Besides the traditional 8D's to solve problems this a great method to solve any problem, companies as Ford Motor Company requires this method to their suppliers to get quick and correct solutions, I hope this material can be helpful for you.

1. PROBLEMRESOLUTIONPROCESS
6-PANEL
Problem Resolution Process
TRAINING MANUAL
Tonatiuh Lozada Duarte
October2014
Page 1 of 23

2. 6-PANEL
Page 2 of 23
Corporate NEEDGlobal 6-Panel Reporting standard:
1)6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements and data to drive decisions through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.
2)Assist problem solving teams with a template to guide the problem solving process using minimum required DMAIC+R steps to ensure robustness of the resolution.
3)Individual summary panels of each DMAIC+R phase that is simplified and standardized, while allowing for additional information or slides to be inserted as backup information for any of the problem resolution phases. In a high level management report out, communicate with the six summary panels. For a team or quarterback deep dive, unhide information on additional slides.
4)Standardization of problem resolution procedures combining best practices and 6-Sigma methodology on a format that is flexible enough to be used by all business units.
5)Simplified and consistent communication to management in a concise way without having to rewrite what you have done.
6)Encourages management to ask questions in line with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.

3. 6-PANEL
Page 3 of 23
6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements used to drive data decision through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.
Improve Phase
How can we permanently fix
the current product/process?
•DOE & ANOVA
•Verification data
•Durability/CAE/VSA
•Work plan
Control Phase
How can we make the
process stay fixed?
•Control Plans
•SPC –Control Charting
•Audit Plans
Replicate Phase
Who else at Ford can benefit? Update corporate knowledge? Is the gain be sustained?
•Replication / Best Practices
•Core Books –SDS/VDS/FMEAs
•Validate sustain w/ data
Define Phase
Who is my customer, and what isthe current cost of poor quality?
•Voice of the Customer
•Defect Definition
•Cost of Poor Quality (includeswarranty spending, as necessary)
•Project Scope & Goal
Measure Phase
Which inputs affect ouputs? What is my current processperformance (capability)? Are defects contained?
Analyze Phase
By how much do X’s affect Y? What confidence do you have?
•Graphical Analysis
•Hypothesis Testing
•Regression Analysis
•Additional tools
Panel 2
Panel 1
Panel 3
Panel 4
Panel 5
Panel 6
•Fish Bone
•Gage R&R, Baseline Capability
•Containment Plan
Process Layout

4. 6-PANEL
Page 4 of 23
DMAICR6-PANEL Header:
Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header. The following generic fields are listed to identify project ownership (business unit), the customer, affected vehicle, process, and/or part number.
Please note:The header “VRT / VFG / CCC” information along with the footer “Project Number / BB Name” information must be updated on the SLIDE MASTER. Goto“View” then “Master” then “Slide Master” to make these changes. CustomerVFG Team / Functional Area NameVRT / Business Unit NameVehicle Name & Model Year / Product NamePart / Process Name & NumberCCC: L66 –Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 –Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / SablePART: 5230 Muffler
Manufacturing / Technical Example:
Transactional Example: Ford Motor Company PlantsGlobal CustomsMP&LGlobal Customs and Trade Process9801 Duty Preference Program

5. 6-PANEL
Page
5 of
23
DMAICR
DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)Identify the Project Classification(Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost…) objectives. Typical quality classifications will be based upon the Single Agenda for Quality data (both low time in service, 3 MIS, and high time in service, 3 YIS) from GQRS and Warranty. Include total annual warranty spending and JD Power data if available. In addition, use internal data indicators to help identify the concern including Best In Class (BIC) and Best In Ford (BIF) data to address customer concerns.
2)Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue(Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and pareto formulates a means of prioritizing and help reflect the teams understanding of the major components making up the concern.) Data trend charts over time help define the severity of customer concerns. Data trend charts over time should include annotative updates. If needed, add backup slides.
3)Y=f(x) Cascade(High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project).
4)CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement-identifies customer requirements / expectations.
5)Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y)in the form of an engineering metric.
6)Cost of Poor Quality(Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Total Warranty Spending and Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.)
7)Problem Statement(include scope and goal)
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Define material)
•Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not Analysis
•Unexpended Warranty Calculations
•TGW Verbatim Analysis
•QFD

