This document provides information about a project being conducted by Team Independence at Independence Corrugated to address product loading damage. It introduces the team members and champions. It describes the company's history and mission. It presents the problem statement of damaged products being shipped resulting in customer credits. It outlines the Define and Measure phases of the DMAIC process used, including data collection plans, surveys, analyses of damage by shift and customer, and monitoring of damage locations.

1. 1© 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 1
EDU QSM 566(O); Cohort 116
Master Business Project; Team Independence
1/27/17

2. 2QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Team Independence - Corrugated
Product Loading Damage Project
2
D M A I C
Team Members:
Louis Poggenburg
Manager, Quality Assurance
Independence Corrugated
Oak Creek, WI
Kistler D. Fletcher Sr.
Senior Advisor, Logistics Automation
Project Manager/T3P
DynCorp International, LLC
Kabul, Afghanistan
Yvonne Rutherford, BS, CQPA
Administrative Officer, Community-
based Outpatient Clinics
Primary Care, Veterans Affairs
Dublin, GA

3. 3QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 3
History:
Independence Corrugated is one of the premiere producers of corrugated paper
packaging. Founded in Oak Creek, Wisconsin in 2004, Independence Corrugated has
established an industry-wide reputation for being: Reliable, Accountable, Pioneering.
By maintaining a 98 percent on-time delivery rate, a focus on reinvesting in
technology, and a ceaseless drive to raise the bar and improve productivity,
Independence Corrugated has become a renowned market leader
(www.independencecorr.com).
Mission:
“The mission of our loyal and dedicated team members is to provide value added
solutions for the most demanding customers in the markets we serve.” (
www.schwarzpartners.com).
Company noteworthy accomplishments:
Since 2006, the company has increased productivity by at least 75 percent annually.
A 112-inch wide corrugator installed at the plant was the first of its kind, and is one
of the three widest in the United States.
In 2013, the company set a world record of square footage for a sheet of corrugated
produced.
Independence Corrugated is affiliated with the Schwarz Partners, LP
 investment group (www.independencecorr.com).
D M A I C

4. 4QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Independence Corrugated
Champion and Guiding Coalition
 Champion
Chad Gillenwater
The Plant Manager has complete responsibility for the overall leadership, commitment,
implementation, and adherence to Independence Corrugated Production & Quality
System.
 Day-to-Day Champions
Joe Sexton
Production Superintendent; responsible for the day to day control of manufacturing
processes, equipment, maintenance and adherence to the Quality System.
Jacob Brandt
Accounts Receivable; gathers and collects data, maintains financial spreadsheets.
John Luznicky
Production Coordinator and Safe Trainer; assists with quality as needed.
4
D M A I C

5. 5QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Guiding Coalition – cont’d
Erik Piorkowski
QC Technician
Jon Snelson
Shipping Manager
Develops the shipping functions for all 12 plants.
Shipping Supervisors
Will be informed of any process changes made.
Jeff Floyd
1st Shift Supervisor
Jim Sindric
2nd
Shift Supervisor
Glen Zandi
3rd
Shift Supervisor
5
D M A I C

6. AnalyzeAnalyzeAnalyzeAnalyze
MeasureMeasureMeasureMeasure
DefineDefineDefineDefine
ControlControlControlControl
ImproveImproveImproveImprove
D M A I C
• Determine business case
• Develop initial problem statement
• Develop descriptive charts (fishbone, pareto)
• Develop data collection plan
• Collect data
• Develop charts/ findings/ redefine problem statement
• Benchmark for new learnings/ metrics
• Determine root causes
• Develop charts/ findings
• Develop recommendations to improve
• Pilot recommendations
• Evaluate and refine recommendations
• Recommend methods/ metrics to monitor
• Recommend short and long term actions
Six Sigma Project Phases & Tools

7. 7QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Problem Statement
 The Independence Corrugated Plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, shipped
damaged product to its customers resulting in 57 requests for credits
totaling $11,420 between January 2015 and March 2016.
 External nonconformance return costs due to rework and
remanufacturing resulted in an annual cost of poor quality of $89,320
during this time period.
7
D M A I C

