0
Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Analyze Tollgat...
Agenda <ul><li>Project Charter Review </li></ul><ul><li>Measure and Analyze Phase Review </li></ul><ul><li>Potential Solut...
Improve – Executive Summary <ul><li>Improve tank maintenance quality by giving the 1/16 soldiers more time to perform main...
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. ...
Analyze Review Impact of Root Causes:  Hypothesis Tests Tools Used Reducing List of Root Causes Prioritized Root Causes / ...
Potential Solutions Critical X Root Cause(s) Priority of Effort Potential Solution How Developed? Poor vehicle quality Inc...
Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Explanation for Weight Critical Customer Requirements - Y 1 Improve vehicle draw quali...
Selected Solutions <ul><li>Solution A = a 75 %  improvement in accuracy of bumper #’s (75% of 40%=30%) </li></ul><ul><li>S...
Selected Solutions:  Results The red box indicates two vehicles that were hard to locate on the tracking board due to the ...
Solution Risk Assessment:  FMEA Significant changes in the Risk Priority Numbers Process Step / Input Potential Failure Mo...
“ To-Be” Process Map Soldier moves vehicle to staging area Errors are corrected before vehicle numbers are issued to the S...
Pilot Plan Tank Draw  <ul><li>This mission requires 5 tanks with assigned equipment instead of the FTS/STX2 mission requir...
Pilot Results <ul><li>Pilot Observations: 1) Soldiers more satisfied interacting with leadership instead of  </li></ul><ul...
Pilot Results <ul><ul><li>The pilot displayed the anticipated results. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The plan for conducting ...
Vehicle Tracking Board <ul><li>The Tracking Board is a standard 1:50,000 series map of the Fort Knox training area that ha...
BII Issue Box <ul><li>This Rapid Improvement Event was completed during the measure phase and is shown here as a review. <...
Implementation Plan:  RACI Chart R = Responsible  –   The person who performs the action/task. A = Accountable  – The pers...
Risk Analysis and Mitigation <ul><li>Personnel availability, process mapping, data collection, and cooperation </li></ul>C...
Improve Phase Summary “ To-Be” Process Map Implementation Plan Solution Selection Pilot Results Solution A = a 75 %  impro...
Lessons Learned <ul><li>Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools  </li></ul><ul><li>Communications </li></ul><ul><li>Team build...
Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log <ul><li>Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Unexpected delays </li></ul><ul><li>Team or organiz...
Next Steps <ul><li>Outline activities for Control Phase </li></ul><ul><li>Planned Lean Six Sigma Tool use </li></ul><ul><l...
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 u...
Sign Off I concur that the Improve phase was successfully completed on  11/17/08. If developed, the   forecasted  financia...
Improve  Tollgate Checklist Has the team developed improvement solutions for the critical X’s, piloted the solution, and v...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Improve Tollgate

2,651

Published on

Lean Six Sigma project phase four.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,651
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
503
Comments
0
Likes
0
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)
  • Transcript of "Improve Tollgate"

    1. 1. Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Analyze Tollgate Date: 03/07/08
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Project Charter Review </li></ul><ul><li>Measure and Analyze Phase Review </li></ul><ul><li>Potential Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Selected Solution(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Solution Risk Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>“ To-Be” Process Map </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot Results </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Improve Summary </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons Learned </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers/Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Next Steps </li></ul><ul><li>Storyboard </li></ul>
    3. 3. Improve – 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 LTC Naething, Robert </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 04/06/08 Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 XX/XX/08 Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 XX/XX/08 Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 XX/XX/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. 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>
    6. 6. Potential Solutions Critical X Root Cause(s) Priority of Effort Potential Solution How Developed? Poor vehicle quality Incomplete PMCS 1 Employee PMCS Training Program Round Robin brainstorming session Lengthy issue times Inaccurate bumper number list 2 Vehicle tracking board 20 Questions Poor vehicle quality 5988-E’s not updated 3 Update SOP 20 Questions Lengthy issue times Vehicles Issued not ready 4 Vehicle tracking board Round Robin brainstorming session
    7. 7. Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Explanation for Weight Critical Customer Requirements - Y 1 Improve vehicle draw quality +3 Vehicle maintenance is preventative - Y 2 Improve bumper # accuracy +3 Accuracy increases quality and speed Critical Business Requirements - customer satisfaction +2 Essential for contract renewal - save money and improve quality +2 Operating costs should stay low - Implement changes by the end of FY 2009 +1 Establish a new SOP before relocating to Ft. Benning, GA - risk of implementation is low +1 Approx. 1 year away from relocating Regulatory/Other - Adherence to DA Pam 738-750 +3 Essential maintenance processes - Adherence to Technical Manuals +3 Essential service schedules - Adherence to applicable Army Regulations +3 Safety, supply systems, Environment, etc…
