Repair Cycle Time Improvement Six Sigma Case Study

273 views

Published on

Lean Six Sigma Group Free Project Case Study Overviews http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Lean-Six-Sigma-37987
Sponsored by the International Standard for Lean Six Sigma, e-Zsigma http://www.e-zsigma.com, IQPC, and PEX Network.

Please contact Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Steven Bonacorsi, Owner of the Lean Six Sigma Group to have your project case studies to be added to the Lean Six Sigma Group Library. Steve Bonacorsi sbonacorsi@comcast.net

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
273
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Repair Cycle Time Improvement Six Sigma Case Study

  1. 1. Six Sigma in Action: Demonstrating Customer Value A Six Sigma in Action summary offers an example of the value a Six Sigma project can bring to a customer.Master Black Belt: Steven Bonacorsi
  2. 2. Six Sigma in Action: Cycle Time Reduction Customer Profile – 15,000 seat chemical manufacturing company based in New JerseyBusiness Problem & ImpactCustomer requested a reduction in support costs for a remote Process Capability Analysis for Orig. Resolve Processlocation while maintaining or improving the quality of service. Process Data USL USL 20.0000 ST Process Data LTMeasure & Analyze Target LSL * * USL 20.0000 Mean 39.5845 Target *Average cycle time of repairs to the remote site was 40 hours, Sample N 84 LSL * StDev (ST) 38.1110 Mean 39.5845and repair times historically went as high as 18.5 business StDev (LT) 86.4850 Sample N 84 StDev (ST) 38.1110days. Statistical analysis proved that root causes were both Potential (ST) Capability StDev (LT) 86.4850technician specific and process driven. Cp CPU * -0.17 Potential (ST) Capability CPL * Cp * Cpk -0.17 CPU -0.17Improve & Control Cpm * -200 -100 0 100 200 CPL Cpk 300 400 -0.17 * 500Improvements included a communication to users re-enforcing Overall (LT) Capability Observed Perf ormance Cpm Process Capability Analysis for Ne Expected ST Perf ormance * Expected LT-200 ormance Perf -100 Pp * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL *the process for logging remedial calls, a redistribution of PPU -0.08 PPM > USL 333333.33 PPM > USL 696332.67 (LT) Capability USL Overall PPM > Observed Perfo 589574.30 PPL * Process Capability Analysis for New Resolve PPM Total 333333.33 PPM Total Pp 696332.67 * PPM Total PPM589574.30 < LSLnetwork support responsibilities, and an improved training Ppk -0.08 Process Data Process Data USL PPU -0.08 USL PPM > USL PPL * PPM Total STprogram to reinforce effective processes USL Target 20.0000 * USL 20.0000 Ppk -0.08 LT LSL * Target *Results/Benefits Mean Sample N 11.4839 62 LSL * Mean 11.4839Average cycle time for calls was reduced 71%, with a StDev (ST) StDev (LT) 7.73602 8.93168 Sample N 6290%reduction in the long-term variation. Span (time between Potential (ST) Capability StDev (ST) StDev (LT) 7.73602 8.93168the customers desired repair time and the longest repair time) Cp CPU 0.37 *was reduced by 92%. These improvements included a direct CPL Cpk 0.37 * Potential (ST) Capability Cp *savings to the client of over $130K in staffing costs. Cpm * CPU -20 -10 0.37 0 10 20 30 40 Overall (LT) Capability CPL * Observed Performance Expected ST Performance Expected LT Performance Pp * Cpk PPM < LSL 0.37 * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * Improved repair cycle time while reducing client’s staffing cost-20 over $130K! by -10 PPU 0.32 PPM > USL 145161.29 PPM > USL 135482.88 PPM > USL 170174.79 Cpm * PPL 0 * PPM Total 145161.29 PPM Total 135482.88 PPM 10 Total 20 170174.79 Ppk 0.32

×