

# of Lites Below Coating Minimum

# of Lites Below Coating Minimum AND 15


sq. ft. Minimum was Charged

Measure
Cpk / Sigma Level / DPMO

Measure
DPMO / Sigma Capability
Baseline Process
L100 Worksheet - Sigma Scorecard for Attributes

CTQ

Baseline 06/01/04 - 11/31/04

Defects

Units

DPMO

Yield

Short Term Sigma


Capability (Zst)

17,877

18,256

979,240

2.08%

-0.54

Analyze

CE / CNX
Quick Hit Improvements
Histogram
FMEA
Improvement Plans Identified

CE / CNX
Measures

Manpower

Blue = Main Causes

Methods
No clear defination of
what "Under Coating
Minimums" is (C)

Estimator Training (C)

No SOP for
internal time
requirements (C)

PM Experience (C)

SOP unclear for entering


sizes below coating
m inimums (C)
SW R Requirements not clearly
defined (C)

PM Training (C)
Current procedure for
entering sizes below coating
minimums very manual and
time consuming (C)

Communication
Skills (C)

Customer Time
Requirements (N)

Customer Education (C)

Computer
Skills (C)
Estimator
Experience (C)

Market Conditions
(C)

Viper
Limitations (C)

Customer
Expectations (N)

Risk Level (C)

SOP unclear for


quoting sizes below
coating minimums (C)

Sizes and quantities


different on PO than
provided at quote time (N)
Square Foot
Calculator (C)

Aurum
Limitations (N)

No SOP for quote


w/o a take-off (C)

Manufacturing
Limitations (N)

Environment

Machines

Materials

Variation in
quoting and
charging for
coated lites
"Below
Coating
Minimums"

No take-off of sizes
and quantities at
quote stage (N)

CE / CNX

Causes Addressed:
Manpower

Measures

Estimating Confusion
Customer Confusion

Blue = Main Causes

No clear defination of
what "Under Coating
Minimums" is (C)

No SOP for
internal time
requirements (C)

PM Experience (C)

SOP unclear for entering


sizes below coating
minimums (C)

SW R Requirements not clearly


defined (C)

PM Training (C)

Current procedure for


entering sizes below coating
minimums very manual and
time consuming (C)

Communication
Skills (C)

Customer Time
Requirements (N)

Customer Education (C)


Computer
Skills (C)

Estimator
Experience (C)

Order Processing Confusion


Order Entry Program Limitations
Unclear SOPs
Varied SOP Compliance

Methods

Estimator Training (C)

Market Conditions
(C)

Viper
Limitations (C)

Customer
Expectations (N)

Risk Level (C)

SOP unclear for


quoting sizes below
coating minimums (C)

Sizes and quantities


different on PO than
provided at quote time (N)

Square Foot
Calculator (C)

Aurum
Limitations (N)
No SOP for quote
w/o a take-off (C)

Manufacturing
Limitations (N)

Environment

Machines

Materials

Variation in
quoting and
charging for
coated lites
"Below
Coating
Minimums"

No take-off of sizes
and quantities at
quote stage (N)

Analyze
Order Entry Interim Process
(Quick Hit Improvement)
Order Entry Screen Sq. Ft. minimum is changed for lites
Below Coating Minimum ( < 3 sq. ft.)

Charged Sq. Ft. Minimum


Lines to be changed are obvious.

15.0
15.0
15.0

Sort Calculated Unit Size


from smallest to largest
Easy to identify lites < 3 sq. ft.

Analyze
Quick Hit Improvement
Charging for Coated Lites < 3 sq. ft.
Additional Revenue Charged: Baseline Process -vs- Interim Process
From Line Data 6/1/04 - 6/30/05
$140,000.00

Baseline Process

Interim Process

~ $16K/Month

~ $95K/Month

$120,000.00

$100,000.00

$80,000.00

$60,000.00

9% of Potential Revenue

49% of Potential Revenue

$40,000.00

$20,000.00

No Data Available
Dec 04 & Jan 05
$0.00
Jun-04

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Analyze
Quick Hit Improvement
Additional Revenue Collected for Coated Lites < 3 sq. ft.
From Line Data 2/3/05 3/6/05
$2,772
2%

PIF

Credits

We can charge for it,


but will customers pay for it?
YES!

$131,405
98%

Improvement Plans Identified

Baseline and Interim Process:


Charged a 15 sq. ft. minimum for lites Under
Coating Minimums
Market Perception: Viracon is charging as much as a 15
sq. ft. minimum!