    8. 8. Selected Solutions <ul><li>Solution A = a 75 % improvement in accuracy of bumper #’s (75% of 40%=30%) </li></ul><ul><li>Solution B = a 50 % improvement of maintenance quality (50% of 30%=15%) </li></ul><ul><li>Solution C = a 50 % improvement of vehicle tracking (50% of 30%=15%) </li></ul><ul><li>Implementing Solutions A, B, & C achieve a 60% reduction in trackable causes for and </li></ul><ul><li>delays/rework. (Assumes no interaction effects of the solutions) </li></ul><ul><li>Original goal is a 45% reduction that can be achieved by A & B, or A & C, but all three areas can be improved and affect the overall tank issue quality. </li></ul>Solution A 75% Solution B 50% Solution C 50% Solutions Trackable Causes Accurate Bumper #’s 40% Increased quality Maintenance ( training) 30% Improved vehicle tracking 30% Effect: The tank draw takes too long. Man Machine Material Method Spread thinly across multiple tasks Shortage of UMA maintenance personnel Deadlines, AOAP, Service Schedule, affect # of tanks available Tanks already in use by other units/missions BII draw uses excessive people and excess time RATTS Tanks are PMCS’d Tanks are QA/QC’d Tanks are dispatched Excessive delays from lack of UMA personnel 5988-E not updated by UMA
    9. 9. Selected Solutions: Results The red box indicates two vehicles that were hard to locate on the tracking board due to the small size of the vehicle markers and the use of a single color for vehicle identification. Trial and Error Results Present during 4 or more vehicles drawn Present during 3 vehicles drawn Present during 2 or less vehicles drawn Solution A (correct bumper #’s) All 5 of the bumper numbers issued to soldiers were drawn. Solution B (training) Properly completed 5988-E’s and well trained mechanics Solution C (tracking board) Tracking board reflected vehicle locations
    10. 10. Solution Risk Assessment: FMEA Significant changes in the Risk Priority Numbers Process Step / Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEVERITY Potential Causes OCCURRENCE Current Controls DETECTION RPN Actions Recommended Resp. Actions Taken SEVERITY OCCURRENCE DETECTION RPN What is the process step and Input under investiga-tion? In what ways does the Key Input go wrong? What is the impact on the Key Output Variables (Customer Requirements)? What causes the Key Input to go wrong? What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent either the cause or the Failure Mode? What are the actions for reducing the occurrence of the cause, or improving detection?   What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? T-1 bumper number list not accurate excessive delays 7 lack of organization 7 none 7 343 Tracking Board UMA   4 3 1 12 PMCS not updated rework 7 lack of personnel 6 Army Policy 5 210 PMCS Training UMA   4 2 2 16 QA/QC not timely rework 4 lack of maintenance 4 EXSOP/Army policy 4 64 restructure of process UMA   2 3 3 18 tank sign over already issued rework 7 lack of organization 2 Army Policy/EXSOP 2 28 tracking board UMA   4 3 1 12 tank dispatch does not go wrong no problems 1 no problems 1 EXSOP 5 5 n/a           0
    11. 11. “ To-Be” Process Map Soldier moves vehicle to staging area Errors are corrected before vehicle numbers are issued to the Soldier and the Soldier completes minor checks and routine maintenance (as described in the Technical Manual). 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
    12. 12. Pilot Plan Tank Draw <ul><li>This mission requires 5 tanks with assigned equipment instead of the FTS/STX2 mission requirement of 20 tanks, this number allows for 5 “runs” in a trial and error pilot test. </li></ul><ul><li>Tank draw time is less than 30 minutes per tank with less than 1 vehicle requiring rework. </li></ul>2/16 Gun Team/SFC Henry Start 9/3 Complete 9/3 Additional maintenance training <ul><li>Maintenance team of 6 personnel who completed PMCS refresher training in the last 14 days with an assigned work leader, used during a third shift scheduled to work during the tank draw </li></ul><ul><li>Tank draw time is less than 20 minutes per tank with zero vehicles requiring rework. </li></ul>1/16, UMA maintenance, SFC Henry Start 9/3 Complete 9/3 Vehicle tracking board <ul><li>A large map board of the Fort Knox training area in use at another facility moved over to the vehicle service area with push pins as markers to track vehicle locations that are available to issue or in circulation already. The tracking board does not track vehicles in scheduled maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Tracking board can be referenced by any worker for the location and status of armored vehicles. </li></ul>1/16, UMA, SFC Henry Start 9/3 Complete 9/3 Schedule Test Team Success Criteria Description Pilot Test
    13. 13. Pilot Results <ul><li>Pilot Observations: 1) Soldiers more satisfied interacting with leadership instead of </li></ul><ul><li>mechanics – numerous comments from troops during the draw </li></ul><ul><li>2) Vehicle maintenance is documented more accurately </li></ul><ul><li>3) Show stopping defects and delays were absent during the 5 runs </li></ul><ul><li>4) Maintenance leader used tracking board to locate vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>GAP analysis 1) Single colored push pin markers were difficult for the maintenance leader to use and see on such a large map. </li></ul><ul><li>Follow-up Actions: 1) Purchase larger multi-colored push pins (shown on the next slide) </li></ul><ul><li>2) look into automating the map into a application that can be updated from the RATSS database </li></ul>Measurement Plan: Measure Pilot Draw times Plan Target CCRs Less Tank draw time CCRs Bumper number Accuracy 20 minutes per tank < 3.4 DPMO 19.4 min. < 3.4 DPMO Comments 24, 18, 18, 15, 22 min. Range of times was between 15 and 24 minutes with an average of 19.4 minutes n/a x
    14. 14. Pilot Results <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 exceeded. </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Vehicle Tracking Board <ul><li>The Tracking Board is a standard 1:50,000 series map of the Fort Knox training area that has been blown up, laminated, and mounted on an office cubicle partition. </li></ul><ul><li>Giant push pins are used to mark important locations and quantities using a board game approach meaning each color is a different quantity. </li></ul><ul><li>White- maintenance team sites (shown) </li></ul><ul><li>Blue-1 vehicle </li></ul><ul><li>Red-5 vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Green-10 vehicles </li></ul>
