The document details a project aimed at reducing bent, scratched, and damaged scrap costs in a material handling department by over 76%, from $5,850 to $1,362 monthly, through improved rack design, employee training, and optimized processes. Employing a DMAIC approach, the project identified root causes of scrap and implemented measures for sustainability, with emphasis on communication and collaboration across departments. The project's successful completion not only met its goals ahead of schedule but also established best practices for future initiatives across facilities in the U.S. and Canada.

1. Executive Summary
Project Wins
• Improved Bent/Scratched/Damaged Scrap $$$ from average
of $5850/month to $1362/month in Material Handling
Department from August 2015 to December 2015 – over
76% Scrap Reduction – goal was 50%.
• Designed more efficient racks, improved employee cross-
training, established Control Charts/Monitoring Plan to
sustain improvements
• Improved outdated Standard Work Instructions with Visual
Management and identified/implemented simple changes
(spacer/arm covers/shavings/tiedowns) to the process.
• Created new storage area that eliminated 1,527 feet of
wasted Motion/Transportation due to Process Bottleneck.
DMAIC Approach
• Gathered Internal Customer Feedback using Affinity
Analysis
• Identified Root Causes with a Fishbone Diagram
(Ishikawa)
• Used a Process Walk to identify the 8 Wastes
• Used LCS for Rack Design Change/Pilot
• Put Controls in place for sustainment of improvements
Context
• The flawed process was on pace for a 300% increase in
BSD Scrap. Identifying these root causes not only
allowed us to improve the process – but also identify Best
Practices to implement throughout our other facilities
across the U.S. and Canada.
Project Start: 9/7/2015 Project End: 1/27/2016
$4,622.06
$8,114.10
$4,877.85
$4,942.94
$5,653.64
$3,854.11
$6,412.27
$8,327.46
$6,177.00
$4,541.79
$2,252.09
$1,362.02
$0.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
2015 - B/S/D - MATERIAL HANDLING
SCRAP $$

2. Operational Definitions
• Anodizing (ANO) – chemical coating process that converts metal stock
lengths into a decorative, durable, corrosion-resistant finish
• B/S/D = Bent/Scratched/Damaged Material
• Bent Material – Material bowed in excess of 1/32” for every 4.5” in width
(Max width is 9”)
• Damaged Material – Any combination of Bent/Scratched metal in addition
to any damage that occurs during transit
• Extrusion (EXT) – process where metal logs are pushed through a die to
create objects/shapes of a fixed profile
• Paint (PNT) – process of pre-treating and adding full coats of primer and
desired paint color along conveyor
• Scratched Material – Any length scratch appearing in an exposed area of
metal and/or scratch in excess of 3” in unexposed area of metal
• Exposed Area – Any area of the metal that is on the exterior of the building
or visible through a lite of glass
• Unexposed Area – Any area of the metal that is not visible upon installation

3. Define
• Weighted Criteria Matrix
• Project Charter
• Collect VOC/Internal Customer Feedback (Affinity Analysis)
• VOC Translation Matrix
• High Level Map (SIPOC)
• Process Walk Planning Checklist
• Detailed Process Map (Swimlane)
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Relationship Map
• Communication Plan
• Pose and Answer

4. Weighted Criteria Matrix

5. Project CharterSubtitle
Scrap $$$ for the Material Handling Dept. has risen to
$5850/month in 2015 (January-August) for material
marked as Bent/Scratched/Damaged. The Scrap $$$ in
2014 for the same category was just $2141/month.
While the costs obviously hurt the bottom line, the
inability to push a good quality product in a timely
manner impacts delivery to our Assembly/Glazing
Plants and eventually; runs the risk of missing Customer
Due Dates.
My organization's Strategy for 2015 was
to create a culture of (1) Problem Solving
and (2) Continuous Improvement. With
B/S/D Scrap $$$ projected to jump
almost 300% from 2014 to 2015, this
cross-departmental project is our best
opportunity to reduce scrap costs across
the board while aligning our efforts with
the Organizational Strategy. This project
Problem Statement
Goal Statement
Business Case & Benefits
The goal is to reduce Bent/Scratched/Damaged Scrap
$$$ by 50% from $5850/month to $2925/month by the
end of 4Q/2015.
Timeline
Preliminary Plan:
Timeline Planned
Actual Define
9/28/15 9/27/15
Measure 10/26/15
10/27/15 Analyze
11/16/15 11/19/15
Improve 12/14/15
12/24/15 Control
Scope In/Out
Process : Material Handling Department handles the flow
of all Metal traveling from (1) Extrusion Presses, (2)
Anodizing Lines, (3) Paint Department, (4)
Packing/Shipping. They are the only department that
touches all four areas of our Metal Processing Plant.
Team Members
Team Lead: Jeff (Quality Engineer/Green
Belt) - 25% Team Member 1: Michael
(Process Owner) - 20% Team
Member 2: Dexter M. (Mat.
Handler/Driver) - 15% Team Member
3: Vincent L. (Maintenance) - 15%
Team Member 4: Jaxson P. (Material
Handler) - 15% Team Member 5:
Kevin Y. (Fabrication) - 5%

6. VOC – AFFINITY ANALYSIS
Customers of this Process-driven project are all internal departments
(Extrusion, Anodizing, Paint). The feedback focused on three important factors:

