Download - Improve Tollgate

IMPR

OVE

Lean Six SigmaImproving FTX/STX2 Tank

Draw QualitySFC Henry, Don H. II

Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08

Analyze Tollgate Date: 03/07/08

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Agenda Project Charter Review

Measure and Analyze Phase Review

Potential Solutions

Evaluation Criteria

Selected Solution(s)

Solution Risk Assessment

“To-Be” Process Map

Pilot Plan

Pilot Results

Implementation Plan

Implementation Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan

Improve Summary

Lessons Learned

Barriers/Issues

Next Steps

Storyboard

ImproveImprove

v 2.03

Improve – 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.

ImproveImprove

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 LTC Naething, Robert 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 04/06/08

Analyze: 06/13/08 07/13/08 XX/XX/08

Improve: 07/18/08 08/13/08 XX/XX/08

Control: 08/23/08 09/13/08 XX/XX/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.

ImproveImprove

v 2.05

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%

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Potential SolutionsCritical X Root Cause(s)

Priority of Effort

Potential Solution

How Developed?

Poor vehicle quality

Incomplete PMCS

1 Employee PMCS Training Program

Round Robin brainstorming session

Lengthy issue times

Inaccurate bumper number list

2 Vehicle tracking board

20 Questions

Poor vehicle quality

5988-E’s not updated

3 Update SOP 20 Questions

Lengthy issue times

Vehicles Issued not ready

4 Vehicle tracking board

Round Robin brainstorming session

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Evaluation CriteriaCriteria Weight Explanation for Weight

Critical Customer Requirements

- Y1 Improve vehicle draw quality +3 Vehicle maintenance is preventative

- Y2 Improve bumper # accuracy +3 Accuracy increases quality and speed

Critical Business Requirements

- customer satisfaction +2 Essential for contract renewal

- save money and improve quality

+2 Operating costs should stay low

- Implement changes by the end of FY 2009

+1 Establish a new SOP before relocating to Ft. Benning, GA

- risk of implementation is low +1 Approx. 1 year away from relocating

Regulatory/Other

- Adherence to DA Pam 738-750

+3 Essential maintenance processes

- Adherence to Technical Manuals

+3 Essential service schedules

- Adherence to applicable Army Regulations

+3 Safety, supply systems, Environment, etc…

ImproveImprove

v 2.08

Selected Solutions

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%)

Implementing Solutions A, B, & C achieve a 60% reduction in trackable causes for and

delays/rework. (Assumes no interaction effects of the solutions)

Original goal is a 45% reduction that can be achieved by A & B, or A & C, but all three areas can be improved and affect the overall tank issue quality.

SolutionsTrackable Causes

Accurate Bumper #’s40%

Increased quality Maintenance

( training)30%

Improved vehicle tracking30%

Solution A 75%

Solution B 50%

Solution C 50%

Effect:

The tank draw takes too long.

ManMachine

Material Method

Spread thinly across multiple tasks

Shortage of UMA maintenance personnel

Deadlines, AOAP, Service Schedule, affect # of tanks available

Tanks already in use by other units/missions

BII draw uses excessive people and excess time

RATTS

Tanks are PMCS’d

Tanks are QA/QC’d

Tanks are dispatched

Excessive delays from lack of UMA personnel

5988-E not updated by UMA

ImproveImprove

v 2.09

Selected Solutions: ResultsTrial and Error Results

Present during 4 or more vehicles drawn

Present during 3 vehicles drawn

Present during 2 or less vehicles drawn

Solution A (correct bumper #’s)

All 5 of the bumper numbers issued to soldiers were drawn.

Solution B (training)

Properly completed 5988-E’s and well trained mechanics

Solution C (tracking board)

Tracking board reflected vehicle locations

The red box indicates two vehicles that were hard to locate on the tracking board due to the small size of the vehicle markers and the use of a single color for vehicle identification.

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Solution Risk Assessment: FMEA

Process Step / Input

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Failure Effects

SEVERITY

Potential Causes

OCCURRENCE

Current Controls

DETECTION

RPN

Actions Recommen

ded

Resp.

Actions

Taken

SEVERITY

OCCURRENCE

DETECTION

RPN

What is the process step

and Input under

investiga-tion?

In what ways does the Key

Input go wrong?

What is the impact on the Key Output

Variables (Customer

Requirements)?

What causes the Key Input to go wrong?

What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent either the cause

or the Failure Mode?

What are the actions for

reducing the occurrence

of the cause, or improving detection?

What are the

completed

actions

taken with the

recalculated RPN?

