Control Tollgate


Published on

Lean Six Sigma project final phase.

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Expectations from the Measure Phase A detailed process map has been developed by the team and reflects key customer requirements and process variables. Key input, process and output metrics have been identified for data collection (potential Critical X’s) The relationship between process inputs and customer requirements has been investigated to provide a direction for the Analysis Phase. Special cause variation is reduced/removed providing an accurate picture of the process. A measurement system is in place and it’s error is understood. Baseline capability has been established and a path forward has been identified. A detailed project plan for the next phase exists, is realistic and reflects a more accurate financial impact statement. Who Should Attend Green Belt or Black Belt Required Project Leader Required Project Sponsor Required Process Owner Required (if not = Project Sponsor) Project Team Nice to have; Required for M, A, I, and C Stakeholders Required/Strongly Recommended Deployment Director Recommended Senior Management As possible or at DD request Master Black Belt Strongly Recommended (if available to attend)
  • Control Tollgate

    1. 1. Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Control Tollgate Date: 25/09/08
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Project Charter Review </li></ul><ul><li>Measure, Analyze, and Improve Phase Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Revised Process Capability </li></ul><ul><li>Process Control/Response Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Measurement System Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Standard Operating Procedures and Training Plans </li></ul><ul><li>Process Monitoring and Stabilization </li></ul><ul><li>Transition to Process Owner </li></ul><ul><li>Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers/Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Next Steps </li></ul><ul><li>Project Contributors </li></ul><ul><li>Storyboard </li></ul>
    3. 3. Control – Executive Summary <ul><li>Improve tank maintenance quality by giving the 1/16 soldiers more time to perform maintenance during the draw. </li></ul><ul><li>The project starts at the FTX/STX2 T-6 IPR and ends when the tanks are ready for HETT transport. This project is contained within the Fort Knox Garrison and can transfer to other training support missions on Fort Knox. </li></ul><ul><li>We are feeling the pain in training and tank maintenance. </li></ul><ul><li>Soldiers fail to do a quality PMCS for the lack of time, training, and command emphasis. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Project Charter Review <ul><li>Scope: this process begins with the T-6 IPR and ends when 1/16 loads the tanks on HETT’s. </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: Improve tank draw quality </li></ul>Problem/Goal Statement Tollgate Review Schedule Business Impact Core Team <ul><li>State financial impact of project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expenses-none </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investments-none </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revenues-potential savings in time 819 hours per year </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Quantifiable Benefits are increased tank maintenance quality, soldiers morale, maintenance fault tracking, and less training time lost. </li></ul><ul><li>PES Name MAJ Mackey, Andre </li></ul><ul><li>PS Name MAJ Mackey, Andre </li></ul><ul><li>DD Name COL Leopoldo Quintas </li></ul><ul><li>GB/BB Name SFC Henry, Don </li></ul><ul><li>MBB Name Nathan Sprague </li></ul><ul><li>Core Team Role % Contrib. LSS Training </li></ul><ul><li>CW2 Warren SME 20% none </li></ul><ul><li>MAJ Aydelott SME 20% none </li></ul><ul><li>MAJ Mackey SME 20% none </li></ul><ul><li>SSG Jones SME 10% none </li></ul><ul><li>CW4 Lucy SME 10% none </li></ul><ul><li>SFC Henry BB 100% BB </li></ul>Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 04/30/08 - 04/29/08 Measure: 05/14/08 04/06/08 06/04/08 Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 08/05/08 Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 09/05/08 Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 09/29/08 <ul><li>Reduce rework during tank draw from 90% to 45%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>Improve 5988-E fault tracking during tank draw from 10% to 85%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>Improve tank bumper number accuracy from 10% to 90%, during the T-2 preparation week by 1 October 2008. </li></ul>Problem Statement Soldiers of 1/16 express dissatisfaction with the Unit Maintenance Activities M1 series tank quality prior to mission support. Currently, 90% of the tanks drawn require maintenance for mission readiness. Approximately 10% of faults listed on the 5988-E ‘s completed by soldiers are tracked by UMA. Lastly, tank bumper number accuracy during T-2 is currently at 10% which causes excess work in the last days of the mission support draw.