7. VOC Translation Matrix
Customer Comment Gathering More Understanding Customer Requirement
Skipping Visual Checks - bad material being
ignored
Customers want material reviewed at each process
step
Each Dept. (EXT/ANO/PAINT) along with Material
Handling to initial traveler showing QC check
performed
Poorly conditioned (decaying/nails) racks
scratching parts
Customers want better racks to protect parts
(consider re-design)
Remove all decaying/defective racks from
circulation - replace with new
Material arriving out of order, items left waiting, not
rushing jobs that should be
Customers want to receive parts as needed and
have a more organized scheduling system
Daily schedule for flow of Material/Orders - sync
across EXT/ANO/PNT
Parts being stacked on exposed surfaces Customers want parts properly stacked to avoid
scratches and double-handling
All employees to receive training - signoff on
process of stacking parts
Metal spacers in circulation with no (or torn) sleeve
covers
Customers want spacers properly covered to
prevent scratches to material
Metal spacers to have kevlar sleeves
replaced/stapled prior to loading parts
Employees not aware if material can be reworked -
assumed scrap
Customer can prevent serious scrap $$$ by
reworking material
Relocate potential rework to MRB area so Dept
Managers can sign-off/scrap
Voice Of the Customer Translation Matrix

8. SIPOC
S I P O C
Supplier Input Process Output Customer
Extrusion Logs Extrusion Press Metal Stock Lengths Anodizing (Internal)
Anodizing Anoding Tanks
Metal Stock Lengths
anodized (chemical
coating)
Anodized Coating Paint (Internal)
Paint Paintline
Primers - Full Coats of
Paint Applied
Painted Metal Shipping (Internal)
Packing/Shipping Load Trucks
Match Material to
Orders
Finished Goods
General Contractors -
Construction Firms
(6) Relocate potential Rework to MRB area so Dept Managers can sign-off/scrap
Training: (5) All employees to receive training - signoff on process of stacking parts
SIPOC
Extruded thru Dies
(shapes)
Customer Requirements:
Quality: (1) Each Dept (EXT/ANO/PNT) and MH to initial traveler showing QC check
(2) Remove all decaying/defective racks from circulation - replace with new
(3) Metal Spacers have kevlar sleeves replaced/stapled prior to use
OTIF: (4) Daily Schedule for flow of Material/Orders - sync across EXT/ANO/PAINT

9. Process Walk Planning
Activity
Completed
(Yes or No)
Develop a high level map of the process to be “walked” (SIPOC, Spaghetti) Yes
Create a list of all Process Walkers/Interviewers (Jeff, Michael) Yes
Create a list of all Interviewees (Dexter M., Jaxson P., Steven R.) Yes
Create a list of Stakeholders to be invited to the Stakeholder Presentation (Tim J., Paul K., Klay
M., Wes B.)
Yes
Develop a Communication Plan for the event Yes
Create a high level agenda for the Process Walk Yes
Set a tentative date/time for Process Walk Orientation Yes
List tentative dates/times and location for the Process Walk and the Stakeholder Update Yes
List tentative dates/times and location for the Stakeholder Update (last day) Yes
Process Walk Planning Checklist
Notes: *Orientation/Walk/Interviews scheduled for 9/22-9/23/15

10. Swimlane Map

11. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder/
Stakeholder
Group
Impact Level Level of Support
Reason for
Resistance or Support
Action(s) to Address
This Stakeholder
Group
Contact
VP-
MANUFACTURING
DECISION AUTHORITY SUPPORTIVE
FINANCIAL BACKING - WILL
HELP CLEAR BARRIERS
UPDATE/NOTIFYIF ANY
PURCHASES OR MATERIAL
NEEDED
TIMJ.
METAL PROC.
MANAGER
IMPACTS NEUTRAL
AWARE OF PROBLEMBUT
UNSURE EMPLOYEES CAN
HANDLE CHANGES
CREATE WORK
INSTRUCTIONS/TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES EARLYIN THE
PROCESS
KLAYM.
PLANT MGR AFFECTED RESISTANT
AFRAID CHANGES COULD
LEAD TO NON-VALUE ADDED
TIME TO CURRENT PROCESS
USE DATATO SHOW
EXPECTED COST SAVINGS
AND POTENTIAL LOSSES IF
NOT ADDRESSED
WES B.
QUALITYTEAM DECISION AUTHORITY SUPPORTIVE
ANXIOUS TO SHOW PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT TEAMS CAN
ADD VALUE TO THE
ORGANIZATION
CREATE USEFUL
TEMPLATES/DOCUMENT
STRATEGIES - IDENTIFY
GOOD/BAD LESSONS
LEARNED
PAUL K.
Stakeholder Analysis (Advanced) - DEFINE

12. Relationship Map
Project:
Relationship Map
BSD Scrap Reduction Project
Decision Authority
- Tim J. (VP-
Manufacturing)
Impacts Outcome -
Klay M. (Metal
Processing Mgr)
Will Be Affected -
Wes B. (Plant Mgr)
Project
Paul K. (Quality
Dir)

13. Communication Plan
Stakeholder Group Objectives/Actions Desired Message
Delivery
Method/Venue
Timing
Communication Plan
VP - Manufacturing
Metal Processing Mgr
Plant Manager
Quality Team
Communicate any financial
limitations or restrictions -
Support the Project
Have leads/supervisors give
full access to employees and
help with training needs
Enforce countermeasures and
action plans put in place once
root causes identified
Support team members and
encourage other departments
to research future projects
Potential changes to the racks/sleeves
need to be explored for $$$
Email Bi-Weekly
Allow time for Process
Walks/Interviews to allow team to build
knowledge of the current state
1-on-1/Email Weekly (Tues/Thurs)
Assist Process Improvement Activities
in focused areas and review data ($$)
that backs up need for project
Weekly Dept. Meetings Weekly (Tues/Thurs)
Document Activities/Progression
showing value of a culture change
1-on-1 Weekly

