• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Define Tollgate
 

Define Tollgate

on

  • 7,422 views

Lean Six Sigma Define Phase presentation.

Lean Six Sigma Define Phase presentation.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,422
Views on SlideShare
7,415
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
61
Comments
0

3 Embeds 7

http://www.linkedin.com 5
http://www.lmodules.com 1
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • What Is a Tollgate Review? A formal event that the project must pass through at each phase of the project (D-M-A-I-C) Formal power point presentation(s) followed by Tollgate review questions and discussion The Tollgate review ends with a Go/No-Go decision by the Sponsor and/or Deployment Director If No-Go, then further actions need to be defined in order to pass the tollgate OR stop the project 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)

Define Tollgate Define Tollgate Presentation Transcript

  • Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Don H. Henry II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Define Tollgate Date: 30/04/08
  • Agenda
    • Background Information
    • SIPOC
    • Process Map
    • Voice of the Customer
    • Voice of the Business
    • Team Selection and Launch
    • Communication Plan
    • Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan
    • Project Charter Validation
    • Lessons Learned
    • Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log
    • Next Steps
    • Define Storyboard
    • Sign Off
    • Tollgate Checklist
  • Background Information
    • Soldiers perform unnecessary rework during the FTX/STX2 tank draw process drawing tanks that are not mission ready.
    • The tanks drawn are often fully mission capable (FMC) but have deficiencies that are consistently unaddressed by UMA personnel.
    • These deficiencies impact the serviceability of the tank and effectiveness of training.
  • SIPOC Map C ustomers
    • 1/16 Soldiers
    S uppliers
    • UMA
    VOC VOB
    • reduce rework by 50%
    • Improve fault tracking
    • Improve bumper # accuracy
    Quality Quality Quality I nputs P rocess O utputs
    • Tanks
    • Completed 5988-E’s
    • 5988-E
    • EXSOP
    • RATSS
    • IPR
    • LRTC
    • Troop to Task
    • Deadline report
    • Service sched.
    • AOAP sched.
    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 Input Metrics Process Metrics Output Metrics  Number of tanks drawn from UMA by 1/16 not ready to support FTX/STX2 training (due for services, AOAP schedule, deadline report, or RATSS for another unit.)  Number of tank faults annotated on the 5988-E by 1/16 soldiers (based on the troop to task) during FTX/STX2 tank draw.  Number of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 at T-2 (based on the LRTC, IPR, RATSS, and EXSOP) by UMA for FTX/STX2 mission support.  Number of tank bumper numbers presented at T-2 by UMA actually drawn for FTX/STX2 mission support.  Number of total tanks drawn from UMA at day one of T-2 by 1/16 that are ready to support FTX/STX2 training.  Number of tank 5988-E faults updated during FTX/STX2 tank draw by UMA clerks. % of tanks drawn from UMA by 1/16 soldiers during T-1 that are ready to support FTX/STX2 training. % of 5988-E faults annotated by soldiers during FTX/STX2 tank draw that are updated by UMA clerks during. % of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 for FTX/STX2 mission support at T-2 by UMA actually drawn by 1/16 soldiers during T-1 to support training. M1 series Draw Process
  • Basic Mission Support Process Map T-6 T-4 T-5 Leadership attends T-6 IPR RATSS updated Initial Troop to Task T-3 T-1 T-2 Verify contracts Troop to task revised Other training aids requested Verify contracts Troop to Task revised Bumper numbers presented, gun cards checked Tank draw begins Tank draw continues Draw everything else Stage tanks and prep for HETT movement Verify contracts
  • Voice of the Customer (VOC) Voice of the Customer Key Customer Issue(s) Critical Customer Requirement What does the customer want from us? What does the customer want from us? We need to identify the issue(s) that prevent us from satisfying our customers. We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and measurable requirements Soldiers want to draw tanks that are mission ready. tanks scheduled for services causes rework Draw mission ready tanks that are not scheduled for service. Updated 5988-E’s to reflect soldier PMCS work. Poor PMCS and/or no fault updates by UMA UMA updates 5988-E to reflect the soldiers PMCS An unchanging list of tank bumper numbers by T-2 to facilitate the draw Wrong tank bumper numbers presented during T-2/T-1 causes extra work. Lock-in a solid tank bumper number list by T-2
  • Voice of the Business (VOB) Voice of the Business Key Process Issue's Critical Business Requirement We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and measurable requirements Higher quality tank maintenance UMA keeps tanks FMC but not to 10/20 standards. Fix all deficiencies IAW DA Pam 738-750 & AR 750-1 to prevent future deadlines. More training time Support unit has little time for training. Training to maintain is training. No lost training time Vehicle draw time is extended from avoidable forecasting errors. Issue tanks that are well maintained and not due for service during training.
  • Team Selection/Launch Project Sponsor: MAJ Mackey, Andre L. Deployment Director: COL Naething, Robert R. Green Belt/Black Belt: SFC Henry, Don H. II Master Black Belt: Nathan Sprague Team Member Role % Time Committed LSS Training CW2 Warren Maintenance Officer 20% None MAJ Aydelott Operations Officer 20% None MAJ Mackey Squadron Exec Officer 20% None CW4 Lucy Supply Officer 10% None SSG Jones Maintenance NCO 10% None
  • Communication Plan Project Sponsor Email Meetings Tollgates Updates Various SFC Henry Weekly Project Team Email Meetings Updates Questions Various SFC Henry As needed MBB Email Meetings Questions Advice Various SFC Henry As needed Deployment Director Meeting Project Progress Various SFC Henry As needed Audience Media Purpose Topics of Discussion/ Key Messages Owner Frequency Notes/Status
  • Risk Analysis and Mitigation
    • Personnel availability, process mapping, data collection, and cooperation
    Consequence Likelihood
    • Data Collection (Schedule)
    • Risk: More time may be needed for the Measure phase because of current mission schedule.
    • Mitigation Plan: Maximize data collection during missions to present reliable data to stakeholders.