    5. 5. Measure Review Baseline Data Tools Used Process Capability Recommended Quick Wins/RIEs <ul><li>Root cause: BII requires excess resources to draw. The BII and tank draw compliment each other. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quick Win #1-Use 5S to reduce the time and personnel required to draw BII and use those resources during the tank draw. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Detailed process mapping </li></ul><ul><li>Measurement Systems Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Value Stream Mapping </li></ul><ul><li>Data Collection Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Histograms </li></ul><ul><li>Operational Definitions </li></ul><ul><li>5s </li></ul><ul><li>Generic Pull </li></ul><ul><li>Dotplot Matrix </li></ul>Baseline Quality #1: To-date, 33% of tanks presented for draw are not ready for issue. Baseline Quality #2 : To-date, 10% of 5988-E faults annotated by soldiers during tank draw is updated by UMA clerks. Baseline Quality #3 : To-date, 67% of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 at T-2 by UMA is actually drawn for mission support. The current tank draw process is capable of issuing 2 tanks per hour with a 33% critical maintenance defect rate.
    6. 6. Analyze Review Impact of Root Causes: Hypothesis Tests Tools Used Reducing List of Root Causes Prioritized Root Causes / Effects <ul><li>Root cause #1: No visual tracking method </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect-in-accurate bumper numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Root cause #2: 5988-E’s not completed correctly </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect-poor tank maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Root cause #3: 5988-E’s are not updated regularly </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect-poor tank maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Root cause #4: Tanks issued that are not ready for issue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effect-rework </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Value Add Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Pareto Plot </li></ul><ul><li>Histogram </li></ul><ul><li>One-Way ANOVA </li></ul><ul><li>C&E Matrix </li></ul><ul><li>Cause & Effect Diagram </li></ul><ul><li>FMEA </li></ul><ul><li>Process Capability </li></ul>
    7. 7. Improve Review “ To-Be” Process Map Implementation Plan Solution Selection Pilot Results Solution A = a 75 % improvement in accuracy of bumper #’s (75% of 40%=30%) Solution B = a 50 % improvement of maintenance quality (50% of 30%=15%) Solution C = a 50 % improvement of vehicle tracking (50% of 30%=15%) <ul><ul><li>The pilot displayed the anticipated results. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The plan for conducting the pilot was effective. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvements that can be made are the usability of the vehicle tracking board and investigation into automation of the tracking board. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The solutions can be implemented “as-is” but minor changes would improve user satisfaction. These changes should be made </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The solutions should remain in place in the maintenance bay. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lessons learned from the pilot are that simplicity and defined roles of the mechanics and maintenance leader are very important and need to be applied during solution implementation to avoid confusion. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The goals of the pilot were achieved. </li></ul></ul>QAQC Maintenance Manager Dispatch Soldier Issues prescreened bumper number list to soldier Hand receipt Vehicle signed over to soldier Avg. Delay 30 min Soldier conducts PMCS and updates 5988-E, turns it in to maintenance supervisor Passes QAQC Receives signed QAQC sheet Vehicle dispatched to soldier YES NO NVA time is in dark blue, Total delay time is reduced to .5 hours Retrieves info from RATSS system Notify UMA of the # of tanks needed Mechanics Maintenance manager checks bumper number list and 5988-E, verifies faults and makes repairs if needed Solutions Trackable Causes Accurate Bumper #’s 40% Increased quality maintenance 30% Improved vehicle tracking 30% Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed 1 Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process 1/16 Maintenance Officer 1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 2 Maintenance personnel PMCS training UMA Training manager UMA Program manager Human resources UMA leadership 3 Tracking board updates Maintenance leader Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers 4 5988-E updates UMA ULLS clerk Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 5 Issue of bumper number list to Soldiers Maintenance leader Maintenance leader Mechanics/QAQC 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 6
    8. 8. Process Control/Response Plan
    9. 9. Measurement System Analysis <ul><li>The measurement systems are acceptable. The data is considered to have no potential for significant error. Will appropriately use the data during the Analyze Phase. </li></ul>Type of Measurement Error Description Considerations to this Project Discrimination (resolution) The ability of the measurement system to divide measurements into “data categories” Work hours can be measured to .25 hours. Tank draw times are measured to +- .25 hours. Bias The difference between an observed average measurement result and a reference value No bias - Work hours and draw start-stop times consistent through the population. Stability The change in bias over time No bias of work hours and draw data. Repeatability The extent variability is consistent Not an issue. Labor and tank usage is based on course requirements, so it is historical and felt to be accurate enough for insight and analysis. Reproducibility Different appraisers produce consistent results Usage data deemed not reproducible, therefore was not considered in determining which were used during the tank draw Variation The difference between tanks Tanks are either Fully Mission Capable or Non Fully Mission Capable.