14. Pose and Answer
Pose & Answer - Influence Strategy
Questions Answers
What is important about this project? It is a broken/flawed process that impacts all departments of our plant.
Why is this project important to do right now? The Scrap $$$ for BSD is in a freefall and on pace to triple our scrap from 2014 (thru 8 months).
Why is this project more important than other
pressing projects?
Other projects can be handled in a 3-5 day Kaizen blitz - more of a quick fix. This project hits the bottom line more
than others and has cross-functional impacts and best practices that can be gained.
What problems will this project solve? It will identify the root causes for a plant-wide issue - for which currently there are none.
How will this project help your colleagues? It will help specify process improvement activities in focused areas.
How will the project help your manager?
It gives my manager the ammunition (proof) that our Process Improvement Teams can work hand-in-hand with all
departments and add value to the organization.
In what ways does the business gain from this
project?
We will gather the lessons learned to fix the problem and put metrics together to prevent it from getting out of control.
Draft Business Case
What are some positive side effects of doing
this project?
The ultimate value will be the Best Practices created that can be crossed over and implemented throughout our other
facilities across the United States and Canada.
Other?
My goal is to communicate (with proven results) to the shop employees, department managers, and upper level
management that the Lean-Based Culture is something we need to completely adopt.

15. Measure
• Data Collection Planning
• Bent Material (Visual Management)
• Scratched Material (Visual Management)
• Damaged Material (Visual Management)
• Checksheets
• Calculate Sampling Plan
• Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA)
• Baseline Measure Chart
• Process Capability

16. Data Collection Planning
Measure Data Type Operational Definition Stratification Factors Sampling Notes Who and How
BENT MATERIAL DISCRETE
MATERIAL BOWED IN
EXCESS OF 1/32" FOR
EVERY 4.5" IN WIDTH
(MAX WIDTH IS 9")
(1) LOCATION
(EXT/ANO/PAINT)
(2) SHIFT (1st/2nd)
SAMPLE EVERY 10TH
RACK OF FG1101M (25
PIECES PER RACK/3
RACKS MAX) PER SHIFT
EACH DAY FOR 5 DAYS
(10/19-10/23) - 750 TOTAL
PIECES SIMULTANEOUS
FOR BENT, SCRATCHED,
AND DAMAGED
MATERIAL HANDLING
TEAM - 1 RACK EACH AT
EXT/ANO/PAINT - VISUAL
INSPECTION - USE
CHECKSHEET - FOLLOW
MARKED RACKS FROM
EXT TO ANO TO PAINT
SCRATCHED MATERIAL DISCRETE
ANY LENGTH SCRATCH
APPEARING IN AN
EXPOSED AREA OF
METAL AND/OR
SCRATCH IN EXCESS OF
3" IN UNEXPOSED AREA
OF METAL
(1) LOCATION
(EXT/ANO/PAINT)
(2) SHIFT (1st/2nd)
SAMPLE EVERY 10TH
RACK OF FG1101M (25
PIECES PER RACK/3
RACKS MAX) PER SHIFT
EACH DAY FOR 5 DAYS
(10/19-10/23) - 750 TOTAL
PIECES SIMULTANEOUS
FOR BENT, SCRATCHED,
AND DAMAGED
MATERIAL HANDLING
TEAM - 1 RACK EACH AT
EXT/ANO/PAINT - VISUAL
INSPECTION - USE
CHECKSHEET - FOLLOW
MARKED RACKS FROM
EXT TO ANO TO PAINT
DAMAGED MATERIAL DISCRETE
ANY COMBINATION OF
BENT AND SCRATCHED
METAL IN ADDITION TO
ANY DAMAGE THAT
OCCURS DURING
TRANSIT OF MATERIAL
(1) LOCATION
(EXT/ANO/PAINT)
(2) SHIFT (1st/2nd)
SAMPLE EVERY 10TH
RACK OF FG1101M (25
PIECES PER RACK/3
RACKS MAX) PER SHIFT
EACH DAY FOR 5 DAYS
(10/19-10/23) - 750 TOTAL
PIECES SIMULTANEOUS
FOR BENT, SCRATCHED,
AND DAMAGED
MATERIAL HANDLING
TEAM - 1 RACK EACH AT
EXT/ANO/PAINT - VISUAL
INSPECTION - USE
CHECKSHEET - FOLLOW
MARKED RACKS FROM
EXT TO ANO TO PAINT
Data Collection Planning

17. Bent Material
MATERIAL BOWED IN EXCESS OF 1/32" FOR EVERY 4.5" IN WIDTH (MAX WIDTH IS 9")

18. Scratched Material
Exposed Area – 2” scratch
ANY LENGTH SCRATCH APPEARING IN AN EXPOSED AREA OF METAL AND/OR
SCRATCH IN EXCESS OF 3" IN UNEXPOSED AREA OF METAL
Unexposed Area – 6” scratch

19. Damaged Material
ANY COMBINATION OF BENT AND SCRATCHED METAL IN ADDITION TO ANY
DAMAGE THAT OCCURS DURING TRANSIT OF MATERIAL
Strap/Tie-down Damage Forklift Transit Damage

