1 / 26

SERMC

SERMC. Rapid Improvement Event # 06 -004. Formal Work Package Review and Approval Process. SERMC. “The LEAN Team”.

berit
Download Presentation

SERMC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SERMC Rapid Improvement Event # 06 -004 Formal Work Package Review and Approval Process

  2. SERMC “The LEAN Team” Glenn Spigelmyer (Team Leader), Al Alfonso, Bill Malehorn, Rick Bruce, Todd Weeks, Paul Harrington, Michael Chapman, Brett Chapman, Joe Stepulaitus, Larry Vanscoy (Process Owner), CDR P.B. Shepler (Value Stream Champion), Jim Holland (Lean Champion), Wally Meyer (Lead Green Belt)

  3. Team Charter (Event #: 06- 004) 8/30/06 VSA RIE Project Just Do It Event Description (Process, metrics that apply, etc.): FWP Review and Approval Process. X Time: 0800-1600 daily Location: Auxiliaries Training Room Dates: 16-20 October 06 Business Reason for the Event (Purpose, customer concerns, goal, current conditions): Identified during 7-9 August VSA as a key process for Review and a RIE. Goal is to Lean the process to enhance repairs, supportthe Customer and support the Production Shops while enhancing the planning process. Event Scope (Major processes involved, organizations, benefits: Production and Planning are the key Organizations. FWP review and approval is the main process we will be evaluating for improvement. Process review will start at INRT/AC and end at the FWP arriving at the Scheduling Office. Process Owner: Larry Vanscoy Team Leader: Glenn Spigelmyer Funding Type: Navy or Other: Value Stream Champion (Sigs): CDR Pat Shepler Lead Green Belt/Facilitator (Sigs): Wally Meyer Lean Champion (Sigs): Jim Holland Team Members (RIE SME’s): MMC Harrington, Rick Bruce, William Malehorn (Green Belt), BMC Chapman Green Belts: Todd Weeks, Brett Kennedy, MMC Alfonso, Joe Stepulaitus Customer/Sponsor: SERMC work centers. Copy to CO/Deputy/Executive Director

  4. Voice of the Customer Who is the customer? SERMC Workcenters What does the customer expect? Executable FWP Is the customer internal or external? Internal What does the customer expect of the product (Critical to Quality)? Error-free Technically correct Correct material Who is next in next in the process? Scheduling

  5. SIPOC Suppliers - SERMC Planners Input (Sources of Variation) – SERMC Planners and Priorities (Avail, CASREP) Process (Value Stream) – FWP Review and Approval Process Output (Measure of Performance) – Executable FWP Customer – SERMC Workcenters

  6. CURRENT STATE PROCESS MAP PLANNER VERIFY ELECTRONIC REVIEW YES CORRECTIONS REQUIRED NO PC EXEC. FWP PC INRT/AC LWC REVIEW AWC REVIEW PLANNING OFFICER SIGNATURE REPAIR OFFICER SIGNATURE TO SCHEDULING OFFICE

  7. Data Collection Plan 3573 Formal Work Packages created in the last 12 months Collect Data from sampling of FWP’s Sample size – 250 FWP’s 50 FWP’s from each of 5 planning groups – Hull, Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics, and Deck/Weapons

  8. DATA COLLECTION FORM

  9. Metrics Top 3 Metrics FLOW TIME – Total time that it takes the FWP to go through process. Time from Production Controller review until FWP is in Scheduling. TOUCH TIME – Actual time that the FWP is being reviewed/signed. REWORK – Number of FWP’s with review comments requiring corrections to the FWP.

