WAF-WPC Lean Event Brief Trident Refit Facility

1. WAF-WPCLean Event BriefTrident Refit Facility Presenters: WAF-WPC Cross-functional VSM Team 29 Sept 06

2. Project Objectives • Everyone working to the same priority and plan • Non-stop progress of work

3. Project Goals • Reliable, consistent method for opening WAFs (Consistent by shop & boat, by tagouts & non—tagouts…) • Standardize process • Standardize WAFs • Reduce WAF process/scheduling/review time of general foremen & supervisors • Open non-tagout WAFs within 2 days • Decrease defective WAFs to 0; 0 return for incorrect information • Reduce WAF distance traveled • Process for defective WAFs streamlined

4. Project Description • All work ID at Pre-def is packaged – ready for boat by pre-arrival conference (1-2 days after arrival) • WAF revision control among all involved (including lead and assist shops) • WAF Revisions • 1 day (short term) • 1 hour (long term) • ID/track location of work package within 10 minutes • Reduce number of WAFs (w/o creating additional work elsewhere) • (consider emergent work)

5. Project Scope Regular refits with consideration of ERPs TRF Work Only (includes TRF Alts) From the point of the job loaded and screened to the point of the WAF (Work Authorized) From the point of work complete to the point of the AWR signed off Variation

6. Mike Hader Miles Prescott Bob Thran Andy Lowe Chief Martin Chief Butler FT1 Moore ET1 McAtee Randy Mixson Mel Garman Dave Bliton Jun Byrd, Supervisor Dennis Kapparis Wayne Collier Liz Pittaluga Jill Winkelman, Georgia Tech Team

7. Team Ground Rules • Don’t take it personal • No attacking • Be on time • Silence electronic devices • Don’t speak when others are speaking • “3 Knock” for a dead horse • Leave area clean • Everyone participate • Respect others • Bring outside discussion back to team • Take ownership • No pushing around problems • Everyone is equal • Stick within scope

8. Battle of Cape St. George Charge, charge on You know what to do Teamwork and confidence Know the others around you Confidence in figuring out solutions Empowering They knew how each of the guys thought What are the expectations I don’t want to be the slowest boat Slow is death Be clear in your expectaions Know what is expected of you

9. Team Guidance Ground Rules Training Data Gathering 70% Rule of Thumb Map Current State Value Stream Map Circle Diagrams Observations Develop Ideal Future State Brainstorming Categorizing Ideas High/Low Impact Easy/Difficult Prioritize ideas within each category Analyze feasibility & estimated impact on chosen ideas Project Approach

10. Observations Requirements • JFMM • TRFKB Ins. 4790.8A • MSSC Inst. 5215.1 Article 4000

11. Before Pros: Shop had everything written/needed No routing/dead time WAF process moved faster Only reviewed what you worked SME write WAFs Cons: FMA work complete not made No distinguisher for intrusive/non-intrusive work Overloaded boat with people Larger number of WAFs Ship doesn’t know when TRF works Ship doesn’t know priority Craftsmen waiting on ship for WAF JFFM violation – work before authorized Supervisors led to package job No standard tracking method Using unauthorized, working copy Testing – ship is not triggered Current State Pros: Meet FMA Work Complete Boat likes process for opening Cons: Larger WIP Inventory Shop doesn’t have all the jobs on PSR ie. Deferred, rework Ship doesn’t know when TRF works Craftsmen waiting on boat for WAFs Supervisors don’t have control over package No standard tracking method Observations

12. Observations Disadvantages to Routing WAFs Too Early • Get lost • Out of sequence • Confuses priority • Inventory gets jammed • Using resources that can be used for immediate tasks at hand • Space – takes up • Revision/recall • Variation in processing

13. Current State

18. Current State

19. Current State

20. Current State

21. Recommendations Standardize WAFs Impact • Manhours: LWC-20 minutes per WAF AWC – 15 minutes per WAF (ave. 1 AWC per WAF) • Total: ave. 35 minutes/WAF (# of WAFs) • Takes 30% of jobs out of open review during a regular refit – see WY and FL as examples • Lead time: 8 hours per shop routing time - currently. Go from 60-70 hours processing time to 33 hours total. (circle diagrams) • More turnstile vs. gate traffic (appx. 15 minutes) • Reduce inventory in shops = review processing • Reliable/consistent method • Minimize corrections reducing lead time and improving customer service (free up feedback from GF) • Will be a good platform for prioritizing/scheduling • Key: Check if master job scope changes Involved: • Implementation - Hader • Instruction – Lowe with advisors such as Mike Hebert, Dennis Kapparis, Dave Bliton • Shop 67H (Dave Bliton) and Shop 11 (Kapparis) to pilot project