6. 6-PANEL
Page 6 of 23
VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the
vehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.”
CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement):
Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system.
DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric):
Muffler to body clearance less than 17mm at fascia
COST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc.):
$350,000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from 3MIS GQRS surveys.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOAL
Owners of 2001 MY Taurus/Sable vehicles indicate that exhaust pipes and muffler to body side ground outs are
a significant issue. These ground outs conditions, particularly around the rear fascia & lower control arm, cause
noises such as rattles, knocks, bangs, clunks, dings, and rubs. Reduce ground outs by 90%.
2002 L66 Warranty by part
5230-
Muffler
16.36
5246-Pipe Assy
4.03
5E212-Catalyst
2.22
5200-Muffler
2.07
5A294-Muffler
Brkt 1.22
NPF
1.08
All others
1.8
Y=f(x) CASCADE:
Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.)
Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.)
Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia)
Project Y
D M A I C R
3 MIS
R/1000
TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:
L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler
TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING:
$315K (2002 CY)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION:
SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
’01 MY ’99 MY
3 MIS 3 YIS
TGW 4 6
CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61
CPU 0.27 2.11
R/1000 1.04 3.54
JD Power 0.4
Consumer Reports n/a for L66

7. 6-PANEL
Page 7 of 23
D M A I C R
Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time R/1000
5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic
0 2 4 6 8
10
12
14
16
18
Jan-01
Mar-01
May-01
Jul-01
Sep-01
Nov-01
Jan-02
Mar-02
Production Month
R/1000
1MIS BIF
3MIS BIF
6MIS BIF
9MIS BIF
1MIS
3MIS
6MIS
9MIS
12MIS
Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time CPU
5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
36892
36951
37012
37073
37135
37196
37258
37317
Production Month
CPU
1MIS BIF
6MIS BIF
9MIS BIF
3MIS BIF
1MIS
3MIS
6MIS
9MIS
12MIS
Explorer (U152) Top 100
Overall
Rank
VRT VFG CCC's CCC Description
CUST SAT
LOSS
TGW R/1000 3MIS CPU 3MIS
JDP 2002
(Problems/100)
2002 MY
High Miles
(CPU)
21 Chassis V21 N17 Brakes Noisy 0.25 67 3.43 0.37 6.3 1.85
40 (BIC) .42 (BIF) .03 (BIF) 3.9 (BIC)
Brake Noise Indicators

8. 6-PANEL
Page
8 of
23
DMAICR
MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)Fishbone (Cause & Effect Diagram).Identify the key process input variables (KPIV or Xs) that affect your KPOV (Y) most (display ranking). (This is the first stage of root cause analysis, in the analyze phase you will validate the root cause with data).
2)MSA –Measurement System Analysis. Validate the Measurement System for your KPOV (Y), Gage R&R stated as % Study. (May be needed for both Ysand Xsperformed in other stages of the project.)
3)Determine the Baseline Process Capabilityof your KPOV (Y)
4)Containment Plan-state actions taken to protect the customer, including statistical evidence validating action (before and after data). If containment is not needed, state why. While the team is working on permanent solution, containment actions are required to protect the customer 100%. Example of actions include Stop-ship, 100% inspection, Quarantine stock, QR’s supplier. Use additional slides with visual aids to this panel to drive home your containment resolutions. Effectiveness of containment actions must be shown with Before and After indicator. Containment Plans should include: 1. Metric/Indicator that is used to find the issue at: (a) Supplier facility, before shipping to Ford facility, (b) Assembly plant, before shipping to customers. 2. Before and after statistical data evidence showing the issue is contained (Cpk, defect rate, etc)
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Measure material)
•Cause & Effect Matrix
•P-Diagram
•PFMEA and/or DFMEA
•SPC
•Rolled Throughput Yield