T-1 bumper number list

not accurateexcessive

delays7 lack of organization 7 none 7 343

Tracking Board

UMA 4 3 112

PMCS not updated rework 7 lack of personnel 6 Army Policy 5 210PMCS

TrainingUMA 4 2 2

16

QA/QC not timely rework 4 lack of maintenance 4 EXSOP/Army policy 4 64restructure of process

UMA 2 3 318

tank sign over

already issued

rework 7 lack of organization 2 Army Policy/EXSOP 2 28tracking board

UMA 4 3 112

tank dispatch

does not go wrong

no problems 1 no problems 1 EXSOP 5 5 n/a 0

Significant changes in the Risk Priority Numbers

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

“To-Be” Process Map

1111

Soldier moves vehicle to

staging area

QAQC

Maintenance Manager

Dispatch

Soldier

Issues prescreen

ed bumper number list to soldier

Hand receipt

Vehicle signed over to soldier

Avg. Delay

30 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

Errors are corrected before vehicle numbers are issued to the Soldier and the Soldier completes minor checks and routine maintenance (as described in the Technical Manual).

ImproveImprove

v 2.012

Pilot Plan

Tank Draw

• This mission requires 5 tanks with assigned equipment instead of the FTS/STX2 mission requirement of 20 tanks, this number allows for 5 “runs” in a trial and error pilot test.

• Tank draw time is less than 30 minutes per tank with less than 1 vehicle requiring rework.

2/16 Gun Team/SFC Henry

Start 9/3Complete 9/3

Additional maintenance training

• Maintenance team of 6 personnel who completed PMCS refresher training in the last 14 days with an assigned work leader, used during a third shift scheduled to work during the tank draw

• Tank draw time is less than 20 minutes per tank with zero vehicles requiring rework.

1/16, UMA maintenance, SFC Henry


Vehicle tracking board

• A large map board of the Fort Knox training area in use at another facility moved over to the vehicle service area with push pins as markers to track vehicle locations that are available to issue or in circulation already. The tracking board does not track vehicles in scheduled maintenance

• Tracking board can be referenced by any worker for the location and status of armored vehicles.

1/16, UMA, SFC Henry


ScheduleScheduleTest TeamTest TeamSuccess CriteriaSuccess CriteriaDescriptionDescriptionPilot Pilot TestTest

ImproveImprove

v 2.013

Pilot Results

Pilot Observations: 1) Soldiers more satisfied interacting with leadership instead of

mechanics – numerous comments from troops during the draw

2) Vehicle maintenance is documented more accurately

3) Show stopping defects and delays were absent during the 5 runs

4) Maintenance leader used tracking board to locate vehicles

GAP analysis 1) Single colored push pin markers were difficult for the maintenance

leader to use and see on such a large map.

Follow-up Actions: 1) Purchase larger multi-colored push pins (shown on the next slide)

2) look into automating the map into a application that can be updated

from the RATSS database

Measurement Plan:

MeasurePilot

Draw timesPlan

Target xCCRsLess Tank draw time

CCRsBumper numberAccuracy

20 minutes per tank

< 3.4 DPMO

19.4 min.

< 3.4 DPMO

Comments

24, 18, 18, 15, 22 min.

Range of times was between 15 and 24 minutes with an average of 19.4 minutes

n/a

ImproveImprove

v 2.014

Pilot Results 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 exceeded.

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Vehicle Tracking Board The Tracking Board is a standard

1:50,000 series map of the Fort Knox training area that has been blown up, laminated, and mounted on an office cubicle partition.

Giant push pins are used to mark important locations and quantities using a board game approach meaning each color is a different quantity.

White- maintenance team sites (shown)

Blue-1 vehicle

Red-5 vehicles

Green-10 vehicles15

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

BII Issue Box This Rapid

Improvement Event was completed during the measure phase and is shown here as a review.

16

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Implementation Plan: 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/TaskResponsibl

eAccountabl

e 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

2PMCS training for maintenance personnel

UMA 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



5 Issue of bumper number list to SoldiersMaintenance leader

Maintenance leader

Mechanics/QAQC


6

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Risk Analysis and Mitigation Personnel availability, process mapping, data collection, and

cooperation

Consequence

Lik

elih

oo

d

• Data Collection (Schedule)•Risk: More time may be needed for the Measure phase because of current mission schedule. •Mitigation Plan: Maximize data collection during missions to present reliable data to stakeholders.

• Personnel availability (Schedule)• Risk: Project team members have different

schedules and availability times. • Mitigation: communicate via email and in

person when possible. • Consequence: Low impact on project

completion

•Process Mapping (Performance)•Risk: The process is moderate in size but has numerous civilian personnel involved who could present concerns about job stability and resist change •Mitigation Plan: Explain the project and communicate the desire to make things better. Solicit feedback about the draw process and gain civilian participation. •Consequence: Resistance could delay the project during the measure and analyze phases up to three weeks.

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

• UMA cooperation (Change Management)• Risk: UMA personnel may reject any suggested changes

proposed by the 16th Cavalry• Mitigation: communicate changes through high level

supervisors and program managers for implementation. • Consequence: High impact on project completion

ImproveImprove

v 2.019

Improve Phase Summary“To-Be” Process Map

Implementation Plan

Solution Selection

Pilot Results

QAQC

Maintenance Manager

Dispatch

Soldier

Issues prescreen

ed 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.