Manual Order Entry Process

Improvement Plans Identified


Next Step:
Automate the process
Get Rid of the 15 sq. ft. Minimum
New programming assigns charge at order entry.
Charge: $35.00 each

ALL coated lites < 3 sq. ft.


Programming to mirror other charging processes.
Process is no longer manual.
Process Yield improvements expected.

Analyze
Why $35.00 Each?
Norm al Distribution

M ean = $59.456

Histogram

Std Dev = 32.727


KS Test p-value = .0000

Difference Betw een Actual Charge and the


Hypothetical 15 Sq. Ft. Minimum Charge for < 3 Sq. Ft.

W eighted Average is $54.78

1400
1200

Each Price w e need to charge


to equal a 15 sq. ft. minimum

800
600
400
200

615. to <= 630.

405. to <= 420.

315. to <= 330.

285. to <= 300.

195. to <= 210.

165. to <= 180.

135. to <= 150.

105. to <= 120.

75. to <= 90.

45. to <= 60.

0
15. to <= 30.

# Observations

1000

Analyze
Why $35.00 Each?
Potential Additional Revenue Based on Per Lite (Each) Charge
All Coated Lites/Units < 3 sq. ft.
From Line Data 6/1/04 - 11/30/04
$ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 2 M o n th E s tim a te
$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$35 Each
$ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0

is a charge

that the market could accept

$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0

TOO HIGH!
$-

A ll U n its < 3 s q . ft.

$ 2 5 /u n it

$ 3 5 /u n it

$ 4 5 /u n it

$ 5 5 /u n it

W e ig h te d
A v e ra g e $ 5 4 .7 8

$ 9 1 2 ,8 0 0

$ 1 ,2 7 7 ,9 2 0

$ 1 ,6 4 3 ,0 4 0

$ 2 ,0 0 8 ,1 6 0

$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 6 2

FMEA
Implementing new VIPER order entry system
Product or Process

Failure Mode (Possible Failure)

S
Failure Effects (Effect of failure on
E
Product/User)
V

Causes

O
C
C

Controls (How can failure be


eliminated/reduced?)

D R
E P
T N

Customer does not send a complete


take-off

Viracon does not quote Under Coating


Minimum charge -Missed Revenue

Customer doesn't understand the


importance of sending a take-off

Customer Education

24

Estimator Conducts Technical


Screening of Sizes

Estimator misses a size

Viracon does not quote Under Coating


Minimum charge -Missed Revenue

Multi-tasking

Allow estimator more time to do review

120

Add Under Coating Mininimum


Comment

Forget to add comment

Missed Revenue

Take-off was not complete/Multi-tasking

Put comment on every quote

42

Add Under Coating Mininimum


Comment

Comment Buried in quote

Customer Dissatisfaction

Quote is to complex

Bold comment - make it stand out more

288

Add Under Coating Mininimum


Comment

Misinterpretation of Comment

Customer Dissatisfaction

Comment too complicated

Easier to understand comment

120

Customer Education

56

Customer Requests Quote

PO Comes in

Sizes different than quoted

Missed Revenue / Customer Dissatisfaction

No take-off supplied - Building Design


change

Enter All Sizes in Viper

Enter wrong size

Customer Dissatisfaction

Not following SOP

Enforce SOP's

Charge based on old comment (15


sq. ft. min) / convert to new charge

Failure to communicate options to


customer

Customer Dissatisfaction

Did not communicate with customer

Communicate with customers

24

If using the old comment (15 sq. ft.


minimum) - at PCM Product Pricing
change to charge $0.

Customer could be charged twice

Customer Dissatisfaction

Not following SOP

Clear SOP's / Convert all customers to new


system

If using the old comment (15 sq. ft.


minimum) - Sort Sizes

Forget to Sort

Missed Revenue

Not following SOP

Clear SOP's / Have Viper flag the sizes

If using the old comment (15 sq. ft.


minimum) - Change to 15 sq ft min

Forget to change to 15 sq ft min

Missed Revenue

Not following SOP / Multi-tasking

Enforce SOP's

128

If using the old comment (15 sq. ft.


minimum) - Change to 15 sq ft min

Forget to change all appropriate lines to


15 sq ft min
Missed Revenue

Enforce SOP's

128

If using the old comment (15 sq. ft.


minimum) - Change to 15 sq ft min

Enter the wrong sq. ft min

Missed Revenue

Not following SOP / Multi-tasking

Enforce SOP's

112

New system - Viper Autocalculates


the charge

System Failure

Missed Revenue

Progammed incorrrectly

Test Code

New system - Viper Autocalculates


the charge

Improper Logic

Missed Revenue

Progammed incorrrectly

Test Code

Failure Modes:
Automation Transition
Ongoing Projects

*
512
384

Improve
Error Proofing
Order Entry Process

Improve
Error Proofing

Estimating:
New Comment is automatically included on all
quoted glass quotes.
Coating Minimum Charge
In addition to the square foot price and applicable square foot minimum quoted for this job,
there will be a charge of $35 per coated lite/unit for all lites/units less than 3 square feet. All
coated lites/units less than 2 square feet require manufacturing approval.