  10. Results of Data Collection Flow time Electronic review Hard copy 75 hours 20hours Total Flow time = 95 hours Touch timeElectronic & Hard copy review 2 hours ReworkComments made during electronic review requiring changes 1.4 % of sampled FWP’s

  11. WASTE WALK (VIRTUAL) • ELECTRONIC REVIEW/APPROVAL • a. LWC Review/Approval • b. AWC Review/Approval • (75 hour average) • 2. HARD COPY REVIEW/APPROVAL SIGNATURES • a. Planning Officer Review/Approval Signature • b. Repair Officer Review/Approval Signature • (20 hour average)

  12. CIRCLE DIAGRAM (Illustrates FWP Electronic Review Process) . Production Controller enters status FWP INRT/AC . AWC . . AWC Planner Planner checks (electronically) numerous times throughout the day for verification of LWC/AWC reviews . . AWC LWC

  13. SPAGHETTI DIAGRAM (HARD COPY REVIEW AND APPROVAL) PLANNING ADMIN OFFICE PC SCHEDULING OFFICE PLANNING FLOOR CSRO HM&E ARO HM&E RO

  14. TARGETED GOALS Current State Flow Time = 95 hours GOAL = 50% Reduction Current State Touch Time = 2 hours GOAL = 50% Reduction Current State Rework = 1.4% GOAL = Low number, evaluate after new process is implemented

  15. PROCESS MAP TRANSFORMATION CURRENT STATE PROCESS MAP HARD COPY REVIEW & APPROVAL PC EXEC. FWP PC STATUS FWP INRT/AC LWC ELECTRONIC REVIEW AWC ELECTRONIC REVIEW YES CORRECTIONS NO REQUIRED? PLANNING OFFICER APPROVAL SIGNATURE REPAIR OFFICER APPROVAL SIGNATURE TO SCHEDULING OFFICE PLANNER VERIFY ELECTRONIC REVIEW ELECTRONIC REVIEW AND APPROVAL ELECTRONICREVIEW FLOW TIME = 75 HOURS, HARD COPY REVIEW TIME = 20 HOURS, TOTAL FLOW TIME 95 HOURS, TOUCH TIME = 2 HOURS (AVERAGE TIMES, 250 FWP SAMPLE, 24 HOUR CLOCK) IDEAL STATE PROCESS MAP PC EXECUTABLE FWP LWC FWP TO SHOP TO EXECUTE FUTURE STATE PROCESS MAP HARD COPY REVIEW (WITH ENCLOSURES) PC STATUS PLND SIGN FOR P & E OFFICER SCHEDULING OFFICE SCHEDULE FWP STATUS HLD OR SNS HLD REMAINS IN SCHEDULING SNS TO LWC LWC BRANCH OFFICE BRANCH OFFICER/BRANCH MANAGER/PROD. MANAGER REVIEW FOR LWC – DETERMINE IF AWC REVIEW REQUIRED, IF SO HAVE FWP ROUTED TO AWC FOR REVIEW SIGN FOR REPAIR OFFICER LWC SHOP EXECUTE FWP NEW PROCESS FLOW TIME = < 12 HOURS, TEAM WILL MONITOR AND COLLECT DATA CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE ACCURATE FLOW TIME TOUCH TIME REDUCED TO 1 HOUR

  16. NEW PROCESS MAP HARD COPY REVIEW (WITH ENCLOSURES) SCHEDULING OFFICE SCHEDULE FWP STATUS HLD OR SNS HLD REMAINS IN SCHEDULING SNS TO LWC LWC BRANCH OFFICE BRANCH OFF./BRANCH MNGR/PROD. MNGR REVIEW FOR LWC – DETERMINE IF AWC REVIEW REQUIRED, IF SO HAVE FWP ROUTED TO AWC FOR REVIEW SIGN FOR REPAIR OFFICER PC STATUS PLND SIGN FOR P & E OFFICER LWC SHOP EXECUTE FWP Process Flow time of 12 hours with 1 hour touch time

  17. SPAGHETTI DIAGRAM (NEW PROCESS) PLANNING ADMIN OFFICE SERVICES PC PLANNING FLOOR SCHEDULING OFFICE MP & E WEPS HULL CSRO AUX. HM&E ARO HM&E RO

