Implementing Six-Sigma at a Lean client

1. Six-Sigma Support
Project at XXXX
Presented par:
Jean Denis,
Ninon L.,
Nathalie G.
August, 20th 2004

2. Project Highlights

3. Initial Mandate
●
Client Objective:
●
●
Our mandate:
●
●
●
Accelerate the deployment of the ‘Process Certification
initiative’ that is based on statistical tools for decision-making
Provide 57 days of support in the implementation and
deployment of the assembly & test certification process at the
Mississauga plant
Provide 27 days of support to quality engineers and some key
Producers in the deployment of certification process
Conditions :
●
●
●
●
Deployment Strategy Established
Aligned Organization
Trained People
Producers ready to initiate

4. Mandate Initial Conditions
●
Procurement
●
●
●
●
Re-organisations
No evidence of deployment strategy and planning
Producers not identified
Plant
●
●
●
No evidence of deployment strategy or planning
Owner of deployment process not identified
Do-able projects not identified

5. Revised Mandate (Charter)
●
Objectives
●
●
●
●
●
●
Focus the intervention to maximize our contribution
given the unexpected conditions
Highlight Risks
Communicate Critical Success Factors
Define and agree on a common action plan
Clarify responsibilities and expectations for all
participants
Establish and communicate the critical path, with key
deliverables, responsibilities & due dates

6. Roadblocks to Progression
●
Procurement:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Reduced availability (< 10%)
Additional organisational changes, vacations, etc.
Analysts not identified and/or changed several times
No priority & no context for Process Certification
Evolution of mindset required, still anchored in RCCA
Fundamental understanding and mindset
Resistance, sense of urgency, priorities
Knowledge and Skills
Producers not available, committed or ready to initiate
Competition with various dept’s and other analysts for
access

7. Roadblocks to Progression
●
Plant Assy’ and Test:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Owner of deployment process not visible
Leaders not formally identified, no planning, no
budget, no resources
Staff educated but not trained (or experienced)
No processes mapped
Lacking means of selecting projects at a do-able level
Measurements hit & miss, data not validated
Constant variation in product configurations
- little opportunity to characterise behaviour
statistically

8. Budget Status
●
84 Days Budget :
●
●
●
Procurement : 57 days
Plant & Assembly : 27 days
69 Days Spent :
●
●
Procurement : 30 days
Plant & Assembly : 39 days

9. Procurement

10. Objectives



Validate & enrich the Process Certification
methodology as appropriate
Increase the key practical & applied knowledge of
Process Certification methodology & Tools for
Producer Certification
Improve support to producers in achieving
certification

11. Summary of Work
Accomplished
●
Process Certification Deployment
●
●
●
Identified issues to deployment and developed
solutions/recommendations
Developed tools to enhance efficiency and
effectiveness of deployment
Producer certification
●
Initiated first steps of Producer Certification with 3
producers

12. Procurement
Process Certification
Deployment

13. Approach
●
Focusing on specific engine models, assess :
●
Approach to deployment
–
–
●
Apparent strategy and tactics
Analysts’ roles & responsibilities
Methodology and tools:
–
–
–
–
–
Specifics of Process Certification
Use of Process Robustness Index (PRI) for Producer
evaluation
Procedure/Cookbook for Process Certification interventions
Corporate Procedure
Any other available material

14. Issue
Approach to deployment
●
Internal coordination
●
●
Strategy & Planning not visible
Coordination & assignments not optimal
–
Analysts’ assignment by part number/family. Therefore, analysts from
different departments have parts at the same Producer:
●
●
●
●
–
Communication flow between departments not properly established
●
●
Overloads Producers
Unsuited to a Process-centered philosophy and methodology
Missed opportunities to share expertise
Significantly impedes deployment of Process Certification
Multiple audit questionnaires. Each department has its own.
Approach to producer interventions
●
Analysts and auditors drive the certification by
producer or part numbers – May need months or
years to implement producer-wide

15. Issue
Approach to deployment
●
Suitability and Application of tools
●
●
●
Not well integrated, less effective
Confusion of terminology
Misunderstandings in role and application of Process
Certification methodology
–
●
Connection not made between Process Certification training
and day to day work
Staff readiness
●
●
●
●
Resistance of staff
Misconceptions of the method and of statistics
Misunderstanding of KPC, what is “Key”
Lack of data analysis expertise

16. Resolution/Recommendation
Approach to deployment
●
Revise and formalise the overall deployment strategy
●
Create and stabilise a multidisciplinary Process Certification
team
–
●
●
●
●
●
●
Made up of analysts, procurement experts, engineers (Black Belt level)
Agree on realistic certification objectives and pace
Create a visible deployment “dashboard” metric
Create a Producer-part-process criticality matrix
Develop a standard communication plan for Producers that will
manage their perception “before, during and after” the
deployment
Develop and communicate a high level action plan including
responsible and target dates
Align People, Tools & Approach with Producers (next slide)