8. 8QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 8
Lift
Product
from
production
line via
fork lift
Lift
Product
from
production
line via
fork lift
Product
Disposition
Product
scanned by
computer which
determines
where product
goes next
Product set
down/ stacked
in finished
goods area by
fork lift
Product picked
up in finished
goods area by
fork lift
Product set in
trailer according
to width or
length of product
Fork lift backs
up from
production line
and turns
around
Fork lift backs
up from
finished goods
area and turns
around
Fork lift backs
up from finished
goods area and
turns around
Product picked
up by fork lift
and repositioned
if needed to
maximize space
Product
Directly
loaded in
trailer
Product taken to
trailer on fork lift
Product set next
to trailer awaiting
optimal loading
space by width or
length of product
Fork lift backs
up from
dropped
product
Fork lift picks up
product and
backs up to load
onto trailer
Blow horn
and back
fork lift out
of trailer
D M A I CCurrent “As-Is” Process

9. 9QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
SIPOC
9
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers
 Independence
WI plant
production line
 Product orders
 Fork lift
computer
 I.D. tag printer
 Q.M.S. and
training
requirements
 Loading
Department
 Shipping
Contracted
Carrier
 Produced
units
 Unit scanner
 Units needing
to be scanned
 Shipping
schedule
 Loading
efficiency
order
 I.D. tag
 Loading
configuration
 Fork lift
operator
 Trailer loading
standard
operating
procedure
(SOP)
Lift product from
product line
Product scanned by
fork lift computer
Product is taken
temporarily to
finished goods or
directly to trailer
Product loaded
directly into trailer
or staged outside of
trailer to shortly be
loaded
Scan product when
unloaded into trailer
Unload product on
left or right side of
trailer
Blow horn and back
fork lift out of trailer
 Produced
units being
moved
 Finished
Goods
Staging
Area
 Inventory
into Axiom
software
 Loaded
Trailer
 Axiom trailer
inventory
 Fork Lift
Operator
 Finished
product
 Shipping
Department
 Quality
Assurance
Department
 Customers
ordering/
receiving final
product
D M A I C

10. 10QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Customer Requirements Matrix (CRM)
10
Customer Output Quality
Characteristic
Description What to Measure Target Importance
to
Customer
Customer
View of
Gap
Rank
Internal
Shipping
Department
Ship out or
receive
undamage
d product
to
customers
Efficiency Determine what
is loaded and
when
The time to load trailers
and empty finished
goods staging area
5 4 1 4
Accuracy Loading product
without wasted
space
Product that is shorter
or longer than 98”
4 4 1 4
Undamaged Product has no
tears, scrapes,
bends, or
punctures
Frequency of return
authorizations >$25 for
damaged product
4 5 1 5
Quality
Assurance
Department
Efficiency No rework Labor costs for rework
completed
5 4 1 4
Accuracy No waste Cost of product material
thrown away due to
damage.
5 3 1 3
Undamaged Product has no
tears, scrapes,
bends, or
punctures
Amount of return
authorizations >$25 for
damaged product
4 4 1 4
External
Customers
ordering/
receiving
final product
Efficiency Product is
delivered timely
The amount of time
from order received to
product delivered
4 5 1 5
Accuracy Product
received is
correct order
amount and
type
Customer requests for
order corrections
regarding quantity and
type
5 5 1 5
Undamaged Product has no
tears, scrapes,
bends, or
Frequency of return
authorization >$25 for
damaged product
5 5 1 5
D M A I C

11. 11QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 11
Data Collection Plan
Data to
collect
Stratification
Grouping
Op.
Def.?
Sample Size Source &
Location
Collection
Period
Responsible MBP
Member
QVR
Report
(Cost)
By customer
and cost
Yes Monthly
12 months
100% QVRs
Customer
Service
Department
Oct 2015 to
September
2016 (last day
of each month)
Louis Poggenburg
(Collection)
Yvonne Rutherford
(Analysis)
Process
Damage
Detection
Monitor
By shift (1st
,
2nd
, 3rd
)
Yes 60 days
Mon – Fri
Every 4 hours;
3 Shifts
Observational
Product
Inspection
July 25 to Sept
25, 2016
Louis Poggenburg
(Collection)
Yvonne Rutherford
(Analysis)
Surveys Forklift Drivers;
Quality Tech;
Prod. Coord.
No 12 drivers
(100%)
1 QT
1 PC
In-person and
while loading
from floor each
shift
July 25, 2016 to
August 5, 2016
Louis Poggenburg
(Collection)
Yvonne Rutherford
(Analysis)
Loading
Process
Time
Average By
Shift and by
step
No 10 random
loads per shift
Shipping Floor Aug 15, 2016 to
Sept 10, 2016
Louis Poggenburg
(Collection)
Yvonne Rutherford
(Analysis)
Employee
Training
Records
By employee
as a group of
Drivers
Yes 12 records
12 months
Shipping
Supervisors
October 2015 to
September
2016
Louis Poggenburg
(Collection and
Analysis)
D M A I C