20. Checksheets
B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE: B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE:
TEAM: PART# TEAM: PART#
SHIFT: LENGTH SHIFT: LENGTH
LOCATION: PIECES: LOCATION: PIECES:
TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL
Bent Bent
Scratched Scratched
Damage/Transit Damage/Transit
B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE: B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE:
TEAM: PART# TEAM: PART#
SHIFT: LENGTH SHIFT: LENGTH
LOCATION: PIECES: LOCATION: PIECES:
TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL
Bent Bent
Scratched Scratched
Damage/Transit Damage/Transit
B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE: B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE:
TEAM: PART# TEAM: PART#
SHIFT: LENGTH SHIFT: LENGTH
LOCATION: PIECES: LOCATION: PIECES:
TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL
Bent Bent
Scratched Scratched
Damage/Transit Damage/Transit
B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE: B/S/D METAL CHECK DATE:
TEAM: PART# TEAM: PART#
SHIFT: LENGTH SHIFT: LENGTH
LOCATION: PIECES: LOCATION: PIECES:
TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL TYPE COUNT QTY/RW COUNT TOTAL
Bent Bent
Scratched Scratched
Damage/Transit Damage/Transit
*Mark any impacted piece with a (B) Bent, (S) Scratch, or (D) Damaged in unexposed area of metal

21. Calculate Sampling Plan
• Process Sampling (Live)
• Stratified/Systematic
• Ongoing – every 10th rack
• 50% Estimate of Prop (worst case)
• Stratification Factors
1. Location
2. Shift
Sampling Calculation (Discrete) for Racks of BSD Material - MINITAB
Parameter Proportion
Distribution Binomial
Proportion 0.5
Confidence level 95%
Confidence interval Two-sided
Results
Margin Sample
of Error Size
0.04 623
With a Metal Processing Plant and an unlimited amount of samples at my disposal – I
chose to use the 50% Estimate of Proportion for a Worst-Case Scenario. This gives me
a minimum sampling size of 623 pieces.

22. MSA – Gage R&R (Discrete)
1. Standard/Reference – BSD Material referenced in Data Collection Planning
Operational Definitions (Pg 16)
2. Appraisers/Operators – Dexter M. (1st Shift)/Jaxson P. (2nd shift)
3. Parts – WW400 – 20 total (14 good/6bad) – blind and unbiased (highlights)
4. Trials – Twice for each operator
5. Measurement/Response – 0=Defect, 1=Good
GOOD
DEFECT

23. MSA - ContinuedAttribute Agreement Analysis for ASSESSED RESULT
Date of study: 10/12/2015
Reported by: Jeff Owens
Name of product: WW400
Misc: BB Project - Discrete MSA Analysis
Within Appraisers
Assessment Agreement
Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics
Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)
A 0 0.856631 0.223607 3.83097 0.0001
1 0.856631 0.223607 3.83097 0.0001
B 0 0.687500 0.223607 3.07459 0.0011
1 0.687500 0.223607 3.07459 0.0011
Each Appraiser vs Standard
Assessment Agreement
Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics
Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)
A 0 0.803971 0.158114 5.08476 0.0000
1 0.803971 0.158114 5.08476 0.0000
B 0 0.722250 0.158114 4.56791 0.0000
1 0.722250 0.158114 4.56791 0.0000
Between Appraisers
Assessment Agreement
Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics
Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)
0 0.825708 0.0912871 9.04518 0.0000
1 0.825708 0.0912871 9.04518 0.0000
All Appraisers vs Standard
Assessment Agreement
Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics
Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)
0 0.763111 0.111803 6.82547 0.0000
1 0.763111 0.111803 6.82547 0.0000
In regards to the Appraisers vs. Standard – Fleiss’ Kappa
readings remained marginal (between 0.70-0.90)
BA
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
Appraiser
Percent
95.0% CI
Percent
BA
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
Appraiser
Percent
95.0% CI
Percent
Date of study: 10/12/2015
Reported by: Jeff Owens
Name of product: WW400
Misc: BB Project - Discrete MSA Analysis
Assessment Agreement
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

24. Baseline Measure Chart
After running the baseline data – projections showed we had
still made no progress towards our goal of reducing scrap to
$2925/month
$2,141.04
$5886.83
$5427.23
$0.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
2014 Jan-Sept 2015 10/15 Baseline
BSD Monthly Scrap - Material Handling

25. Process Capability
• DPU = # Defects/# Units = 422/750 = 0.56
• DPMO = 422/3000 x 1,000,000 = 140,667 (4 Opportunities)
• Sigma Level = 2.5 (rounded down), 84.1% Yield (158,655)
• Final Yield (Y Final) = # Good Units/# Total Units = 639/750 = 85.2%
• First Pass Yield (YFP) = 750-422 = 328, 328/750 = 44%
• Rolled Throughput Yield (YRTP) – EXT (61%), ANO (88%), PNT (93%)
– .61 x .88 x .93 = 50%

26. Analyze
• 8 Wastes Checksheet
• Fishbone Diagram
• Data for Statistical Testing
• Hypothesis Statement – One Proportion
• Hypothesis Statement – Two Proportion
• Hypothesis Statement – Chi-Square
• Hypothesis Testing Plan Results