Step Action/Task

Responsible

Accountable Consulted Informed

1Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process




2 Maintenance personnel PMCS training

UMA Training manager

UMA Program manager

Human resources

UMA leadership








Maintenance leader

Mechanics/QAQC


6

ImproveImprove

v 2.020

Lessons Learned Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools

Communications

Team building

Organizational activities

Other

ImproveImprove

v 2.021

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 progra

m Manage

r

4

5

ImproveImprove

v 2.022

Next Steps Outline activities for Control Phase

Planned Lean Six Sigma Tool use

Barrier/risk mitigation activities

ImproveImprove

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 #s

Given 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 Prioritized

Analyze

Improve

Potential solutions identified Pilot test/results

Step Action/Task Responsible Accountable Consulted Informed

1 Updating the UMA EXSOP to reflect the new process




2 Hiring of more maintenance personnelUMA Hiring manager

UMA Program manager

Human resources

UMA leadership








Maintenance leader

Mechanics/QAQC


6

Implementation Plan developed

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

Sign Off

I concur that the Improve phase was successfully completed on 11/17/08.If developed, the forecasted financial and/or operational benefits have been

entered into PowerSteering (See Section 6 of Deployment Guidebook).I concur the project is ready to proceed to next phase: Control.

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

ImproveImprove

v 2.025

Improve Tollgate ChecklistTollgate ReviewTollgate Review

StopStop Has the team developed improvement solutions for the critical X’s, piloted the solution,

and verified that the solution will solve the problem?

Deliverables: Prioritized List of

Solutions

“To-Be” Value Stream Map(s)

Pilot Plan & Results

Approved Solution and Detailed Implementation Plan

Additional “Quick Wins”, if applicable

Refined Charter, as necessary

Updated Risk Mitigation Plan

Green Belt/Black Belt Actions:

Deliverables Uploaded in PowerSteering

Deliverables Inserted into the Project “Notebook” (see Deployment Director)

What techniques were used to generate ideas for potential solutions? What narrowing and screening techniques were used to further develop and

qualify potential solutions? What evaluation criteria were used to select a recommended solution? Do the proposed solutions address all of the identified root causes, or at least

the most critical? Were the solutions verified with the Project Sponsor and Stakeholders? Has

an approval been received to implement? Was a pilot run to test the solution? What was learned? What modifications

were made? Has the team seen evidence that the root causes of the initial problems have

been addressed during the pilot? What are the expected benefits? Has the team considered potential problems and unintended consequences

(FMEA) of the solution and developed preventive and contingency actions to address them?

Has the proposed solution been documented, including process participants, job descriptions, and if applicable, their estimated time commitment to support the process?

Has the team developed an implementation plan? What is the status? Have changes been communicated to all the appropriate people? Has the team been able to identify any additional ‘Quick Wins’? Have ‘learnings’ to-date required modification of the Project Charter? If so,

have these changes been approved by the Project Sponsor and the Key Stakeholders?

Have any new risks to project success been identified and added to the Risk Mitigation Plan?

ImproveImprove

v 2.0

DMAIC Methodology - Improve

Develop PotentialSolutions

Evaluate, Selectand OptimizeBest Solutions

ConfirmAttainment ofProject Goals

Develop FullScale

ImplementationPlan

Develop andImplement Pilot

Solution

Develop ‘To-Be’Value Stream

Map(s)

Refine RiskManagement

Plan

‘To-Be’Value Stream

Map(s)

Risk Mitigation Plan

PriortizedList ofSolutions

Conduct 'Improve'Tollgate Review

SolutionIdeas

ApprovedSolution

Brainstorming & OtherIdea Generation Tools

Affinity Diagram andOther Sorting Tools

Cellular Flow Replenishment Pull Generic Pull Mistake Proofing Stocking Strategy Lean Purchasing Process Flow

Improvement Process Balancing Analytical Batch Sizing Total Preventive

Maintenance (TPM) DOE Sales & Operations

Planning

PilotPlan

Solution SelectionMatrix

Multi-voting and OtherPrioritization Tools

Cost/Benefit Analysis(IRR, NPV, PaybackPeriod, ROI)

Pugh Matrix Force Field Analysis Pairwise Comparison Analytical Hierarchy

Process (AHP)

Risk MitigationSpreadsheet

Pilot Work Plan FMEA

Pilot ValidationPlan

Project Charter,i.e. Opportunity &Goal Statement

Gantt Chart Work Plan

Additional'Quick Wins'

PilotResults

Process Mapping Value Stream Mapping

DetailedImplementation

Plan

Refine ProjectScope, asNecessary

Project Charter Project Tracking

System (PTS)

RefinedCharter in PTS

Revised Charter Project Presentation Storyboard Risk Mitigation Plan

Download - Improve Tollgate

Top Related