12. 12QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Fishbone Diagram
12
D M A I C

13. 13QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
13
Operational Definitions / Acronyms
 QVR – Quality Variance Report contains detailed damage data based on customer
credit requests.
 Lead Time – The elapsed time from time of order entry by the Independence CSR and
the production of finished units that arrive to the customer receiving dock.
 Damage – Although customers are more lenient, the depth of an indentation or tear
that is at least a .5” for corrugated sheets with no scores and at least .75” for
corrugated sheets with scores, as decided by Independence.
 Loading Process Time – time when product is picked up to when dropped off at
staged area and/or trailer.
 Pre-loading Damage – damage detected prior to product being picked up by a fork lift
 In-Process Damage Detection Monitor – A monitor documenting product damage
discovered prior to trailer being closed and moving from the loading dock.
 Scores – Dimensionally set line impressions in a corrugated sheet that allows the
sheet to bend without it cracking when being formed into a finished customer’s
product.
D M A I C

14. 14QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Force Field Analysis
14
Reduce
loading
damaged
product and
customer
credit
requests.
Supportive
Forces
Restraining Forces
Increase Customer Satisfaction
(5)
Reduced Redundancy (4)
Decreased Rework Time (4)
Reduced Processing and
Shipping Time (4)
Cost reduction for rework and
materials (3)
Supporting Forces
Weight: 20
Training time (1)
Resistance to Change by Front
line and Supervisory Staff (5)
Sense of Urgency/ creating
short-cuts (4)
Increased monitoring (2)
The ability to ensure change is
implemented accurately (3)
Communication between all 3
shifts (2)
Restraining Forces
Weight: 17
D M A I C

15. 15QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Mitigation of the Restraining Forces
15
Restraining Forces
Training time (1)
Resistance to Change by Front
line and Supervisory Staff (5)
Sense of Urgency/ creating
short-cuts (4)
Increased monitoring (2)
The ability to ensure change is
implemented accurately (3)
Communication between all 3
shifts (2)
Restraining Forces
Weight: 17
Training time will be entered into Outlook as a recurring
appointment
Change will be supported by the Champion
Standardized work will alleviate shortcutting by placing
emphasis on following the process via further defined
processes
Process audits will be the representative monitoring effort
and are fully supported by the Champion
Corrective actions will ensure that change is
implemented accurately
Inter-shift communication will be supported by
management, supervisors and leads
Mitigation Actions
D M A I C

16. 16QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Forklift Driver Survey
16
Pinpointing Damage Location and How Often
Answer from a scale 1 to 5 if damage is likely to occur
5 – highly likely (strongly agree)
4 – most likely (agree)
3 – somewhat likely (somewhat agree)
2 – not very likely (disagree)
1 – not likely at all (strongly disagree)
Location: Damage occurs within the Loading Process: 1 2 3 4 5
1) when unit is picked up from production line 1 2 3 4 5
2) when unit is set down in FG area 1 2 3 4 5
3) when picking up unit from FG area 1 2 3 4 5
4) when setting unit down in staging outside trailer 1 2 3 4 5
5) when picking unit up in staging area outside trailer 1 2 3 4 5
6) when setting unit down inside trailer 1 2 3 4 5
7) picking unit up from inside trailer 1 2 3 4 5
Possible Causes of Damage: Happens what % out of 100
1) Incidental Damage caused by bumping while unit is sitting in FG or Staging area
2) Pushing unit too hard with forklift
3) Lack of training and/or skill of driver
4) Misjudgment of space or product size
5) Rubbing forklift tires against unit
6) Stabbing unit with fork lift
7) Forklift backs into unit
8) Forklift side swipes unit
9) Unit is dropped heavily or too fast
Open Suggestions of Causes by Driver
Driver Name
D M A I C

17. 17QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Survey Data
17
D M A I C

18. 18QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Loading Damage by Shift
18
D M A I C
8
0
%

19. 19QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Loading Damage by Customer Claim
19
D M A I C
8
0
%

20. 20QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 20
D M A I C

21. 21QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 21
“Concentration” Diagram; Unit Damage Locations
D M A I C

22. 22QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Damage Audit Sheet
22
D M A I C
6 Week Period; 7/25 – 9/15
Product was monitored in:
•Temporary Finished Goods
locations,
•All staging locations outside
of each trailer entrance,
•Inside each trailer, as trailers
were loaded.
•If product is damaged, it is
sorted and dispositioned and
the order is reduced by the
quantity damaged, if
approved, or the missing
sheets are remade at the
customer’s request.
While all three shifts
conducted two audits per
shift, the entire 6 week
monitor/measure phase
prevented any QVRs from
being generated by customers
for loading damage received.