27. 8 Wastes Checksheet
Date: 9/23/2015
Waste Definition Examples
Type "High",
"Medium", "Low"
Description of Issues
- Inaccurate applications
- Broken parts
- Missed deadlines
- Extra copies of reports
- Redundant storage (hard & soft)
- "Reply All" on emails
- Waiting for approvals
- Waiting for equipment
- Waiting for large batches
- Employees unable to make decisions
- Employees not fully trained
- Skilled employees doing unskilled tasks
- Hand-offs between functions
- Multiple reviews
- Sending, resending emails
- Stockpiling supplies
- Information piling up for data entry
- Keeping data longer than necessary
- Repetitive key strokes
- Walking between equipment
- Switching applications
- Extra formatting, extra fields
- Extra features, excess detail
- Extra report information
The 8 Wastes Checksheet
M Motion
Any movement by people
that is not of value to the
customer
Material between Extrusion and Anodizing is kept
across street as in Transportation - badly need
storage in these areas
Poor Layout makes Inventory seem worse than it
actually is
Transportation
Unnecessary movement of
materials, information or
equipment
I Inventory
Accumulation of parts,
information, applications,
etc. beyond what is required
by the customer
Only source of storage is across the street and
the racks transporting material are in terrible
shape - too much double-handling
Material Handling throughout EXT/ANO/PNTProcess Area:
D Defects
Information, products and
services that are incomplete
or innacurate
O Overproduction
Making more of something -
making it earlier or faster-
than it's needed
W Waiting
Waiting for information,
equipment, materials, parts
or people
There are a few Value-Enabling steps but overall
not a significant issue
E
Extra-
Processing
Any steps that do not add
value in the eyes of the
customer
Low
High
Low
High
N
Non-Utilized
Talent
Not properly utilizing
people's experience, skills,
knowledge or creativity
T
Defects occurring at every stop (EXT/ANO/PNT)
due to inability to follow work instructions,
inspections, and safely/securely handle material
transfer
Not currently a problem - waiting seems to be as
a result of the bottleneck in the Extrusion Ovens
Mentioned above, cycle time for Extrusion is
higher than Anodize and Paint combined. Work
schedules would be better off altered.
Lack of standard work and cross-training stands
out - changing this could perhaps build more
ownership among the employees
High
Low
High
Medium

28. Fishbone Diagram

29. Data for Statistical Testing

30. Hypothesis Statement – One
Proportion Test
According to past performance (2014), BSD Defect Rates were at 7%
for Extrusion/Anodizing/Paint. The team suspects it’s getting worse
due to the conditions of the wooden racks, which typically rot out within
3 years. Recent data has been collected and we want to know if BSD
Defect Rates have risen. Note that current racks in circulation were
built in early 2013. (X) = Time Period.
NULL: Ho P = .07 (7%)
ALTERNATE: Ha P ≠ .07 (7%) or P › .07 (7%)
Test: One Proportion (Proportion compared to standard). In this case,
we are determining if there is a difference between a historical level of
defects and current defect levels.

31. One Proportion Test Analysis
Conclusion: BSD Defect Rates have truly gotten worse, jumping from
7% in 2014 to 11% in 2015. The P Value (0.000) is low (less than 0.05)
so the Null must be rejected. The result of this test is True.
Test and CI for One Proportion (MINITAB)
Test of p = 0.07 vs p ≠ 0.07
Sample X N Sample p 95% CI Z-Value P-Value
1 69 630 0.109524 (0.085138, 0.133910) 3.89 0.000
Using the normal approximation.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2014 2015
BSD DEFECT RATES – EXT/ANO/PNT
BSD DEFECT RATES

32. Hypothesis Statement – Two
Proportion Test
The team suspects that inadequate training to 2nd shift employees has
resulted in more defects being allowed to pass on 2nd shift than 1st
shift. This test will help us determine if there is a difference between
the two. (X) = Work Shifts. P1 = 2nd shift, P2 = 1st shift.
NULL: Ho P1 - P2 = 0
ALTERNATE: Ha P1 - P2 ≠ 0
Test: Two Proportion (Proportion of a data set against another) to see if
one area is underperforming. Each shift will review the same sample
size lot of 630 pieces in the Extrusion Area.

33. Two Proportion Test Analysis
Conclusion:BSD Defect Rates are significantly differentbetween the two shifts with 2nd shift
allowing 14% ofdefects compared to 9% for 1st shift while reviewing the same lot of material.The
P Value (0.006) is low (less than 0.05) so the Null must be rejected. The resultof this test is True.
Test and CI for Two Proportions: 2nd Shift, 1st Shift (MINITAB)
Event = Good
Variable X N Sample p
2nd Shift 542 630 0.860317
1st Shift 573 630 0.909524
Difference = p (2nd Shift) - p (1st Shift)
Estimate for difference: -0.0492063
95% CI for difference: (-0.0843421, -0.0140706)
Test for difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): Z = -2.74 P-Value = 0.006
Fisher’s exact test: P-Value = 0.008
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
2nd Shift
1st Shift
BSD DEFECT RATES
BSD DEFECT RATES

34. Hypothesis Statement – Chi-
Square
The team suspects that better inspection is being done in the Paint
Department compared to the Extrusion and Anodizing Departments.
We will test Defect Rates in each department to see if there is truly a
difference in the three. (X) = Departments. P1 = Paint, P2 = Extrusion,
P3 = Anodizing.
NULL: Ho P1 = P2 = P3
ALTERNATE: Ha P1 ≠ P2 ≠ P3
Test: Chi-Square (2 or more Proportions against each other). In this
case, we are determining if there is a difference between defect rates in
different departments (EXT/ANO/PNT) in order to find Best Practices
for Inspection.