9. 6-PANEL
Page 9 of 23
10 15 20 25 30
LSL Target
FASCIA CLEARANCE TO MUFFLER OLD- ALL
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
*
30.0000
17.0000
19.2162
37
3.12746
3.36607
*
*
0.24
0.24
*
*
*
0.22
0.22
216216.22
*
216216.22
239276.82
*
239276.82
255141.04
*
255141.04
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required): Process Owner Date Before Data After Data
100% audit (clearances at fascia / lower control arm. John Smith 10/17/01 0.24 Cpk 1.23 Cpk
• When necessary, reposition muffler assembly to obtain adequate clearance.
• If muffler does not shift to desired position, loosen joint attachment & reposition assembly.
MSA & Process Capability:
 Engineering TestRequirement
Muffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm)
 Gage R&R = 15 % Study
 Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001):
• Z = 0.72
• DPMO = 255,141
• Cpk = 0.24 (note: short term)
Data Collection plan
includes all circled,
highly ranked X’s
D M A I C R
Process Elements
Element OK A
Investigating B
Element Not Capable C
Element Removed D
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

10. 6-PANEL
Page 10 of 23
DMAICR
•Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used tools in quality management. Example –Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram
FISHBONE
Cause and Effect diagram is a problem solving tool used to identify and graphically display all possible causes of a problem or effect. It helps a team to discover root cause(s). Additional tools can and should be used to deep dive in the measure phase to help prioritize the KPIV –Key Process Input Variables: causeand effect priority matrix, fault tree / contribution analysis, process / design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process mapping, etc.
Environment
Customer
Usage
System
Interactions
Piece to Piece
Vartiation
Aging Wear
Design
Brake application (line pressure)
Vehicle speed
Braking distance
Driving habits (D)
Cooling of Brake System (D)
Pad modal parameters (A)
Material Property Variation
Surface Friction Variation
Manufacturing misassembly (D)
Rotor/Hub Alignment
Pad Geometric Variations
Pad Damping Deterioration
Running Clearance
Sys Damping Deterioration
Pad/Lining Wear/Cracked
Aging of Slide Pin Wear
Shape of lining (A)
Uneven Rotor Wear
Lining material Characteristics (A)
Humidity(wet/dry)/ water/Moisture absorption (A)
Contaminates
Corrosion
Road salts
Solvents
Temperature
Road inputs
Customer’s Maintenance Schedules (D)
Incorrect Maintenance (D)
Road Quality (D)
Lot Rot
Deceleration rate
Suspension Interactions (D)
Body Sensitivities (Acoustic/Vibration
(D)
Rotor
Warping
Rotor Scorching
Booster Noise Filter Wear
Rotor Geometric Variations
Thickness of lining material (A)
Pad/Rotor pressure distribution (even/uneven)when apply brake (B)
Chamfers in lining (A)
Slots in lining
Insulator type
Insulator damping/damping material (A)
Caliper design
Rotor modal
parameter
Process Elements
Element OKA
InvestigatingB
Element Not Capable C
Element Removed D
Important: Look for Internal
Indicator at Supplier
facility and Assembly plant

11. 6-PANEL
Page 11 of 23
D M A I C R
Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis
IS IS NOT
U152 4X4
U152 4X2
Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,
insulator)
Other chassis component or other
component of the brake system
Defect
Brake squeal dominated at 6.6-6.8kHz
range.
Groan, grind, or rattle
Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,
insulator)
Squeal can be observed outside/ inside
vehicle
Front and rear brakes. Front noise is
dominant
Isolated to the front or rear axle.
First
observed
Normal morning braking, cold dyno test
Dyno testing (brake and vehicle)
Normal customer, public road
First
observed
GQRS
Dealer, fleet, and various dyno/vehicle
tests, JD Power, R/1000, GQRS
Usually in the morning with cold
temperature and high humidity
Hot/warm noise or low humidity
conditions
Noise on the first few brake applies and
then goes away.
Repeatable after first few stops or
continuous
Brake rotor temperature -10°C < t <
20°C
Hot
Low mileage and high mileage Isolated to low or high mileage.
All U152 vehicles built through 4/2/02 Some Production months
Trend
It is cold squeal and depends on
temperature and humidity. The TGW's
typically range from 60-70.
It is not warm/hot noise or observed in
low humidity conditions
Problem Statement: Brake squeal/audible noise.
Problem solving worksheet ("Is/Is Not Profile")
HOW BIG
Problem description
WHEN WHERE WHAT
Object
How many
affected
On Object
NOTE: ONE THING WE SHOULD MAKE
CERTAIN IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT LET
THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROOT
CAUSE (ANALYZE PHASE) BE A
DETRIMENT TO THE TIMELY COMPLETION
OF THE CONTAINMENT PLAN. AN
INSPECTION, SORTING, STOP SHIP, ETC.
MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE
CUSTOMER WITHOUT KNOWING THE
"ROOT CAUSE".

