control tollgate
DESCRIPTION
Lean Six Sigma project final phase.TRANSCRIPT
CO
NTR
OL
Lean Six SigmaImproving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw
QualitySFC Henry, Don H. II
Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08
Control Tollgate Date: 25/09/08
Control
v 2.0
Agenda Project Charter Review
Measure, Analyze, and Improve Phase Reviews
Revised Process Capability
Process Control/Response Plan
Measurement System Analysis
Standard Operating Procedures and Training Plans
Process Monitoring and Stabilization
Transition to Process Owner
Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits
Barriers/Issues
Next Steps
Project Contributors
Storyboard
Control
v 2.03
Control – Executive Summary
Improve tank maintenance quality by giving the 1/16 soldiers more time to perform maintenance during the draw.
The project starts at the FTX/STX2 T-6 IPR and ends when the tanks are ready for HETT transport. This project is contained within the Fort Knox Garrison and can transfer to other training support missions on Fort Knox.
We are feeling the pain in training and tank maintenance.
Soldiers fail to do a quality PMCS for the lack of time, training, and command emphasis.
Control
v 2.0
Project Charter Review
Scope: this process begins with the T-6 IPR and ends when 1/16 loads the tanks on HETT’s.
Goal: Improve tank draw quality
Problem/Goal Statement
Tollgate Review Schedule
Business Impact
Core Team
State financial impact of project Expenses-none Investments-none Revenues-potential savings in time 819 hours per year
Non-Quantifiable Benefits are increased tank maintenance quality, soldiers morale, maintenance fault tracking, and less training time lost.
PES Name MAJ Mackey, Andre PS Name MAJ Mackey, Andre DD Name COL Leopoldo Quintas GB/BB Name SFC Henry, Don MBB Name Nathan SpragueCore Team Role % Contrib. LSS Training CW2 Warren SME 20% none MAJ Aydelott SME 20% none MAJ Mackey SME 20% none SSG Jones SME 10% none CW4 Lucy SME 10% none SFC Henry BB 100% BB
Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete
Define: 04/30/08 - 04/29/08
Measure: 05/14/08 04/06/08 06/04/08
Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 08/05/08
Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 09/05/08
Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 09/29/08
Reduce rework during tank draw from 90% to 45%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.
Improve 5988-E fault tracking during tank draw from 10% to 85%, per FTX/STX2 by 1 October 2008.
Improve tank bumper number accuracy from 10% to 90%, during the T-2 preparation week by 1 October 2008.
Problem Statement Soldiers of 1/16 express dissatisfaction with the Unit Maintenance Activities M1 series tank quality prior to mission support. Currently, 90% of the tanks drawn require maintenance for mission readiness. Approximately 10% of faults listed on the 5988-E ‘s completed by soldiers are tracked by UMA. Lastly, tank bumper number accuracy during T-2 is currently at 10% which causes excess work in the last days of the mission support draw.
Control
v 2.05
Measure ReviewBaseline Data
Tools Used
Process Capability
Recommended Quick Wins/RIEs
Root cause: BII requires excess resources to draw. The BII and tank draw compliment each other.
Quick Win #1-Use 5S to reduce the time and personnel required to draw BII and use those resources during the tank draw.
Detailed process mapping Measurement Systems Analysis Value Stream Mapping Data Collection Planning Basic Statistics Histograms
Operational Definitions 5s Generic Pull Dotplot Matrix
Baseline Quality #1: To-date, 33% of tanks presented for draw are not ready for issue.
Baseline Quality #2: To-date, 10% of 5988-E faults annotated by soldiers during tank draw is updated by UMA clerks.
Baseline Quality #3: To-date, 67% of tank bumper numbers presented to 1/16 at T-2 by UMA is actually drawn for mission support.
The current tank draw process is capable of issuing 2 tanks per hour with a 33% critical maintenance defect rate.
Control
v 2.06
Analyze ReviewImpact of Root Causes:
Hypothesis Tests
Tools Used
Reducing List of Root Causes
Prioritized Root Causes / Effects Root cause #1: No visual tracking method
Effect-in-accurate bumper numbers
Root cause #2: 5988-E’s not completed correctly
Effect-poor tank maintenance
Root cause #3: 5988-E’s are not updated regularly
Effect-poor tank maintenance
Root cause #4: Tanks issued that are not ready for issue
Effect-rework
Value Add Analysis Pareto Plot Histogram One-Way ANOVA
C&E Matrix Cause & Effect Diagram FMEA Process Capability
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Deadlined Services Due QA/QC Needed Already Issued
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Control
v 2.07
Improve Review“To-Be” Process Map
Implementation Plan
Solution Selection
Pilot Results
QAQC
Maintenance Manager
Dispatch
Soldier
Issues prescreened bumper
number list to soldier
Hand receipt Vehicle signed over to
soldier
Avg.