35. Chi-Square Test Analysis
Chi-Square Test – MINITAB
Rows: Worksheet rows Columns: Worksheet columns
EXTRUSION ANODIZE
PAINT SUMM SUMM SUMM All
1 566 555 558 1679
559.67 559.67 559.67
0.07167 0.03891 0.00496
2 64 75 72 211
70.33 70.33 70.33
0.57030 0.30964 0.03949
All 630 630 630 1890
Cell Contents: Count
Expected count
Contribution to Chi-square
Pearson Chi-Square = 1.035, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.596
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 1.046, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.593
Conclusion: BSD Defect Rates showed variation but are not statistically different
between the three departments. The P Value (0.596) is high (more than 0.05) so
we fail to reject the Null. The result of this test is False.
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
16%
PAINT EXTRUSION ANODIZING
BSD DEFECT RATES
BSD DEFECT RATES

36. Hypothesis Testing Plan Results
Possible X Root Cause Hypothesis Hypothesis Test Results
Time Period
BSD Defect rates were lower in the past when newer racks
were being used to transport material
One Proportion TRUE
Work Shifts
2nd Shift Material Handlers are responsible for allowing more
defects than the 1st Shift
Two Proportion TRUE
Departments
Material Handlers in the Paint Department are doing a better
job of inspecting material than the Extrusion and Anodizing
Departments
Chi-Square FALSE
Hypothesis Testing Plan

37. Improve
• Root Causes to Address (Fishbone)
• Rack Design Change
• Poor Lighting
• Poor Layout
• New Storage Area
• Spacers
• Dolly/Rack Covers
• Shavings
• Tie-Down Material
• Cross-Training Matrix
• Updated Communication Plan
• Updated Stakeholder Analysis
• Implementation Plan

38. Root Causes to Address
The Team referenced our Fishbone Diagram to brainstorm solutions that address our root
causes. The highlighted root causes (aside from the Racks) above allowed for the most impact
with the least amount of effort. Anew Rack Design is our featured change.

39. Rack Design Change
Based on our Hypothesis for a One Proportion Test in the Analyze Phase, we were able to
show an increase in Defect Rates from 7% in 2014 to 11% in 2015 due to the poor
conditions of wooden racks used to transport material. The pictures below give you an idea
of the battle our Material Handling Department has of not damaging material in transit.
Within 2-3 years, the wooden racks begin to rot and expose nails that results in Scratched
Material. In addition, the wood eventually loses its structure and will bottom out on other
material, making it susceptible to scratches and bowed metal (Bent Material).

40. Rack Design Change
With a game-changing issue such as Rack Design, we decided to add a few team members and used another
DMAIC tool (LCS) to get ideas from other departments upstream and downstream that also have to deal with
the racks. This allowed us to overhaul the Racks using metal that was originally scrapped with the help of our
Brake Metal and Welding Shop. Our newest team members helped suggest a preset lifting length that could be
setup for all forklifts and therefore be used throughout the entire campus. The new design would also carry
enough strength/stability for our longest material lengths (28 feet) while maintaining features mandated by our
Safety Department (weighing under 75 lbs so two team members can move).

41. Rack Design Change Pilot
Armed with a new design and taking advantage of material that had been left for scrap – we had 15 racks
built and deployed five each to Extrusion, Anodizing, and Paint to gain feedback of potential improvements
to the Material Handling Process. After carefully assessing the risk of process changes, we would heavily
use them in circulation for the next two weeksbefore making any large scale plans. The supportive
feedback was unanimouson both shiftsand we made it known to our Stakeholders that we wanted to fully
replace our 800+ wooden racks already in circulation. Since the previous process involved purchasing the
wood and building from within, the changed process of using already scrapped metal and welding on-site
was an actual push in termsof Return on Investment ($$$).

42. Poor Lighting
One root cause that was easily identified as a “Quick Fix” or simply just needing
implementation was the poor lighting in the Inspection Areas near the Anodizing
Lines. We found this to be a routine problem throughout the plant and added
Maintenance to our list of Stakeholders to help ensure this doesn’t re-occur.

43. Poor Layout
The layout of our plant remains the biggest challenge we cross every day. With our final
step of the Metal Processing lifecycle (Paint) and our Warehouse being located across
the street, it leaves our Material Handling Department open to multiple risks in transit –
not to mention a horrible violation of the 8 Wastes (Motion/Transportation).

44. Poor Layout
After reviewing the wasted motion going back and forth to the Warehouse area, our team was
able to negotiate some unused space between the Extrusion and Anodizing areas for extruded
material awaiting Anodizing. This knocked down the 1,527 feet due to a bottleneck to less than
50 feet and frees up the Warehouse for more pressing needs.
New Storage

45. New Storage Area

46. Spacers
Our process walk during the Define Phase shed the light on a problem that we’ve been familiar with but
simply was not being implemented in the Extrusion area. All metal spacers should have stapled kevlar
covers on them. Uncovered spacers lead to Scratched Material. It’s already in the Work Instructions but
was not being followed. After being told they were not getting much life out of the old style kevlar – we
got the Purchasing Dept. involved to make sure we could get a better product with a longer life
expectancy.
Scratched
Material

47. Dolly/Rack Covers
Along the lines of the Spacer Covers was an issue with the arms of the dollies/racks
rubbing up against material and causing scratches. Our Purchasing Dept. was able to
use the same company from the Spacer Covers for these kevlar-coated Rack Covers.

48. Shavings
Shavings left on extruded metal can only result in one thing – Scratched Material. This is
another implementation item that is called out in all Work Instructions but not being
followed by all employees despite air guns at the Extrusion Presses. We had all
department supervisors reiterate in their pre-shift meetings the importance of this and will
also make it more visual in the Work Instructions.