12. 6-PANEL
Page 12 of 23
DMAICR
ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with data)?
2)How many samples do you need to draw conclusions?
3)What level of confidence do you have in your conclusions?
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Analyze material)
•Graphical Analysis & Hypothesis Testing
•Regression Analysis
•Correlation Analysis
•Process FMEA
•P-Diagram
•Contribution Analysis
•Multi-vari studies
•Shainin Analysis

13. 6-PANEL
Page 13 of 23
0 2 4 6 8
LSL
Fascia locating holes on snow shoe
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
Ppk
PPL
PPU
Pp
Cpm
Cpk
CPL
CPU
Cp
StDev (Ov erall)
StDev (Within)
Sample N
Mean
LSL
Target
USL
0.18
*
0.18
0.04
*
0.04
0.00
*
0.00
1.70
1.70
*
*
*
1.79
1.79
*
*
1.19547
1.13172
41
5.08993
-1.00000
*
*
Ov erall Capability Observ ed Perf ormance Exp. "Within" Perf ormance Exp. "Ov erall" Perf ormance
Potential (Within) Capability
Process Data
Wi thin
Overal l
HOLE #1 HOLE # 2
0.8
0.4
0.0
MUFFLER HANGER BRACKET - HOLE LOCATION
(means are indicated by solid circles)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Source DF SS MS F P
Factor 1 0.0038 0.0038 0.05 0.826
Error 48 3.7236 0.0776
Total 49 3.7274
FASCIA LOCATING HOLE &
MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE
DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X”
y=f(x)
The current design muffler
assembly aid positions the
pipe to the center of tunnel,
which is 4.2 mm from design
position. This translates 13
mm muffler body movement
toward the fascia area.
y=f(x)
Muffler assembly aids used
during installation require
detailed 4.2 mm offset
positioning feature to meet
design intent.
REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID
• incorporated the 4.2 mm design
CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID
• 4.2 mm offset from design allows
pipe position to vary when installed
D M A I C R
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

14. 6-PANEL
Page 14 of 23
DMAICR
IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)What is the optimal Y=f(x) solution?
2)How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical proof that the solution works.)
3)Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work plan must include:
a.Permanent/Interim actions,
b.Sample size,
c.Next steps if trial is successful,
d.Next steps if trial is NOT successful,
e.Part availability if trial is successful,
f.Additional actions pending.
4)Validation of fix after implementation. Before and after process capability of Y, showing variable data histograms, attribute data, etc.
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Improve material)
•Design of Experiments (Main Effect & Interaction Plots, ANOVA Tables)
•Regression Analysis
•Correlation Analysis
•Hypothesis Testing
•Cost / Benefit Analysis
•Process Mapping (should be)