23. 23QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Cost Analysis/ COPQ
23
D M A I C
Tasks
Average
hours per
Task Hourly Rate
Cost of
Element
Material
Costs
External
Failure $
Internal
Failure $
Total
Failure
Cost
1. Customer Service
receives complaint
0.20 $25.00 $5.00 N/A $5.00 N/A $5.00
2. Forwards info to QA
and Production
0.10 $50.00 $5.00 N/A $5.00 N/A $5.00
3. Production
Superintendent
investigates problem
0.50 $50.00 $25.00 N/A $25.00 N/A $25.00
4. Cost of part N/A N/A N/A $776.27 $776.27 N/A $776.27
5. Production / QA
investigates the problem
4.00 $50.00 $200.00 N/A N/A N/A $200.00
6. Response and
requested credit is
provided to customer
0.75 $50.00 $37.50 776.00 $813.77 N/A $776.27
Total - - - - - -
$1,011/ ea.
Avg. Monthly Avg. Labor Avg. Material Avg. Total
Total
Damage $
Total
Failure
Annual annualized Failures = 52
# QVRs $ per QVR $ per QVR $ per QVR per year per year
4.4 $49.55 $776.27 $825.82 $42,943 $52,586.04
(50% reduction ) = $26,293.02

24. 24QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Prevention Recommendations
24
Root Cause Recommendation Rationale Responsible/
Timeframe
Internal damage
occurred within the
loading process prior to
being loaded onto truck
trailer.
Internal Damage Audits Internal damage data was not being collected; routine
but random audits were implemented during the
measure phase and logged per shift by supervisors for
tracking and trending. Identifying internal damage before
loading onto trailer will minimize customer credit
requests. The scrutiny has already improved damage
occurrences. This practice will continue.
QA Manager
Implemented July
25, 2016 and On-
going for 1st
Shift
There is no current
standardized practices or
procedures for loading
and moving product
during the loading
process.
Develop a Standard
Operation Procedure
(SOP)
Developing a written procedure for the loading process
will standardize the process which is a practice of highly
reliable organizations and a best practice.
QA Manager/
Shipping Manager
Implemented by
February 15, 2017
There is no current fork
lift driver process training
or competency skill
verification.
Forklift Driver Training
with competency
qualification
Drivers will have a standardized method of loading and
moving product, training on methods, methodology, and
best practices will give the drivers the skills and
competency to load and move product with less
damage. The driver’s understanding of the training will
be assessed using competency skill validation.
QA Manager
Implemented
February 16, 2017
to March 10, 2017
Interviews revealed
drivers do not think
damage is likely to occur
at any stage of the
loading process. There is
no communication to the
drivers regarding actual
damage reported or
related cost.
A communication plan
with verbal and visual
techniques will be
implemented to ensure
routine briefs and visual
cues informing drivers of
current performance
measures status.
Communicating cost and frequency of damage with
expected goals between leadership and drivers will
encourage personal investment and result driven
behavior. Weekly routine communication will include the
drivers in the process improvement aspect encouraging
buy-in.
QA Manager/
Shipping Manager
Implemented March
13, 2017 and on-
going
D M A I C

25. 25QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Failure Analysis Recommendations
25
Root Cause Recommendation Rationale Person
Responsible/
Timeframe
1st shift had only 6% of
total damage reported by
customers.
Identify 1st Shift Best
Practices
Examining the process and environment on 1st shift
will help guide improvement efforts on 2nd and 3rd
shift. This results in focused improvement efforts for
root causes. This information will assist in writing the
SOP and training modules.
QA Manager
Implemented
February 1 – 15,
2017
Independence has not
collaborated with other
companies in the field and
has not conducted their
own studies on loading
damage.
Consult w/ Rite Hite
Corp for Best Practices
Independence will benefit from other company's
lessons learned and research results regarding
loading damage. Implementing best and proven
practices will minimize damage frequency internally
prior to shipment. This effort may impact the SOP
and training aspects.
QA Manager
Implemented by
May 1, 2017
There are missed
opportunities to expand
the uses of the corrugated
product made by
Independence, Inc.
Pursue benchmark
venture w/ Ecologic
bottles
Working with an innovative company and expanding
the uses of the product will increase business
opportunities for the company. This process may take
months to establish a business contact and
relationship. This is reflected in the timeline.
QA Manager
Implemented by
April 1, 2017
There is no monitor of
loading process or end
result within the trailer.
Damage as a result of
loading is currently
unknown.
Add cameras facing
inside of loading trailers
Using video footage to review loading practices and
the end results of product loads can be used for
lessons learned and investigating shipping damage.
This step will likely cost the most and logistical
research is needed therefore will occur once drivers
are trained.
QA Manager
Implemented by
April 30, 2017
D M A I C