49. Tie-Down Material
As you’ve seen with the Spaghetti Map, material travels quite a distance from our Anodizing
Department and across the street to Paint and the warehouse for storage. If a batch of material is
not properly tied down, it will shift while in transit and lead to Damaged Material. This has also led
to the need to upgrade the road conditions for the material transfer. This will be an added Training
feature and part of the updated Work Instructions.
Properly Tied

50. Cross-Training Matrix
In our Two Proportion Hypothesis Test, we were able to show a statistically significant
difference in the defect rates between 1st and 2nd shift due to inadequate training. We
created a Cross-Training Skills Matrix to ensure both shifts would be equally trained.
NAME
NOT TRAINED
IN TRAINING - OPERATES UNDER SUPERVISION
CAPABLE WITH MINIMAL SUPERVISION
OPERATES INDEPENDENTLY TO STANDARDS
FULLY COMPETENT - CAN TRAIN OTHERS
TEAM LEADER OR CAN FILL IN FOR TEAM LEADER
MATERIAL HANDLING CROSS-TRAINING SKILLS MATRIX
R
E
A
D
P
R
I
N
T
S
S
T
A
C
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
C
E
D
U
R
E
S
D
E
T
E
C
T
R
E
W
O
R
K
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
U
N
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
E
P
I
C
S
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
D
E
F
E
C
T
C
O
D
E
K
N
O
W
L
E
D
G
E
F
O
R
K
L
I
F
T
C
E
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
L
L
E
T
J
A
C
K
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
C
R
A
N
E
/
H
O
I
S
T
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
S
K
I
L
L
S
U
N
D
E
R
S
T
A
N
D
W
O
R
K
I
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
T
E
R
P
R
E
T
B
/
S
/
D
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L

51. Updated Communication Plan
Stakeholder Group Objectives/Actions Desired Message
Delivery
Method/Venue
Timing
Communication Plan
VP - Manufacturing
Metal Processing Mgr
Plant Manager
Quality Team
Inform of project findings and
report back potential
costs/expected savings
Inform of project findings,
foster buy-in and ownership,
participate in roll-out
Inform of project findings,
foster buy-in and ownership,
participate in roll-out
Document Project Timeline for
Best Practices
Translate ROI for racks and costs of
sleeves after discussions with
Purchasing - inform of pilot results
Email Within 1 week
Inform of pilot results, work instruction
overhaul, training and implementation
plan
Schedule meeting
along with Plant
Manager
Within 2 weeks
Inform of pilot results and
implementation plan
Maintenance
Purchasing
Safety
(1) lighting at inspection areas (2)
road conditions for material transit
(3) preventive maintenance as
identified
Purchase sleeves (covers) for
spacers and dolly/rack arms
Review new Rack design
Schedule meeting
along with MP Manager
Within 2 weeks
Use project results to help
identify/teach other departments about
the importance of a Lean Culture
Email
After Project Storyboard
is Complete
Need areas of the plant setup
immediately - order safety stock
Email Today
Research/compare suppliers Email Today
Inform of any challenges due to added
weight of new rack design - apply in
next month's safety training topics
1-on-1 This week - prior to pilot

52. Updated Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder/
Stakeholder
Group
Impact Level Level of Support
Reason for
Resistance or Support
Action(s) to Address
This Stakeholder
Group
Contact
VP-
MANUFACTURING
DECISION AUTHORITY SUPPORTIVE
FINANCIAL BACKING - WILL
HELP CLEAR BARRIERS
UPDATE/NOTIFY IF ANY
PURCHASES OR MATERIAL
NEEDED
TIM J.
METAL PROC.
MANAGER
IMPACTS NEUTRAL
AWARE OF PROBLEM BUT
UNSURE EMPLOYEES CAN
HANDLE CHANGES
CREATE WORK
INSTRUCTIONS/TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES EARLY IN THE
PROCESS
KLAY M.
PLANT MGR AFFECTED RESISTANT
AFRAID CHANGES COULD
LEAD TO NON-VALUE ADDED
TIME TO CURRENT PROCESS
USE DATA TO SHOW
EXPECTED COST SAVINGS
AND POTENTIAL LOSSES IF
NOT ADDRESSED
WES B.
QUALITY TEAM DECISION AUTHORITY SUPPORTIVE
ANXIOUS TO SHOW PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT TEAMS CAN
ADD VALUE TO THE
ORGANIZATION
CREATE USEFUL
TEMPLATES/DOCUMENT
STRATEGIES - IDENTIFY
GOOD/BAD LESSONS
LEARNED
PAUL K.
MAINTENANCE IMPACTS SUPPORTIVE
WANT TO PREVENT ANY TYPE
OF DOWNTIME AND LOST
PRODUCTIVITY
PROVIDE LINE ITEMS OF
NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
AND KEEP SAFETY STOCK
VINCENT L.
PURCHASING IMPACTS SUPPORTIVE
POTENTIAL NEW SUPPLIERS
COULD BENEFIT OTHER
AREAS OF OUR ORGANIZATION
RESEARCH/STOCK COVERS
USED FOR SPACERS AND
DOLLY/RACK ARMS
DEREK J.
Stakeholder Analysis (Advanced) - IMPROVE

53. Implementation Plan
Action Item
(List steps required to implement solutions)
Responsible
(List person(s) responsible
for action steps)
Due Date
(Indicate when action items
must be completed)
Outline Pilot Strategy (Timeframe/Dept/Adjustments) Jeff/Daniel/Kevin 12/8/2015
Order supply of spacer/arm covers with enough safety stock - apply immediately Michael/Purchasing 12/11/2015
Update Work Instructions with Process Changes Jeff/Dexter 12/23/2015
Adjust/Replace Lighting in Inspection Areas Vincent 12/11/2015
Create cross-training matrix and setup training for 2nd shift Jeff/Michael 12/22/2015
Create P-Chart to show Improvement over Baseline Jeff 1/6/2016
Set-up Safety Topic to discuss changes and potential lifting hazards (heavier/wider racks) Jake 12/3/2015
Implementation Plan