15. 6-PANEL
Page
15 of
23
20 25 30 35 40 45
LSL Target
IMPROVEMENT VALIDATED
Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia -
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
Ppk
PPL
PPU
Pp
Cpm
Cpk
CPL
CPU
Cp
StDev (Overall)
StDev (Within)
Sample N
Mean
LSL
Target
USL
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
0.00
*
0.00
2.03
2.03
*
*
*
2.63
2.63
*
*
3.25054
2.51058
120
36.8375
17.0000
30.0000
*
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Potential (Within) Capability
Process Data
Within
Overall
10 15 20 25 30
LSL Target
BASELINE PERFORMANCE
Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia -
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
Ppk
PPL
PPU
Pp
Cpm
Cpk
CPL
CPU
Cp
StDev (Overall)
StDev (Within)
Sample N
Mean
LSL
Target
USL
255141.04
*
255141.04
239276.82
*
239276.82
216216.22
*
216216.22
0.22
0.22
*
*
*
0.24
0.24
*
*
3.36607
3.12746
37
19.2162
17.0000
30.0000
*
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Potential (Within) Capability
Process Data
Within
Overall
Improved y=f(x)
A. Incorporate trimmed
fascia and sheet metal for
clearance.
B. Muffler hanger bracket
design modified, along
with fascia and sheet
metal change improved
clearance 15 mm.
Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of Y
One-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE)
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Factor 1 8781.3 8781.3 822.74 0.000
Error 155 1654.4 10.7
Total 156 10435.6
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev ----------+---------+---------+------
FASCI-EN 120 36.838 3.244 (*)
FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343 (-*-)
----------+---------+---------+------
Pooled StDev = 3.267 24.0 30.0 36.0
Implementation Workplan
Permanent / Before/After
Interim Actions Who/When Indicators
Concern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B)
Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A)
and sheet metal for In production
additional clearance. Jan., 2002
Concern C11272097 Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B)
Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A)
assy aid to meet design March, 2002
y and z specification.
All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions
and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.
BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001 AFTER: March 1, 2002
D M A I C R
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

16. 6-PANEL
Page
16 of
23
D M A I C R
Example of Weibull
Plotting B10 Life
Improvement
FRONT AND REAR BRAKES CHASSIS ROLL DYNO-NOISE
BEFORE AND AFTER DESIGN CHANGED
0.30%
17.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
Front Baseline Front New Insulator &
Chamfer
Percent Occurrence of Noisy Stops
Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification Data requires solid
statistical evidence using adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent.
Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval
Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.
N Mean StDev SE Mean
Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30
Rr Verif 29 32.27 1.31 0.24
95% CI for mu Rr Base - mu Rr Verif: ( 1.41, 2.96)
T-Test mu Rr Base = mu Rr Verif (vs not =): T = 5.69 P = 0.0000 DF = 43
Mean is at the
Target of 32Sones
P-Value is less than .05
Therefore, there is a
statistical difference
between means
Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise
level is significantly improved.
Subgroup 0 10 20 30 40 50
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Individual Value
66
X=33.22
3.0SL=37
Baseline
Noise Level (Base vs Modification)
Modification

17. 6-PANEL
Page
17 of
23
D M A I C R
0.033
0.004
0.000
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
Baseline New Insulator & Chamfer
Objective Noise Index
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle
Cumulative Incidents / Vehicle
Example of APG Durability Reliability Analysis
Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage
APG or CAE/Lab test can be
used for this Slot)
Additional Improve Phase Examples –
Verification with Durability Data
DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT
operating conditions

18. 6-PANEL
Page 18 of 23
D M A I C R
• Develop a work plan is to include detailed course of actions to fix the problem, including permanent/
engineering/process/quality actions, Plant trial schedule and sample size, next step after the trail, etc
Example - Work Plan
WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART
An overall plan showing improvement timelines for implementing containment, interim and permanent
corrective actions.
x Problem Definition - The GQRS and AWS indicator pointed out the following area of concern:
x The PERMANENT/INTERIM engineering/process/quality actions we are working on is/are:
Item Date Before After Indicator
1 4/2/02 17% 0.30% % Noisy stop
x We are running a trial of ___________ pieces
No trail needed in assembly plants. Development and Test carried out at Dyno Lab
x If all goes well, we will have parts in house on 4/02/02 (date)
Explorer Customer experienced Brake Squeal after vehicle sitting at rest over night. Noise on the first few brake applies and
then goes away.
Project Improvement
Action
New Rubore insulator and chamfer
Additional Improve Phase Example –
Workplan detail timeline chart

19. 6-PANEL
Page
19 of
23
DMAICR
CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof showing that the process is in control over time, using internal indicators.
2)What actions are taken to sustain the gains? (Example: Standard Operating Procedure changes (including control plan), permanent design or tooling change, etc.)
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Control material)
•Process or Design FMEAs
•Control Plans for Process and Gage
•Statistical Process Control
•Standard Operating Procedures
•Visual Factory
•Preventative Maintenance
•Prevent Recurrence
•Poka Yoke / Mistake Proofing
•Document special cause actions (Global 8-D), as necessary.