26. 26QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 26
Lift
Product
from
production
line via
fork lift
Lift
Product
from
production
line via
fork lift
Product
Disposition
Product
scanned by
computer which
determines
where product
goes next
Product set
down/ stacked
in finished
goods area by
fork lift
Product picked
up in finished
goods area by
fork lift
Product set in
trailer according
to width or
length of product
Fork lift backs
up from
production line
and turns
around
Fork lift backs
up from
finished goods
area and turns
around
Fork lift backs
up from finished
goods area and
turns around
Product picked
up by fork lift
and repositioned
if needed to
maximize space
Product
Directly
loaded in
trailer
Product taken to
trailer on fork lift
Product set next
to trailer awaiting
optimal loading
space by width or
length of product
Fork lift backs
up from
dropped
product
Fork lift picks up
product and
backs up to load
onto trailer
Blow horn
and back
fork lift out
of trailer
Future Process
Damage
Detection
Audit
Completed by
QA/ Shift
Supervisor
Damaged
Product
Removed
D M A I C

27. 27QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Secondary Benchmark Research
In the article “Stop Load Damage”, William Atkinson discusses research results that
focus on loading freight and cargo practices that minimize product damage prior to and
during transit (2006).
Topics discussed in this article are:
1.Handling Practices
2.Loading Practices
3.Load Configuration
4.From Principles to Practice (pp. 2-3).
In the article “Liquids in Cardboard Containers”, Julie Corbett, founder and chief executive
(Ecologic Brands), said the bottles generate 59 percent less plastic waste, 37 percent fewer
carbon dioxide emissions and consume 48 percent less energy than equivalent plastic bottles
(2013).
Topics discussed in this article are:
1.Corrugated board recycling is big business right now
2.Converting 1 million pounds of discarded boxes each month
3.Produce 6 million bottles per year, from those discarded cardboard boxes for house-brand
products now, to potentially 60 million bottles per year in the future
4.Ecologic’s fiberboard bottles -- which have a plastic liner -- are an earth-friendly replacement
for plastic bottles
5.Other manufacturing applications now connect into the recycling world

28. 28QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Implementation Strategy
28
D M A I C

29. 29QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Implementation Cost
29
D M A I C
Prevention Plan Costs
Root Cause Description
Corrective Action Rationale
Annual Hours
Needed $/hr. Rate Total $
1. Lack of SOP Write SOP
Standardize the
process
2.0 $50 $100
2. Lack of Training (3rd)
Train & qualify 3rd
shift
Standardize the
process
10.0 $50 $500
3. Visual Management
Implement Visual
Management /
Metrics
Raise Departmental
Awareness
12.0 $50 $600
Total Total $1,200
Failure Reduction Analysis
Root Cause Description
Corrective Action Rationale
Annual Hours
Needed $/hr. Rate Total $
1st shift had 6% total damage reported
Implement Visual
Management /
Metrics
Improvements to be
added to SOP
4.0 $50 $200
Independence has not conducted a
benchmark study to date
Consult w/ Rite Hite
Corp for Best
Practices
Utilize lessons learned to
further reduce damage
4.0 $250/hr. $1,000
Missed opportunities to expand business
opportunities in this direction
Pursue benchmark
venture w/ Ecologic
bottles
Expanding market share TBD TBD TBD
No real time monitoring of trailer damage
inside trailer
Add cameras facing
inside of loading
trailers
to obtain additional
information for root
cause analysis
2.0 + 12.0
$35/hr; $3000
Equip.
$3,490
Total Total $5,890

30. 30QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Return on Investment (ROI)
30
ROI
Achievable failure reduction (50%) $26,293
Prevention dollars = $1,200 = 21.91
Benefit / cost ROI = 21.9 : 1
D M A I C
ROI with Failure Reduction
Analysis
Achievable failure reduction (50%) $26,293
Prevention dollars = $5,890 = 4.46
Benefit / cost ROI = 4.46 : 1