Delay30 min
Soldier conducts PMCS and updates 5988-E, turns it in to
maintenance supervisor
Passes QAQC
Receives signed QAQC sheet
Vehicle dispatched to soldier
YESNO
NVA time is in dark blue, Total delay time is reduced to .5 hours
Retrieves info from
RATSS system
Notify UMA of the # of tanks needed
Mechanics
Maintenance manager checks bumper number list and 5988-E, verifies faults
and makes repairs if needed
Solutions
Trackable Causes
Accurate Bumper #’s40%
Increased quality maintenance
30%
Improved vehicle tracking30%
Solution A = a 75% improvement in accuracy of bumper #’s (75% of 40%=30%)Solution B = a 50% improvement of maintenance quality (50% of 30%=15%)Solution C = a 50% improvement of vehicle tracking (50% of 30%=15%)
The pilot displayed the anticipated results.
The plan for conducting the pilot was effective.
Improvements that can be made are the usability of the vehicle tracking board and investigation into automation of the tracking board.
The solutions can be implemented “as-is” but minor changes would improve user satisfaction. These changes should be made
The solutions should remain in place in the maintenance bay.
Lessons learned from the pilot are that simplicity and defined roles of the mechanics and maintenance leader are very important and need to be applied during solution implementation to avoid confusion.
The goals of the pilot were achieved.
SteAction/Task Responsible
Accountable Consulted Informed
1Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process
1/16 Maintenance Officer
1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
2 Maintenance personnel PMCS trainingUMA Training manager
UMA Program manager
Human resources
UMA leadership
3 Tracking board updatesMaintenance leader
Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers
4 5988-E updatesUMA ULLS clerk
Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks
Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
5 Issue of bumper number list to SoldiersMaintenance leader
Maintenance leader
Mechanics/QAQC
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
6
Control
v 2.0
PROJECT NAME DIVISION DIVISION CHIEF DATE
10/1/2008BRANCH CHIEF PROCESS OWNERS RESPONSIBLE CONTROL MANAGER
Freq. Process StepTarget Value
Upper Control
Limit
Lower Control
LimitCurrent Reaction Plan
1 Tank Projections
16th Cav Leadership and UMA Program Manager
MonthlyProject vehicle needs 120, 90, 60, and 30, days out
100% Accurate
100% 90% 90%If tank projection accuracy drops below 90%, training time and quality will be adversly effected.
2 Tank Bumper number list
16th Cav Leadership and UMA Program Manager
Dailyprovide list to 16 Cav to draw
90% Accurate
100% 50% 10%If the bumper number list accuracy drops below 50% excess rework will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality
3 PMCS/5988-E completion16th Cav Soldier and UMA mechanics
Daily
maintain vehicle standards IAW DA PAM 738-750 and appropriate 10 level manual.
85% Accuracy 100% 50% 10%
If the vehicle PMCS/5988-E completion rate drops below 50% excess rework will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality
4 Vehicle TrackingMaintenance Supervisor Daily
Monitor vehicle locations and status
100% Accuracy 100% 80% 70%
If the vehicle tracking percentage drops below 80%, wasted time and resources will delay the vehicle draw and could effect training time and quality.
5 Vehicle Issue16th Cav Soldier and UMA mechanics
Dailysoldiers draw vehicles from UMA
4 tanks per hour n/a 2 per hour
2 per hour
if the tank issue drops below 2 per hour the mission requiring the vehicles will be adversly effected and training time will be lost or degraded.
Shelley Antle
UMA Program Manager Quarterly Report
Applicable Control Charts and MetricsControl Action
NumberControl Action
Responsible Individual
Improving Tank Draw Quality
Mr. Joe Massouda Fort Knox G-4
Unit Maintenance Activity (UMA)
Process Control/Response Plan
Control
v 2.09
Measurement System Analysis The measurement systems are acceptable. The data is considered to have no potential
for significant error. Will appropriately use the data during the Analyze Phase.
Type of Measurement Error Description Considerations to this Project
Discrimination (resolution)
The ability of the measurement system to divide measurements into “data categories”
Work hours can be measured to .25 hours. Tank draw times are measured to +- .25 hours.
BiasThe difference between an observed average measurement result and a reference value
No bias - Work hours and draw start-stop times consistent through the population.
Stability The change in bias over time No bias of work hours and draw data.
Repeatability The extent variability is consistent
Not an issue. Labor and tank usage is based on course requirements, so it is historical and felt to be accurate enough for insight and analysis.