17. Resolution/Recommendation
Approach to deployment
●
Align People
●
●
●
●
●
Align tools (next slides)
●
●
●
●
Analyse analysts’ resistance and develop strategy to overcome
Assign one coordinator/leader of Process Certification efforts at a given
Producer
Communicate and train personnel in the strategy and tools
Provide availability for the project
Align System audits and PRI content and application
Formalise and Implement the Process Certification Worksheet tool
Replace “cookbook” with ISO procedure that references training manual
Align Approach with Producers
●
●
●
Get availability commitment
Develop and share a detailed action plan with each Producer
Efforts and action plans must be driven by specific processes
–
●
●
Ex.: Instead of shop-wide gauge try-out program throughout, perform gage R&R
or MSA only on measurement systems of CRITICAL processes.
In order to leverage efforts, identify processes common to several parts
Develop mechanism for quickly and assuredly transferring KPCs to
producers.

18. Resolution/Recommendation
Integration and Utility of various tools

Implement deployment process :
Legacy Producer
System Audit
UTCQR-09.1
par 4.1.1
Certifiable Producer
Functioning Support
Infrastructure
Apply ProCert Method
UTCQR-09.1
par 4.2 & 4.3
Selection of Priority Targets
parts and processes
Readiness Progress Tracking
Critical Processes Identified
and previously Certified?
NPI / Re-sourcing
requirement
Certifiable
Producer?
(per system audit)
Identification of
Target Parts &
Processes:
Inputs from
Engineering, Assy &
Test, Procurement, etc.
Certify Selected
Process(es)
by UTCQR-09.1
par 4.4 using Process
Certification Worksheet
NO
YES
Producer submits
Readiness Plan:
Model supplied by P&WC
Plan validated and/or
modified by P&WC
Confirm Certification
on New / Changed
Parts

19. Issue
Integration and Utility of various tools
●
●
Terminology not consistent between parent & subsidiary
PRI is not suited to Process Certification or
producer certification:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Producer scores are weak in areas within Process
Certification’s domain
Without criteria or standards of comparison – fails in
fundamental manner as auditing tool
Shotgun approach – check everything, no focus on
what is Critical or Key to a part or process
Deals with manufacturing hardware issues where
Producer ought to be more knowledgeable than
analysts
Is not a roadmap to certify Producer processes
Appropriate only to New Part Introduction /
Engineering Changes – should be truncated.

20. Resolution/Recommendation
P/N:
family:
engine program: PW 307 & PW 308
ProCert Elements to be addressed
Step 1
Activities foreseen / Comments
Benefits/Financial Impact
N/A - process not yet selected
Was a Benefit-Effort analysis used to select the process?
N/A - process not yet selected
Has the financial impact been determined?
Is Management support evident? What drives need & desire for improvement?
Step 2
5
Team composition
Is there a process cell team or supporting organisation?
Step 3
Ressorces are there
4
Need to identify a Procert team
Process/Problem/Opportunity Definition
They have a high level list of operations and a process review system
1
A Process map that includes all in-scope areas or process steps / sub-processes
2
A clear definition of the key product characteristic (KPCd or Y) and measurement procedure
(there is agreement on definitions of KPCs)
3
Key input, process and output indicators (KPCMs - Xs & small Ys) are identified and linked to the
process map.
4
4
A Control Plan covering key input, process, and output indicators.
4
5
Measurement System Analysis showing that measurement error is not more than 20% of either the
process or the tolerance spread, whichever is the lesser.
4
6
The producer is organised to collect data and sufficient data has been collected to evaluate the
process performance
4
Make a process map
First KPCs received during our visit, at Smith's request.
Pratt needs to identify and communicate to Smiths What part number is most critical and key characteristics for those parts
Validate the received KPCs with Pratt and new ones as they become available
MOS shows process outputs to be controlled
Identify KPC-Ms , Highlight them on MOS and on process map
Good MOS, that contains certain elements of a control plan, Will have to be adapted to include SPC features and reaction plan
Step 4
Smiths has an established process for verification between the lab's CMM and shop floor gauges
Evidence that measurement error is kept below 20 % of tolerance spread is required
Data is measured and recorded per B.P. requirements
5
Review & Assess Process & Metrics
They have the data, data acquisition structure and data analysis personnel
1
Process stability and special cause variation determined by Control Charts.
2
With Process Capability determined, are there stated improvement goals (shift mean, reduce
variation or both)? (if Cpk >1.33, are measures in place to sustain ? And, is there fundamental
understanding of what factors influence KPCs?)
3
Process Inputs, parameters & outputs (Xs or KPCMs) influencing the key output indicators (Ys for
capacity and quality) are prioritised for improvement.
4
Relationships between key influences (significant Xs) and KPCs (Ys) statistically determined
by hypothesis testing, regression, ANOVA, Design of Experiments (DOEs) or other such tool
Start using SPC to assess process stability
3
Previous step is a prerequisite
TBD : Evaluate QN SSON & Escapes for potential improvement targets
As data is collected and analysed, target at least one area (machine or process) for improvement
3
They have the personnel that makes them able to do it if required
4
Organisational capability is in place, application is T.B.D.
estimated date of
completion
Applicability - P/Ns,
part families, engine
programs:
Specific Process Targeted for Improvement
Unique description
Plant and location within facilities
P&W level of effort req'd
Process - description,
location:
Smiths Orillia
ne No
ed t a
s h dd
igh res
s
n lev ed
Me eed el d
ets s d eve
re eve lop
q
l
m
Co uire opm en
mp me en t
let nts t
e& a
Su t pre
sta se
ina nt
ble
Producer:
producer level of effort req'd
Low-Medium-High
Process Certification Worksheet