Project Management:
Entire process is now automated.
Order entry program automatically calculates the
charge.
No action required by operator.

Improve
Order Entry

Automatically Applies:
- Coated Make-ups
- Sizes < 3 Sq. Ft.

Control

Control Chart
Run Chart
SOPs Order Entry Process is Automated
Estimator Pricing Guideline Sheets (PGS)
ISOd

Control
p Chart
Per Line Defect Rate
Baseline, Interim and Automated Process
1.4

1.2

CEN=0.97513

Baseline
CEN=0.7202

UCL=1.03353

Interim

UCL=0.90878

LCL=0.91673

Automated

0.8

CEN=0.30995
0.6
LCL=0.53162

UCL=0.4587

0.4

0.2
LCL=0.16121

55

53

51

49

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

Control
Per Line Process Yield by Week
Baseline, Interim and Automated Process
Automated Process
7/18/05 9/30/05

90%
80%
70%

Process Yield

60%

Interim Process
2/3/05 6/30/05

50%
40%
30%

Baseline Process
June Nov 04

20%
10%
0%
1

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

Week #

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

Control
Estimating Pricing Guideline Sheets (PGS)
Estimating SOPs in the ISO Documentation System
Coating Minimums
Coated Units/Lites < 3 sq. Ft.

$35.00

Each

?Coating minimum comment must be included on all coated glass


quotes
?Each
Charge is added in addtion to the sq. ft. price and applicable sq. ft.
minumum

? All orders which were previously quoted with


a 15 sq. ft. min. will be converted to the Each
charge.

Management approval required for all price


deviations

Units/Lites < 2 sq. ft. require SWR approval.


Reference SWR Guidelines for additional
considerations

Results
Before and After
Process Capability: Cpk / Sigma / DPMO
Estimating Comment
Customer Invoicing

Financial Benefits
Soft Benefits

Results
Sigma Capability
L100 Worksheet - Sigma Scorecard for Attributes

Defects

Units

DPMO

Yield

Short Term Sigma


Capability (Zst)

17,877

18,256

979,240

2.08%

-0.54

Interim 02/03/05 - 03/30/05

3,836

15,608

245,771

75.42%

2.19

Automated 07/18/05 - 09/30/05

1,110

5,742

193,312

80.67%

2.37

3,626

1,379

99.86%

4.49

CTQ

Baseline 06/01/04 - 11/31/04

New Products Aug 05

Estimating Comment
Before:
Minimum coating capacity is 12 x 36 (305mm x 915mm) or 24 x 24 (610mm x
610mm) due to fabricating equipment limitations. Sizes below these minimums
are not included in this quotation. However, Viracon may approve a limited
number of sizes below these coating minimums if design changes cannot be
made to accommodate fabrication limitations. Due to special equipment
manipulations, a 15 square foot (1.39m2) minimum charge per unit is applicable
for all glass types, if approved.

After:
In addition to the square foot price and applicable square foot minimum quoted for
this job, there will be a charge of $35 per coated lite/unit for all lites/units less than
3 square feet. All coated lites/units less than 2 square feet require manufacturing
approval.

Improve
Customer Invoicing
Old Invoices
Charge is buried.
No explanation
Customers Confusion

New Invoices
Clear Charge Purpose
Price Obvious.

Results
Baseline Process
Identification
Criteria

Order Entry
Process

Order Entry
Process

Additional
Charge

Invoicing

Hard to
understand

Interim Process

New Process

Easy to
understand

Easy to
understand a

12" x 36" or 24" x 24"

< 3 sq. ft.

< 3 sq. ft.