54. Control
• Improvements from Baseline (P-Charts)
• Data compared to Goal
• Monitoring Plan
• Response Plan
• Visual Management
• Innovation Transfer
• Lessons Learned

55. P-Chart (Measure Phase)
Process Capability
P-Chart for Process Capability during Measure Phase in October 2015

56. P-Chart Revisited
28252219161310741
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Sample
Proportion
_
P= 0.1347
UCL= 0.3395
LCL= 0
P Chart of DEFECTS
Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.
The improvement from our baseline back in October was dramatic, dropping our Proportion Defective
for Bent, Scratched, and Damaged Material from 0.5627 to 0.1347, shown in the Minitab P-Chart
below. This translated to only 101 defects over a lot of 750 pieces, compared to 422 defects during
our baseline measure of 750 pieces. I chose the P-Chart due to our racks of material having unequal
sample sizes, ranging from 20-30 pieces per rack.

57. Shattering the Goal
Our goal was to reduce Bent/Scratched/Damaged Scrap $$ by 50% from an average of
$5850/month (thru August) to $2925/month by the end of the year. We blew that away
with savings of over 76% by reducing it to just $1362.02 by the end of 2015. The graph
below shows the dramatic decline.
$4,622.06
$8,114.10
$4,877.85
$4,942.94
$5,653.64
$3,854.11
$6,412.27
$8,327.46
$6,177.00
$4,541.79
$2,252.09
$1,362.02
$0.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
2015 - B/S/D - MATERIAL HANDLING
SCRAP $$

58. Monitoring Plan
Measure Control Limits/Specs Checking Item Checking Frequency Who
Bent, Scratched,
and Damaged
Material
(Defects)
No greater than
0.3395 Proportion
Defective - Upper
Control Limit
Checksheets created
in Data Collection
Plan
Each rack of material
(ranges from 20-30
pieces) in Extrusion,
Anodizing, and Paint
Material Handling
Team
Monitoring Plan
We want the communication to be open so this Monitoring Plan will be a standard slide used in the MDI (Managing
Daily Improvement) walks performed each week for all levels of Plantleadership along with Pre-ShiftMeeting
documentation for all operators. The expectations are that with the attention this has received and the pride of the
employees taking ownership – sustainmentofthese improvements will come easy.

59. Response Plan
Damage Control Process Adjustment Effectiveness Assessment Continuous Improvement
Confirm all Employees Trained on
Operational Definitions (and Visuals)
of Bent, Scratched, Damaged
Material
Process Owner to Audit Material on
Each shift with employees
No greater than 0.3395 Proportion
Defective per rack - UCL setup in the
Monitoring Plan
Offset employee turnover with
continued Cross-Training and pair
new employees with seasoned
veterans to ensure proper training
habits
Check to see if Racks need repairs or
if spacers/arms are properly covered
Gather a safety stock for all
maintenance items used for racks
Replace rack if defective and store
two months of safety stock (kevlar
covers) at point-of-use
Create weekly Preventive
Maintenance schedule for Material
Handling Teams to sign-off on
Response Plan (If Proportion Defective dips above 0.3395)

60. Visual Management
Pictures identifying definitions like Bent,
Scratched, Damaged Material along with
Checksheets to use for Data Collection
(Pages 17-20 of this PowerPoint) have been
added to the Standard Work Instructions.
We’ve also included pictures of the
spacer/arm covers, shavings, tiedowns for a
visual explanation within the Work
Instructions. The next step is to have the
Control Charts/Monitoring Plans posted in
each department for everyone to see.

61. Innovation Transfer
Process Innovation/Addition/Change/Removal
(Describe the implemented solution)
Process Benefits
(Describe the both measurable and intangible benefits
of the change)
Area/Department/Business Unit
(Indicate the process area that could
benefit from innovation transfer)
New Rack Design/Spacer Covers/Arm
Covers
Eliminates B/S/D Opportunities
All Metal Processing Facilities in
U.S. and Canada
Cross-Training Matrix
Creates Employee Ownership and Strengthens
workforce depth
All Departments
Control Charts/Monitoring Plans
Identifies Trigger Measures (UCL/LCL) that lead
to variation
All Departments
Visual Aids added to Work Instructions
Quicker training method and immediate
understanding of Operational Definitions like
Bent, Scratched, and Damaged Material
All Metal Processing Facilities in
U.S. and Canada
New Checksheets for Data Collection
An easy-to-use sheet that tracks each rack of
material against our goal of Proportion Defective
All Metal Processing Facilities in
U.S. and Canada
Innovation Transfer Opportunities

62. Lessons Learned
• Important to drive inspection earlier in the process where Rework is
an Option. The more VA to the Metal – the harder it is to Rework –
and the less $$ you get for defective material in a scrapyard
• Too many blind handoffs – wanted to create opportunities where
items (Checksheets) had to be initialed to create more ownership
• Newspaper Items
– Dig deeper into Scrap Reporting Efficiency
– Use Project to show value of adding a 2nd Age Oven in
Extrusion to serve as Workload Balancing and eliminate the
obvious bottleneck.
– Sell Lean Culture benefits at the Management Level for ultimate
buy-in on Process Improvements
– Identify more KPIs/Metrics for Tracking (Rework/FPY)