    16. 16. BII Issue Box <ul><li>This Rapid Improvement Event was completed during the measure phase and is shown here as a review. </li></ul>
    17. 17. Implementation Plan: 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 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 PMCS training for maintenance personnel 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
    18. 18. Risk Analysis and Mitigation <ul><li>Personnel availability, process mapping, data collection, and cooperation </li></ul>Consequence Likelihood <ul><li>Data Collection (Schedule) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk: More time may be needed for the Measure phase because of current mission schedule. </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation Plan: Maximize data collection during missions to present reliable data to stakeholders. </li></ul><ul><li>Personnel availability (Schedule) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk: Project team members have different schedules and availability times. </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation: communicate via email and in person when possible. </li></ul><ul><li>Consequence: Low impact on project completion </li></ul><ul><li>Process Mapping (Performance) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk: The process is moderate in size but has numerous civilian personnel involved who could present concerns about job stability and resist change </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation Plan: Explain the project and communicate the desire to make things better. Solicit feedback about the draw process and gain civilian participation. </li></ul><ul><li>Consequence: Resistance could delay the project during the measure and analyze phases up to three weeks. </li></ul><ul><li>UMA cooperation (Change Management) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk: UMA personnel may reject any suggested changes proposed by the 16 th Cavalry </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation: communicate changes through high level supervisors and program managers for implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>Consequence: High impact on project completion </li></ul>1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
    19. 19. Improve Phase Summary “ 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
    20. 20. 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>
    21. 21. 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          
    22. 22. Next Steps <ul><li>Outline activities for Control Phase </li></ul><ul><li>Planned Lean Six Sigma Tool use </li></ul><ul><li>Barrier/risk mitigation activities </li></ul>
    23. 23. 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 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
    24. 24. Sign Off I concur that the Improve phase was successfully completed on 11/17/08. If developed, the forecasted financial and/or operational benefits have been entered into PowerSteering (See Section 6 of Deployment Guidebook). I concur the project is ready to proceed to next phase: Control. 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
    25. 25. Improve Tollgate Checklist Has the team developed improvement solutions for the critical X’s, piloted the solution, and verified that the solution will solve the problem? <ul><li>Deliverables: </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritized List of Solutions </li></ul><ul><li>“ To-Be” Value Stream Map(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot Plan & Results </li></ul><ul><li>Approved Solution and Detailed Implementation Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Additional “Quick Wins”, if applicable </li></ul><ul><li>Refined Charter, as necessary </li></ul><ul><li>Updated Risk Mitigation Plan </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><ul><li>What techniques were used to generate ideas for potential solutions? </li></ul><ul><li>What narrowing and screening techniques were used to further develop and qualify potential solutions? </li></ul><ul><li>What evaluation criteria were used to select a recommended solution? </li></ul><ul><li>Do the proposed solutions address all of the identified root causes, or at least the most critical? </li></ul><ul><li>Were the solutions verified with the Project Sponsor and Stakeholders? Has an approval been received to implement? </li></ul><ul><li>Was a pilot run to test the solution? What was learned? What modifications were made? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the team seen evidence that the root causes of the initial problems have been addressed during the pilot? What are the expected benefits? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the team considered potential problems and unintended consequences (FMEA) of the solution and developed preventive and contingency actions to address them? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the proposed solution been documented, including process participants, job descriptions, and if applicable, their estimated time commitment to support the process? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the team developed an implementation plan? What is the status? </li></ul><ul><li>Have changes been communicated to all the appropriate people? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the team been able to identify any additional ‘Quick Wins’? </li></ul><ul><li>Have ‘learnings’ to-date required modification of the Project Charter? If so, have these changes been approved by the Project Sponsor and the Key Stakeholders? </li></ul><ul><li>Have any new risks to project success been identified and added to the Risk Mitigation Plan? </li></ul>Tollgate Review Stop
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×