Manual

Manual

Many Steps

Improved

Improved

2 Steps

Confusing

Confusing

15 sq. ft. Min

15 sq. ft. Min

Unclear

Unclear

Improved

Improved
More

Automated

No Steps
(Automated)

Improved

Clearly
Defined
$35.00 Each

Improved

Easy to
Understand

Results
Charging for Lites "Below Coating Minimums"
Process Yield (% of Occurences)
120%

100%
100%

75%

80%

79%

60%

40%

20%

2%
0%

Baseline Process Jun Interim Process 2/3 to


- Nov 04
6/30

Automated Process
7/18 to 9/30

Newly Added Products


Aug 05

Results
Charging for Lites "Below Coating Minimums"
% of Potential Revenue
120%

100%

100%

$80,000 $100,000 per Month


$960,000 $1,200,000 Annualized

80%

60%

77%

49%

40%

20%

9%

0%

Baseline Process Jun Interim Process 2/3 to


- Nov 04
6/30

Automated Process
7/18 to 9/30

Newly Added Products


Aug 05

White Paper
Date: 10/28/05
Problem Statement:
The criteria used to classify coated glass lites as Below Coating Minimums is hard to
understand for us internally, and extremely confusing for the customer.
The charge is hard to enforce due to order entry system constraints.
Objective:
Reduce value stream defects.
Implement an appropriate charge that the market can bear.
Tools Used:
IPO Diagram
PF
CE / CNX
FMEA
Pareto Chart
Histogram
Sigma Capability
Error Proofing
SOPs

White Paper (Cont.)


Knowledge Gained:
Our definition of Under Coating Minimums was so complicated, everyone in the
value stream had a difficult time identifying qualifying lites.
The order entry process was completely manual, so charging for these lites was
difficult, and easily forgotten.
It was essential that Under Coating Minimums be re-defined in a way that was
useful throughout the entire value stream.
16% of all jobs with coated glass have lites < 3 sq. ft.
3% of all coated lites are < 3 sq. ft.

Business Results:
Increased Potential Revenue 9% to 77%.
Expect 98 - 100% once all existing jobs have been processed
Increased process yield from 2% to 79%.
Expect 98 - 100% once all existing jobs have been processed
The approximate additional annualized revenue: $960,000 to $1,200,00.
Removed market perception of excessive sq. ft. minimums.

Re-evaluation
Count of Coated Lites < 3 Sq. Ft.
By Month
From Line Data June 2004 April 2006
Individuals Chart
7000

6000

UCL=5973.8

5000

4000

Process Automated 7/18/05

CEN=3488.8

3000

UCL=2623.1
CEN=1855.9

2000

1000

LCL=1088.7

LCL=1003.8

0
Jun- Jul-04 Aug- Sep04
04
04

Oct04

Nov- Dec04
04

Jan05

Feb05

Mar05

Apr05

May- Jun- Jul-05 Aug- Sep05


05
05
05

Oct05

Nov- Dec05
05

Jan06

Feb06

Mar06

Apr06

Re-evaluation
Count of Coated Lites < 3 Sq. Ft.
By Month
From Line Data June 2004 April 2006
6,000

5,000

Process Automated 7/18/05

4,946
4,743

4,350
4,033

4,000

3,891

3,816

3,626
3,159

3,000

2,922

2,833

3,211

2,829
2,677

2,660

2,636

2,131

2,116

2,000

By Enforcing Charge:

2,013
1,823
1,617

1,704
1,371

Quantity Produced has been

1,000

2,072

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July 2005

June 2005

May 2005

April 2005

March 2005

February 2005

January 2005

December 2004

November 2004

October 2004

September 2004

July 2004

June 2004

August 2004

Reduced by > 50%

Re-evaluation
Coated Lites < 3 Sq. Ft. as a Percent of ALL Coated Lites
By Month
From Line Data June 2004 April 2006

4.50%
4.18%

4.00%

Process Automated 7/18/05


3.50%

3.53%

3.43%

3.23%

3.14%

3.00%
2.71%

2.70%

2.58%

2.50%

2.39%

2.47%

2.39%

2.49%
2.30%

2.40%

2.37%

2.00%

1.95%

2.03%

1.94%
1.75%

1.73%
1.56%

1.50%

1.52%

Reduced Qty Produced was NOT

1.39%

Due to Reduced Volume

1.00%

Coated Glass
0.50%

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July 2005

June 2005

May 2005

April 2005

March 2005

February 2005

January 2005

December 2004

November 2004

October 2004

September 2004

August 2004

July 2004

June 2004

0.00%

Re-evaluation
Process Yield Charging for Coated Lites < 3 sq. ft.
By Week
From Line Data June 2004 April 2006
100%

Baseline

90%

Interim

Automated

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Expect Process Yield


to Continue to Improve

20%

as Existing Jobs are Completed


10%

0%
1

10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97