    10. 10. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Training Plans SOPs Requiring Revision Required Training SOPs Requiring Revision Responsible Status EXSOP Joe Massouda and MAJ Douglas Aydelott In process Required Training Responsible Status UMA employees (PMCS Training) Reed Lyons In Process 16 th Cavalry Soldiers (PMCS Training) Various Troop Commanders In Process
    11. 11. Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures Takt time sheet to be used in vehicle issue times and monitor throughput
    12. 12. Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures Map board to be used in vehicle tracking and aid in bumper number accuracy
    13. 13. Transition to Process Owner: RACI Chart R = Responsible – The person who performs the action/task. A = Accountable – The person who is held accountable that the action/task is completed. C = Consulted – The person(s) who is consulted before performing the action/task. I = Informed – The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task. Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed 1 Map board updates Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Mechanics and soldiers 16 th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager 2 Takt Time Sheet annotation Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Mechanics Maintenance supervisor (UMA) 16 th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager 3 Bumper number list updates Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Mechanics and Maintenance supervisor (UMA) UMA program manager 16 th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager 4 Maintenance training (UMA) UMA program manager UMA program manager UMA program manager 16 th Cav Leadership 5 Maintenance training (soldiers) 16 th Cav Leadership 16 th Cav Leadership Unit Motor Officer Unit Motor Officer 16 th Cav Leadership
    14. 14. <ul><li>Modify performance review criteria for the mechanics and maintenance supervisors where necessary. </li></ul><ul><li>Modify the Process Owner’s performance review criteria to include long term vehicle issue times and improvement requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>Define and document long term metrics for the military and civilian leadership to analyze and brief quarterly. </li></ul>Transition to Process Owner: Other Steps
    15. 15. Transition to Process Owner: Lessons Learned <ul><li>Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Communications </li></ul><ul><li>Team building </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational activities </li></ul><ul><li>Other </li></ul>
    16. 16. Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits <ul><li>Replication Opportunities within the Army </li></ul><ul><ul><li>#1 Lean Kits for Basic Issue Items (BII) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>#2 Maintenance (PMCS) Training and visualized tracking methods </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Financial Benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expenses $5000 (BII issue boxes estimate) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Investments BII issue Boxes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Revenues Saved an estimated 830 hours per year, $16500 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Operational Benefits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>#1 Less time and personnel required to draw and issue BII </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>#2 Higher quality vehicle maintenance with greater awareness of vehicle status </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log <ul><li>Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Unexpected delays </li></ul><ul><li>Team or organizational issues </li></ul><ul><li>Updated risk analysis and mitigation plan </li></ul><ul><li>Revised project scope </li></ul>Lean Six Sigma Project Action Log         Last Revised: 09/09/2008   No Description/ Recommendation Status Open/Closed/Hold Due Date Revised Due Date Resp. Comments / Resolution 1 Leave of critical team member     14 May   4 May     2 Larger multi-colored Push Pins Closed  9 Sep.  n/a   SFC Henry Identified on 3 Sep.  3 Investigate possible IT tracker   Open   TBD     UMA program Manager   4           5          
    18. 18. Next Steps <ul><li>Key action for transition, updated SOP, Maintenance Training </li></ul><ul><li>Unresolved questions to answer, none at this time </li></ul><ul><li>Barrier/risk mitigation activities, </li></ul>
    19. 19. Project Contributors Team Member Project Contribution Andre Mackey, MAJ Champion Douglas Aydelott, MAJ Assistant Champion Joe Massouda, Program Manager Process Owner Reed Lyons, Supervisor Subject Matter Expert (SME) Richard Pryor, Basic Issue Items SME Don Henry, SFC Black Belt (Project Leader) Nathan Sprague Master Black Belt These team members contributed to the success of this project!