20. 6-PANEL
Page 20 of 23
Subgroup 0 5 10 15 20 25
41.5
40.5
39.5
38.5
37.5
36.5
35.5
34.5
33.5
32.5
Sample Mean
Mean=36.91
UCL=40.67
LCL=33.15
15
10
5
0
Sample Range
R=6.521
UCL=13.79
LCL=0
IMPROVEMENT SUSTAINED AND IN CONTROL!
ITEM CONTROL Xbar/R Chart for Muffler Clearance to Facia
DATE RESPONSIBLE
C11298746 Revised Sable Fascia and sheet metal for additional
clearance.
In
production
Jan 2002.
Robert Bryer Body Structures
Engineer AAP-PVT
C11272097 Redesigned muffler assembly aid to meet design y and z
specification
March 2002 Steve Hornby PTSE design
engineer, Andrew Schmid BB,
Pat Swann BB
Submit for financial approval and order new parts
In plant
May 2002
Tuan Nguyen Randy Wright
AAP PVT
Audit Plan On going 4 Poster test, M-10 drive, WRAP
On line clearance checks
Monitor daily
Ongoing V.O. 4-poster test M-10 drive,
WRAP performed at AAP/CAP
Follow up audit during full production with new aid
May 2002 Ken Eckert/John
Kamph/Patricia Swann
SDS-FMEA-DVP
review
Confirm system design requirements in place
-ER-0052 Ver 15 Clearances Around the Exhaust System
· Req Details 17164 20328 20331 20332 21239
21240
· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER
–ER-0005 Ver 11 Exhaust Static Location
· Req Details 23094/23484
· Verification Method 10675
SDS identified for update
–ER-0039 Design for Assembly
· Req Details 8624
· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER
April 2002 Pat Swann, Steve Hornby,
Hank Newsome
Dan Valle/Mark Dixon
L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable
August 27, 2002
Containment 10/17/02
Fascia Change 1/2/02
Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02
D M A I C R
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

21. 6-PANEL
Page 21 of 23
DMAICR
Total Warranty Spending andUnexpended Warranty Savings:
•Unexpended roadmap opportunities forall affected model year coverage periods:
•Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions:
•Top spending parts for this CCC: (for each part, please explain)
•Problem fixed in production
•Optimized solution availability
•Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
1)What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY?
2)What is your warranty-spend savings with road map?
3)What are your top spending parts for this CCC? For each part:
•Is the problem fixed in production?
•Is there an optimal solution?
•Labor time: More efficient repair process, special service tool
•Part pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline?
•Other: Efficient repair procedure (part vs. subassembly) Improved diagnostics-reduced TNI, Policy changes, Customer education to prevent failure
•Does the supplier participate in Warranty Reduction Program (WRP)?

22. 6-PANEL
Page 22 of 23
DMAICR
REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)Who else at Ford could be affected or could benefit? (Replication at another Plant or on another vehicle line?)
2)Are there any larger business unit or even global intellectual capital effects? (SDS, FMEAs, VDS, etc. in need of updates?)
3)After 6 months, is the process still in control and the improvement in Y and X sustained? (Control Charts, Proof from Warranty or GQRS, etc.)
Additional Tools:(add slide(s) to capture backup Replicate/End material)
•SPC, Control Charting

23. 6-PANEL
Page 23 of 23
PROJECT END –PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT:
Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant)
Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability –0 DPMO, Cpk=2.82)
AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )
REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Key ActionsIs this Replicable?If Yes, Where?Responsibility
•Design Change to Assembly AidYes, at sister Plant (CAP)Chicago, ILLOrlando Ventura
•Design Change to FasciaNo, specific to Taurus/Sable design
UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Core BookChange MadeOwnerDocument #Completed
Attribute FMEA
Design FMEA
Process FMEA
SDSChanged clearance specs.Dan ValleER-0039 ver118/2/2002
VDS
FDVS
<other specify here> DMAICRCCC: L66 -Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 -Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 Muffler