    • Personnel availability (Schedule)
    • Risk: Project team members have different schedules and availability times.
    • Mitigation: communicate via email and in person when possible.
    • Consequence: Low impact on project completion
    • Process Mapping (Performance)
    • Risk: The process is moderate in size but has numerous civilian personnel involved who could present concerns about job stability and resist change
    • Mitigation Plan: Explain the project and communicate the desire to make things better. Solicit feedback about the draw process and gain civilian participation.
    • Consequence: Resistance could delay the project during the measure and analyze phases up to three weeks.
    • UMA cooperation (Change Management)
    • Risk: UMA personnel may reject any suggested changes proposed by the 16 th Cavalry
    • Mitigation: communicate changes through high level supervisors and program managers for implementation.
    • Consequence: High impact on project completion
    1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
  • Project Charter Validation
    • Scope: this process begins with the T-6 IPR and ends when 1/16 loads the tanks on HETT’s.
    • Goal: Improve tank draw quality
    Problem/Goal Statement Tollgate Review Schedule Business Impact Core Team
    • State financial impact of project
      • Expenses-none
      • Investments-none
      • Revenues-potential savings in time and material TBD
    • Non-Quantifiable Benefits are increased tank maintenance quality, soldiers morale, maintenance fault tracking, and less training time lost.
    • PES Name MAJ Mackey, Andre
    • PS Name MAJ Mackey, Andre
    • DD Name LTC Naething, Robert
    • GB/BB Name SFC Henry, Don
    • MBB Name Nathan Sprague
    • Core Team Role % Contrib. LSS Training
    • CW2 Warren SME 20% none
    • MAJ Aydelott SME 20% none
    • MAJ Mackey SME 20% none
    • SSG Jones SME 10% none
    • CW4 Lucy SME 10% none
    • SFC Henry BB 100% BB
    Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 04/30/08 - XX/XX/07 Measure: 05/14/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07 Analyze: 06/13/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07 Improve: 07/18/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07 Control: 08/23/08 XX/XX/07 XX/XX/07
    • Reduce rework during tank draw from 90% to 45%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.
    • Improve 5988-E fault tracking during tank draw from 10% to 85%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.
    • Improve tank bumper number accuracy from 10% to 90%, during the T-2 preparation week by 1 October 2008.
    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.
  • Lessons Learned
    • Application of Lean Six Sigma tools
    • Communications
    • Team building
  • Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log
    • Resource shortfalls-none
    • Unexpected delays-none
    • Team issues-none
    • Organizational issues-none
    Lean Six Sigma Project Action Log         Last Revised: 10/27/2005   No Description/ Recommendation Status Open/Closed/Hold Due Date Revised Due Date Resp. Comments / Resolution 1           2           3           4           5          
  • Next Steps
    • Outline activities for Measure Phase
      • Develop data collection plan
      • Develop operational definitions
      • Collect baseline data
      • Communicate consistently
    • Planned Six Sigma Tool use
      • Value Stream Mapping
      • Dot Plot Matrix
      • NVA analysis
      • Cause and Effect Diagram
      • Histogram
      • Check Sheets
      • Frequency Plot
  • Define 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 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
  • Sign Off
    • I concur that the Define phase was successfully completed on XX/XX/08 .
    • If Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) financial and/or operational benefits were developed during the Define phase, they have been entered into PowerSteering.
    • I concur the project is ready to proceed to next phase: Measure
    CW4 David Lucy Resource Manager/Finance COL Robert R. Naething Deployment Director SFC Don H. Henry II Black Belt Nathan Sprague Master Black Belt MAJ Andre L. Mackey Sponsor / Process Owner
  • Define Tollgate Checklist Has the team defined the opportunity from both business and customer perspectives?
    • Key Deliverables:
    • SIPOC
    • Process Map and/or Value Stream Map
    • Communication Plan
    • Validated Project Charter
    • Initial Work plan
    • Risk Mitigation Plan
    • Has the project been chosen because it is in alignment with Army goals and the strategic direction of the ‘business’? Have other similar projects been completed in Power Steering?
    • What is the problem statement – detailing (what) is the problem, (when) was the problem first seen, (where) was is it seen, and what is the (magnitude or extent) of the problem. Is the problem measured in terms of Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency, not expected financial benefits? Ensure there is no mention or assumptions about causes and solutions.
    • Does a goal statement exist that defines the results expected to be achieved by the process, with reasonable and measurable targets? Is the goal developed for the “what” in the problem statement, thus measured in terms of Quality, Cycle Time or Cost Efficiency?
    • Does a financial business case exist, explaining the potential impact (i.e. measured in dollars) of the project on the Army, Major Commands, Subordinate Commands, Budgets, Net Operating Results, etc.?
    • Is the project scope reasonable? Have constraints and key assumptions been identified? Have IT implications been addressed and coordinated with IT managers?
    • Who is on the team? Are they the right resources and has their required time commitment to the project been confirmed by your local Command and Team?
    • What is the high level work plan? What are the key milestones (i.e. dates of tollgate reviews for DMAIC projects)?
    • Who are the customers for this process? What are their requirements? Are they measurable? How were the requirements determined?
    • Who are the key stakeholders? How will they be involved in the project? How will progress be communicated to them? Do they agree to the project?
    • What kinds of barriers/obstacles will need assistance to be removed? Has the development of a risk mitigation plan to deal with the identified risks been developed?
    Tollgate Review Stop
  •