31. 31QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Payback Time
31
Prevention investment $1,200
Achievable savings
=
$26,293
=
0.05years
Payback
= 18days
D M A I C
Payback with Failure
Reduction Analysis
Prevention investment $5,890
Achievable savings = $26,293 = 0.22years
Payback = 80days

32. 32QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Monitoring and Control Plan
32
Issue Date: 18-Oct-16
Approved by :
Team
Independence
NGS
Project Name: Loading Damage Reduction
Approval date: R1 10/19/2016 Cohort #116
Process Flow
Manufacturing
/ Machine
Characteristics Methods
Evaluation &
Measuring
Technique
Reactions if Out-of-
Control Conditions are
Encountered
Sequence
Number
Process
Description
Process Step Product
Target
Specification /
Tolerance
Sample Size
Sample
Frequency
Controlling
Owner
10A
Step 1
Production
Forklift
Lift product
from line
Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
Every Piece
as
needed
Forklift Driver
Tape Measure Quarantine unit and
notify shipping
20A Step 2 FG Forklift
Product
relocated in FG Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
All units
within
observed
reach of
audit
QA Dept.
Tape Measure
Quarantine unit and
notify shipping,
scheduling, and
production
30A Step 3 FG Forklift
Product picked
up from FG Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
Every Piece
as
needed
Forklift Driver
Tape Measure Quarantine unit and
notify shipping
40A Step 4 Stage Forklift
Product
relocated next to
trailer
Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
All units
within
observed
reach of
audit
QA Dept.
Tape Measure
Quarantine unit and
notify shipping,
scheduling, and
production
50A Step 5 Stage Forklift
Product picked
up next to trailer Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
Every Piece
as
needed
Forklift Driver
Tape Measure Quarantine unit and
notify shipping
60A Step 6 Trailer Forklift
Product
relocated left or
right side into
trailer
Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
All units
within
observed
reach of
audit
QA Dept.
Tape Measure
Quarantine unit and
notify shipping,
scheduling, and
production
70A Step 7 Trailer Forklift
Product
relocated within
trailer
Step 1 damage free
(zero other defects)
0.0 +/- .050
without scores
0.0 +/- .
075 with
scores
Every Unit
Every
Set-up
Every Piece
as
needed
Forklift Driver
Tape Measure Quarantine unit and
notify shipping
D M A I C

33. 33QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Results
 Loading damage (forklifts) has shown a natural oscillation above and below the mean over the last three
years, derived from customer returns. However, as show below, rises in returns are approximately semi-
annual, during peak winter and summer months. SPC represents in and out of control conditions as they
happen.
 Although 1st
shift has been monitored before the measurement phase and continues to be monitored semi-
routinely, the only time in three years that this metric ever hit zero damage, was specifically when all three
shifts were being monitored. Therefore, a detectable difference exists when monitoring all three shifts.
 Wertheimer should be given more care during handling, due to this customer’s elevated sensitivity to damage
details and due to their large purchase volume; see customer Pareto diagram.
33

34. 34QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Champion Review
 Well thought out
 Reasonable expectations for change
 Excellent understanding of our process
 Professional attitudes
 Open to ideas and perspective
34

35. 35QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Lessons Learned
35
 The voice of customer (VOC) is necessary for problem solving.
 While data was collected and shared, collected data should be briefed to the team on a
scheduled basis to encourage understanding and team buy-in; perhaps weekly or bi-
weekly.
 Due to the fast-paced manufacturing environment and high demand for on-time delivery, it
is challenging to communicate as a group between employees and shifts.
 The establishment and conformity of communications plans and ground rules are critical
components of team development. Interpersonal skills are paramount to project success.
 It is essential to identify internal weaknesses in an effort to exploit and fortify them.
Identify and capitalize on internal/personal strengths in an effort to optimize productivity
and overall project objectives.
 Never rule out any thoughts from brainstorming/group activity when creating Cause &
Effect diagrams.
 Pareto charts are an excellent tool to use when pinpointing where your main problems are
occurring.
 Statistical Process Control (SPC) is a key element and rigorous approach for deciding
when a process has changed or needs intervention.

36. 36QSMXXX 01072014 © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
This material is protected by United States copyright laws. You must treat this publication like any other proprietary material. No part of this material may
be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic medium by individuals or organizations outside of The National Graduate
School of Quality Management without prior written consent from the National Graduate School of Quality Management. For information, please call
800.838.2580 or visit www.ngs.edu. © 2014 The National Graduate School of Quality Management.
363636
Celebrating 20 YEARS of Quality Education