Reproducibility Different appraisers produce consistent results
Usage data deemed not reproducible, therefore was not considered in determining which were used during the tank draw
Variation The difference between tanks Tanks are either Fully Mission Capable or Non Fully Mission Capable.
Control
v 2.0
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Training Plans
SOPs Requiring Revision Responsible Status
EXSOP Joe Massouda and MAJ Douglas Aydelott
In process
Required Training Responsible Status
UMA employees (PMCS Training)
Reed Lyons In Process
16th Cavalry Soldiers (PMCS Training)
Various Troop Commanders
In Process
SOPs Requiring Revision
Required Training
Control
v 2.011
Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures
Takt time sheet to be used in vehicle issue times and monitor throughput
Control
v 2.012
Process Monitoring and Stabilization: Visual Control Measures
Map board to be used in vehicle tracking and aid in bumper number accuracy
Control
v 2.013
Transition to Process Owner: RACI ChartR = Responsible – The person who performs the action/task.A = Accountable – The person who is held accountable that the action/task is completed.C = Consulted – The person(s) who is consulted before performing the action/task.I = Informed – The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task.Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
1 Map board updates
Maintenance supervisor (UMA)
Maintenance supervisor (UMA)
Mechanics and soldiers
16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager
2 Takt Time Sheet annotation
Maintenance supervisor (UMA) Mechanics
Maintenance supervisor (UMA)
16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager
3 Bumper number list updates
Maintenance supervisor (UMA)
Mechanics and Maintenance supervisor (UMA)
UMA program manager
16th Cav Leadership and UMA program manager
4 Maintenance training (UMA)UMA program manager
UMA program manager
UMA program manager 16th Cav
Leadership
5 Maintenance training (soldiers)16th Cav Leadership
16th Cav Leadership
Unit Motor Officer
Unit Motor Officer16th Cav Leadership
Control
v 2.014
Modify performance review criteria for the mechanics and maintenance supervisors where necessary.
Modify the Process Owner’s performance review criteria to include long term vehicle issue times and improvement requirements.
Define and document long term metrics for the military and civilian leadership to analyze and brief quarterly.
Transition to Process Owner: Other Steps
Control
v 2.015
Transition to Process Owner: Lessons Learned Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools
Communications
Team building
Organizational activities
Other
Control
v 2.016
Project Replication Opportunities and Benefits Replication Opportunities within the Army
#1 Lean Kits for Basic Issue Items (BII) #2 Maintenance (PMCS) Training and visualized tracking methods
Financial Benefits Expenses $5000 (BII issue boxes estimate) Investments BII issue Boxes Revenues Saved an estimated 830 hours per year, $16500
Operational Benefits #1 Less time and personnel required to draw and issue BII #2 Higher quality vehicle maintenance with greater awareness of vehicle
status
Control
v 2.017
Barriers/Issues/Project Action Log Resources
Unexpected delays
Team or organizational issues
Updated risk analysis and mitigation plan
Revised project scopeLean Six Sigma Project Action Log
Last
Revised: 09/09/2008
No Description/ Recommendation
Status Open/Closed/Hold
Due Date Revised Due Date
Resp. Comments / Resolution
1 Leave of critical team member 14 May 4 May
2 Larger multi-colored Push Pins Closed 9 Sep. n/a SFC Henry
Identified on 3 Sep.
3 Investigate possible IT tracker Open TBD UMA program Manager
4
5
Control
v 2.018
Next Steps Key action for transition, updated SOP, Maintenance Training
Unresolved questions to answer, none at this time
Barrier/risk mitigation activities,
Control
v 2.019
Project ContributorsTeam Member Project Contribution
Andre Mackey, MAJ Champion
Douglas Aydelott, MAJ Assistant Champion
Joe Massouda, Program Manager Process Owner
Reed Lyons, Supervisor Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Richard Pryor, Basic Issue Items SME
Don Henry, SFC Black Belt (Project Leader)
Nathan Sprague Master Black Belt
These team members contributed to the success of this project!
Control
v 2.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Deadlined Services Due QA/QC Needed Already Issued
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Analyze StoryboardDefine
Problem: Poor tank quality at issue
Goal: Improve tank quality at issue, Reduce rework, improve fault tracking
Non-quantifiable BenefitsMorale, tank maintenance, fault tracking
Project CharterT-6 IPRT2T
RATSS
T-5T2T
T-4T2T
T-3T2T
T-2IPR vehicleBumper #sGiven to
unit
T-1Tank draw,
HETT,5988-E update
Measure
BII draw measured Tank draw measured 5988-E updates measured
RIE Baselines collected
Critical X’s Identified Potential Root Causes Identified
Root Causes PrioritizedAnalyze
Improve
Potential solutions identified Pilot test/results
S
Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed
1 Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process
1/16 Maintenance Officer
1/16 Maintenance Officer UMA, 1/16
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
2 Hiring of more maintenance personnelUMA Hiring manager
UMA Program manager
Human resources UMA leadership
3 Tracking board updatesMaintenance leader
Maintenance leader mechanics soldiers
4 5988-E updates UMA ULLS clerk
Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks
Mechanics, Soldiers, ULLS clerks
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
5 Issue of bumper number list to SoldiersMaintenance leader
Maintenance leader
Mechanics/QAQC
1/16 leadership, 1/16 soldiers, UMA personnel
6
Implementation Plan developed
Control
Update SOP’s Train, train, train
Process owner takes over!