22. WAF-WPCLean Event BriefTrident Refit Facility Presenters: WAF-WPC Cross-functional VSM Team 29 Sept 06

23. Project Objectives • Everyone working to the same priority and plan • Non-stop progress of work

24. Project Goals • Reliable, consistent method for opening WAFs (Consistent by shop & boat, by tagouts & non—tagouts…) • Standardize process • Standardize WAFs • Reduce WAF process/scheduling/review time of general foremen & supervisors • Open non-tagout WAFs within 2 days • Decrease defective WAFs to 0; 0 return for incorrect information • Reduce WAF distance traveled • Process for defective WAFs streamlined

25. Project Description • All work ID at Pre-def is packaged – ready for boat by pre-arrival conference (1-2 days after arrival) • WAF revision control among all involved (including lead and assist shops) • WAF Revisions • 1 day (short term) • 1 hour (long term) • ID/track location of work package within 10 minutes • Reduce number of WAFs (w/o creating additional work elsewhere) • (consider emergent work)

26. Project Scope Regular refits with consideration of ERPs TRF Work Only (includes TRF Alts) From the point of the job loaded and screened to the point of the WAF (Work Authorized) From the point of work complete to the point of the AWR signed off Variation

27. Mike Hader Miles Prescott Bob Thran Andy Lowe Chief Martin Chief Butler FT1 Moore ET1 McAtee Randy Mixson Mel Garman Dave Bliton Jun Byrd, Supervisor Dennis Kapparis Wayne Collier Liz Pittaluga Jill Winkelman, Georgia Tech Team

28. Team Ground Rules • Don’t take it personal • No attacking • Be on time • Silence electronic devices • Don’t speak when others are speaking • “3 Knock” for a dead horse • Leave area clean • Everyone participate • Respect others • Bring outside discussion back to team • Take ownership • No pushing around problems • Everyone is equal • Stick within scope

29. Battle of Cape St. George Charge, charge on You know what to do Teamwork and confidence Know the others around you Confidence in figuring out solutions Empowering They knew how each of the guys thought What are the expectations I don’t want to be the slowest boat Slow is death Be clear in your expectaions Know what is expected of you

30. Team Guidance Ground Rules Training Data Gathering 70% Rule of Thumb Map Current State Value Stream Map Circle Diagrams Observations Develop Ideal Future State Brainstorming Categorizing Ideas High/Low Impact Easy/Difficult Prioritize ideas within each category Analyze feasibility & estimated impact on chosen ideas Project Approach

31. Observations Requirements • JFMM • TRFKB Ins. 4790.8A • MSSC Inst. 5215.1 Article 4000

32. Before Pros: Shop had everything written/needed No routing/dead time WAF process moved faster Only reviewed what you worked SME write WAFs Cons: FMA work complete not made No distinguisher for intrusive/non-intrusive work Overloaded boat with people Larger number of WAFs Ship doesn’t know when TRF works Ship doesn’t know priority Craftsmen waiting on ship for WAF JFFM violation – work before authorized Supervisors led to package job No standard tracking method Using unauthorized, working copy Testing – ship is not triggered Current State Pros: Meet FMA Work Complete Boat likes process for opening Cons: Larger WIP Inventory Shop doesn’t have all the jobs on PSR ie. Deferred, rework Ship doesn’t know when TRF works Craftsmen waiting on boat for WAFs Supervisors don’t have control over package No standard tracking method Observations

33. Observations Disadvantages to Routing WAFs Too Early • Get lost • Out of sequence • Confuses priority • Inventory gets jammed • Using resources that can be used for immediate tasks at hand • Space – takes up • Revision/recall • Variation in processing

34. Current State

39. Current State

40. Current State

41. Current State

42. Recommendations Standardize WAFs Impact • Manhours: LWC-20 minutes per WAF AWC – 15 minutes per WAF (ave. 1 AWC per WAF) • Total: ave. 35 minutes/WAF (# of WAFs) • Takes 30% of jobs out of open review during a regular refit – see WY and FL as examples • Lead time: 8 hours per shop routing time - currently. Go from 60-70 hours processing time to 33 hours total. (circle diagrams) • More turnstile vs. gate traffic (appx. 15 minutes) • Reduce inventory in shops = review processing • Reliable/consistent method • Minimize corrections reducing lead time and improving customer service (free up feedback from GF) • Will be a good platform for prioritizing/scheduling • Key: Check if master job scope changes Involved: • Implementation - Hader • Instruction – Lowe with advisors such as Mike Hebert, Dennis Kapparis, Dave Bliton • Shop 67H (Dave Bliton) and Shop 11 (Kapparis) to pilot project