  18. DATA COLLECTION PLAN Follow up (Control Phase) • LWC Branch Officer/Production Manager will track new process data – PLND, SNS, 0%, Upscope, Pen & Ink changes by MWO #. Flow times can be captured in NEMAIS • Data will be continuously collected and reported at intervals of: 1 week after event, 2 weeks after event, 3 weeks after event and then at 30 day intervals

  19. DATA COLLECTION FORM Follow up (Control Phase)

  20. Advantages of “New Process” • Parts can be ordered for FWPs much sooner. • FWPs are in the work centers an average of 83 hours sooner allowing for more time for the work center to schedule/plan/coordinate work with ships force and assist work centers. • Planners/LWCs/Production Managers/Production Chiefs are no longer required to check numerous times throughout the day to verify that electronic review/reviews have been performed thereby allowing for more productive time. • Hard copy routing of FWPs to the Planning Officer and the Repair Officer is no longer required. This allows for more productive time for the Planning Officer, Repair Officer and the personnel who actually routed FWPs for hard copy review and approval signatures. • Should never have a backlog of FWPs due to significant reduction of WIP/WIQ (Work-In-Process/Work-In-Queue).

  21. “IMPROVEMENTS” “OLD PROCESS” 3573 FWPs took an average of 95 hours to reach release status 3573 FWPs had an average of 2 hours of touch time per FWP Rework rate was 1.4 % “NEW PROCESS” FWPs take an average of 12 hours to reach LWC (Shop) FWPs have an average of 1 hour touch time per FWP Rework rate should not increase, will be tracked

  22. COST SAVINGS/AVOIDANCE Figures based upon 3573 FWPs planned per year Touch Time Cost of “Old Process” = 3573 FWPs x 2 hours x $45/hr = $321,570 Touch Time Cost of “New Process” = 3573 FWPs x 1 hour x $45 = $160,785 Savings per year = $160,785 Cost of Rapid Improvement Event = $50,000 1st year savings of $110,785 with a savings of $160,785 per year thereafter Flow Time of “Old Process” = 3573 FWPs x 95 hours = 339,435 hours Flow Time of “New Process” = 3573 FWPs x 12 hours = 42,876 hours Flow Time Reduction of 296,559 hours 87 % Reduction

  23. TARGETED GOALS VS ACTUAL GOALS TARGETED GOALS 50% Reduction in Flow Time 50% Reduction in Touch Time ACTUAL GOALS 87% Reduction in Flow Time 50% Reduction in Touch Time

  24. IMPROVEMENT NEWSPAPER

  25. PARKING LOT • Could scheduling be performed earlier/later in the I – level planning process? • Could HLD FWP’s be maintained in the LWC Branch Office? • Change JFMM to remove non-value added signatures. • Could CWP review and approval process be improved? • Evaluate Emergent work Request Process(QA memo 3) • Evaluate NDT FWP opening reviews – too lengthy

  26. DMAIC Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 3 week before (Preparation Phase) 5 day event (Execution Phase) 3 week after (Follow up Phase) VOC SIPOC DATA COLLECTION PLAN METRICS – TOP 3 CREATED DATA COLLECTION SPREADSHEETS DATA COLLECTION FLOW ANALYSIS – VALUE STREAM MAPPING VISUAL MANAGEMENT CHECKSHEETS IMPROVEMENT NEWSPAPER WASTE WALK STANDARD WORK SPAGHETTI DIAGRAMS CIRCLE DIAGRAMS CHECKSHEETS BRAINSTORMING AFFINITY REPORTS FLOW ANYSIS VALUE STREAM MAPPING (TRANSFORMING) IMPROVEMENT NEWSPAPER DEVELOPED NEW PROCESS TRAINING STANDARD WORK CHECKSHEETS DATA COLLECTION REPORTS IMPROVEMENT NEWSPAPER MEET WITH STAKEHOLDERS CONTINUOUS PROCESS ANALYSIS

More Related