Control
v 2.021
Sign Off• Policies & Procedures for the Improve and Control phases were documented and
communicated on 25/09/08.• I understand the New Policies and Procedures.
• I understand and take responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the Control/Response Plan.
• I will report the progress on this subprocess on a regular basis to the customer (internal or external).
• I have reviewed this project’s final financial and/or operational benefit estimates with the Deployment Director, Sponsor, and Resource Manager and they have been entered into PowerSteering.
• I understand the corrective action procedure and am responsible for ensuring that action items are completed to hold the gains and capture the benefits.
CW4 David LucyResource Manager/Finance
COL Leopoldo Quintas Deployment Director
SFC Don H. Henry II Black Belt
Nathan SpragueMaster Black Belt
MAJ Andre L. Mackey Sponsor / Process Owner
Control
v 2.022
Control Tollgate Checklist
Has the team prepared all the essential documentation for the improved process, including revised/new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), a training plan, and a process control system?
Has the necessary training for process owners/operators been performed? Have the right measures been selected, and documented as part of the Process Control System,
to monitor performance of the process and the continued effectiveness of the solution? Has the metrics briefing plan/schedule been documented? Who owns the measures? Has the Process Owner’s job description been updated to reflect the new responsibilities? What happens if minimum performance is not achieved?
Has the solution been effectively implemented? Has the team compiled results data confirming that the solution has achieved the goals defined in the Project Charter?
Has the Financial Benefit Summary been completed? Has the Resource Manager reviewed it? Has the process been transitioned to the Process Owner, to take over responsibility for managing
continuing operations? Do they concur with the control plan? Has a final Storyboard documenting the project work been developed? Has the team forwarded other issues/opportunities, which were not able to be addressed, to
senior management? Have “lessons learned” been captured? Have replication opportunities been identified and communicated? Has the hard work and successful efforts of our team been celebrated?
Tollgate Review
StopStop Has the team implemented the solution, and a control plan to insure
the process is robust to change?
Deliverables: SOP’s
Training Plan
Process Control System
Financial Benefit Worksheets (Type 1 or 2 savings)
Benefits Realization Schedule, validated by Resource Manager
Validated Solution
Replication/ Standardization Plan
Lessons Learned
Transitioned Project
Project Risk Performance
Green Belt/Black Belt Actions:
Deliverables Uploaded in PowerSteering
Deliverables Inserted into the Project “Notebook” (see Deployment Director)
Control
v 2.0
DMAIC Methodology - Control
Develop StandardOperating Procedures(SOP’s), Training Plan
& Process Controls
Complete‘Control’ Tollgate
Review
Transition Projectto Process Owner
Identify ProjectReplication
Opportunities,Document
Lessons Learned
ImplementSolution and
Ongoing ProcessMeasurements
EvaluatePerformance ofRisk Controls
Project RiskPerformance
SOP’s
Financial RepPeriodicallyValidates
Financial Benefits
TrainingPlan
Implementation Plan Training Plan Communication Plan SOP’s Process Control
System
ProcessControlSystem
RevisedCommunication
Plan
Risk ManagementSpreadsheet
Replication/Standardization
Plan
Create BenefitsRealization
Schedule in PTS
Close-OutProjectin PTS
Response Plan Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP’s) Communication Plan Implementation Plan Process Control
System Chart Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA) Visual Process Control
Tools Statistical process
Control (SPC) -Control Charts
Flow Control Plan/Generic PullStabalization
FinancialBenefits
CalculationPlan
ValidateBenefits
Realizationin PTS
Recognition Event Team Evaluation Success Stories Lessons Learned Additional LSS
Projects Identified
ProcessPerformance
Metrics
Financial RepAgreement
ProjectTransition Plan
Project TransitionDocument
DocumentedLessonsLearned
ConfirmAttainment ofProject Goals
ApprovedSolution
Project Charter,i.e. Opportunity &Goal Statement
Project TrackingSystem (PTS)
Project Presentation Storyboard