21. Resolution/Recommendation
Process Certification Worksheet
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Provides structure for gap and progress analysis
– audit criteria grounded in Process Certification
training materials
Highlights shortcomings and roadblocks
Encourages process-specific scoping of efforts
Consistent with PRI and Process Certification
terminology - provides familiar ground
Step by step roadmap to Process Certification analyst knows what to do and Producer knows
what to expect
Provides tasks, timeline & participation of parties
Measures and tracks progress quantitatively

22. Issue
Process Certification Cookbook
●
●
●
Need for ISO procedure to apply Process
Certification & tools
Cookbook attempts to repeat Process
Certification training content
Lack of document control :
●
●
Various versions of PRI in use
No evidence of control and approval of key
documents

23. Resolution/Recommendation
Process Certification Cookbook
●
High-level Policy/Procedure governing
Producer Quality Management
●
●
Relates to corporate parent's procedure, tools and
training material
Governs deployment process and relevant documents

24. Procurement
Producer certification

25. Work Accomplished
●
●
●
●
Selected 3 Producers as test cases
Gathered relevant information
Attempted identification of relevant part numbers
Attempted to acquire associated KPC-Ms
(difficult to obtain, various opinions, not complete)
●
●
Performed site visits for Readiness Assessment
Performed first draft Gap Analysis (Process
Certification Worksheet)
●
Determined short term action plan for each
(Process Certification Worksheet)

26. Casting Supplier – Highlights
●
●
Analyst’s skills & mindset hinder Process Certification
deployment
Readiness
●
●
●
Weakest area is Step 4 “Review & Assess Process Metrics”
Haley, sandcasting ProCert status
Only inputs controlled using SPC
(% complete)
Output metric is yield
100%
–
–
●
Finished casting dimensions not measured
Use of targeting fixture is go/no-go
- no info on trends or variability
Completed Milestones
●
●
●
Evaluation of Certifiability
Gap analysis
Gained ability to gather data
on part dimensional variation:
decision to fix datum pts. in targeting fixture
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6

27. Casting Supplier – Highlights (Cont’d)
●
Next Steps & Recommendations
●
●
●
Suppier to revise QFD and C & E prioritisation matrix
and re-define areas of improvement
Establish meaningful Process OUTPUT metrics
Statistically identify and confirm which process
parameters, inputs and outputs are key (KPC-Ms)
–
●
●
Inputs already controlled by SPC must be part of that
confirmation study
Greater and more effective use of Designed
Experiments for fundamental understanding of
process capability drivers
Review the Process Certification worksheet and
create a detailed action plan

28. Supplier Orillia – Highlights
●
Readiness
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Ready for Process Certification
Weakness due only to lack of
targeted parts & related processes
Good Management support
Resources to form Process
Certification teams seem available
Good overall practice, confirmed by
initial Process Certification
evaluation
Processes mapped & documented
System for data collection
Completed Milestones
●
●
●
Understanding of situation
Gap analysis
Customer permission to select
parts & processes subject to
certification.
Smiths Orillia, system ProCert status
(% complete)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6

29. Supplier Orillia – Highlights (Cont’d)
●
Next steps & Recommendations
●
●
●
Engineering to supply key characteristics for subject
parts
Review the Process Certification worksheet and
create a detailed action plan
Monitor part quality and update/revise improvement
targets and KPCs as appropriate

30. Supplier Montreal – Highlights
●
●
Analyst’s beliefs and approach hinder Process
Certification deployment
Readiness
●
●
●
●
●
Management replacement & re-organisation in process
No culture, no procedures, no tools, no measurements
History of continual quality escapes
High scrap and inventory levels
Completed key Milestones
●
●
Understanding of situation
Gap analysis

31. Supplier Montreal - Highlights (Cont’d)
Next steps & Recommendations

1)
2)
Choose among 2 options:
Disqualify
Massive effort, supported by Customer, to identify
and certify critical processes:
Contingent on proof of Supplier’s commitment


Use subject processes as models to replicate onto next
priorities
Expand from initial certification successes