    20. 20. Analyze Storyboard Define Project Charter T-6 IPR T2T RATSS T-5 T2T T-4 T2T T-3 T2T T-2 IPR vehicle Bumper #s Given to unit T-1 Tank draw, HETT, 5988-E update Measure BII draw measured Tank draw measured 5988-E updates measured RIE Baselines collected Critical X’s Identified Potential Root Causes Identified Root Causes Prioritized Analyze Improve Potential solutions identified Pilot test/results Implementation Plan developed Control Update SOP’s Train, train, train Process owner takes over! Problem: Poor tank quality at issue Goal: Improve tank quality at issue, Reduce rework, improve fault tracking Non-quantifiable Benefits Morale, tank maintenance, fault tracking Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed 1 Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process 1/16 Maintenance Officer 1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 2 Hiring of more maintenance personnel UMA Hiring manager UMA Program manager Human resources UMA leadership 3 Tracking board updates Maintenance leader Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers 4 5988-E updates UMA ULLS clerk Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 5 Issue of bumper number list to Soldiers Maintenance leader Maintenance leader Mechanics/QAQC 1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel 6
    21. 21. Sign Off <ul><li>Policies & Procedures for the Improve and Control phases were documented and communicated on 25/09/08 . </li></ul><ul><li>I understand the New Policies and Procedures. </li></ul><ul><li>I understand and take responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the Control/Response Plan. </li></ul><ul><li>I will report the progress on this subprocess on a regular basis to the customer (internal or external). </li></ul><ul><li>I have reviewed this project’s final financial and/or operational benefit estimates with the Deployment Director, Sponsor, and Resource Manager and they have been entered into PowerSteering. </li></ul><ul><li>I understand the corrective action procedure and am responsible for ensuring that action items are completed to hold the gains and capture the benefits. </li></ul>CW4 David Lucy Resource Manager/Finance COL Leopoldo Quintas Deployment Director SFC Don H. Henry II Black Belt Nathan Sprague Master Black Belt MAJ Andre L. Mackey Sponsor / Process Owner
    22. 22. Control Tollgate Checklist <ul><li>Has the team prepared all the essential documentation for the improved process, including revised/new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), a training plan, and a process control system? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the necessary training for process owners/operators been performed? </li></ul><ul><li>Have the right measures been selected, and documented as part of the Process Control System, to monitor performance of the process and the continued effectiveness of the solution? Has the metrics briefing plan/schedule been documented? Who owns the measures? Has the Process Owner’s job description been updated to reflect the new responsibilities? What happens if minimum performance is not achieved? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the solution been effectively implemented? Has the team compiled results data confirming that the solution has achieved the goals defined in the Project Charter? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the Financial Benefit Summary been completed? Has the Resource Manager reviewed it? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the process been transitioned to the Process Owner, to take over responsibility for managing continuing operations? Do they concur with the control plan? </li></ul><ul><li>Has a final Storyboard documenting the project work been developed? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the team forwarded other issues/opportunities, which were not able to be addressed, to senior management? </li></ul><ul><li>Have “lessons learned” been captured? </li></ul><ul><li>Have replication opportunities been identified and communicated? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the hard work and successful efforts of our team been celebrated? </li></ul>Has the team implemented the solution, and a control plan to insure the process is robust to change? <ul><li>Deliverables: </li></ul><ul><li>SOP’s </li></ul><ul><li>Training Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Process Control System </li></ul><ul><li>Financial Benefit Worksheets (Type 1 or 2 savings) </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits Realization Schedule, validated by Resource Manager </li></ul><ul><li>Validated Solution </li></ul><ul><li>Replication/ Standardization Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons Learned </li></ul><ul><li>Transitioned Project </li></ul><ul><li>Project Risk Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Green Belt/Black Belt Actions: </li></ul><ul><li>Deliverables Uploaded in PowerSteering </li></ul><ul><li>Deliverables Inserted into the Project “Notebook” (see Deployment Director) </li></ul>Tollgate Review Stop