43. Recommendations Visual ID of Folders by Boat Impact: • Timesaving, 10-15 minutes per supervisor per day • # Supervisors = 60 • Real value: Assist with future prioritization Involved: • Lead: Butler • Advisor: Jun Byrd Train S/F on WAF/WPCG on Every Off Crew Impact: • Decreased daily S/F confusion on WAF processing (1 WPCG man-hour/day/boat) • Potential faster WAF processing Involved: • 1st 12 training sessions - Hader/Prescott • Training development – Butler • Continued training – Butler

44. Recommendations Blanket WAF for Welding, Grinding Service Impact: • Reduce Number of WAFs by 20 per refit • Available for work immediately (up to 3 days) Involved: • Develop Hot Work Ticket - Dennis Kapparis • Develop Instruction – NSSC (CDM) with guidance from Dennis Kapparis • Implement – Dennis Kapparis Add WPC to Deferral Slip Routing Impact: • Jobs won’t be overlooked (currently ave. 4/refit). • Reduce expediting and risk. Involved: • Provide notification of Deferral Slip to WPC – Sr. Chief K. Hendrix with Chief J. Johnston assist • WPCG Training – Chief Martin • Incorporate in instruction – Lowe

45. Recommendations Use Current Work Package Data Log More Effectively Description: • Currently – ___ people have access to Work Package Data Log • 95% of questions to WPCG have answers in WPC Data Log • All supervisors and GF can have access – give it to them • WPCG still point of contact if not in front of a computer – may not completely eliminate Impact: • Reduce 15-20 phone calls for 4 people per day in WPCG (1-1.5 hours/person) • Reduce time for gathering info (check log vs. contacting WPCG) Involved: • Martin Training GF’s and Supervisors on WAF Process Description: • Quarterly training and gathering of improvement ideas • Currently 6-10 non-compliances per week • WPCG spends 1-2 hours/week arguing with supervisors Impact: • Less frustration • Better use of database • Understanding the reasons and improving compliance with system Involved: • Butler, Lowe

46. Recommendations Access to Safe in WPCG Description: • Previously – 3 people able to access safe in WPCG • Improved – All Work Packaging plus 5 Work Control People Impact: • Reduce frustration • 1-2 hours/week for WPCG Involved: • Completed by Martin WAF Content Checklist Description: • Approximately 25 errors/refit (5 errors/100 WAFs) • 1 Error = 40 minutes plus ship time, (man hours, lead time, review time….) sometimes can be solved with pen & ink Impact: Involved:

47. Recommendations Write Prerequisites of AWRs for Ease of S/F System Isolation Description: • Not for PMRs. Corrective Maintenance is approximately 20% • Meet intent and effectiveness • Paradigm shift for planners and shop • Part of solution – meeting/cross-functional team Impact: • Reduce WAF errors • Reduce Ship’s errors • Reduce injuries and increase safety • Cost on planners and feedback from WPCG and Shops Involved: • Mike Hebert with

48. Recommendations Barcoding and tracking of FWP/CWP’s, WAF’s and Work Packages (as plan B or secondary to other recommendations and scheduling project – may not be an issue) Description: Impact: • Reduce time looking for location and status of documents • WPCG team – 8 man hours/day • PMA’s - 2 man hours/week • Supervisors – 1 hour/day • General Foremen - .5 hours/day • Refit managers – 2 (?) • Estimated overall impact: 500 man-hours/week Involved: • Mel • Check with Jeff Johnson

49. Recommendations Create Project Work Cell Description: • Work Cell – Planners, WPCG, Ship Sups and Refit Managers • Define roles, responsibilities and interactions of Refit Managers, ShipSup, Eng, Planning, WPCG, Tech Library, QA… In writing and communicate • Meetings/Team training/Cross-functional understanding plus mechanism for ID and Transforming Improvement Impact: • Eliminate confusion at command - reduce duplication and gaps • Stop complaints and moaning • Better quality WAFs, service and morale Involved: • Need someone with management and technical understanding but neutral and can communicate/lead without repercussion (Management analyst or other – Kris Griffin, GT-JW, Gary Pond, Brian Logan, Brett Mounsey)

50. Overall Estimated Impact