1 / 23

6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL

6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL. Corporate NEED. Global 6-Panel Reporting standard:

florence-chan
Download Presentation

6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL

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. 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL

  2. Corporate NEED • Global 6-Panel Reporting standard: • 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements and data to drive decisions through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate. • Assist problem solving teams with a template to guide the problem solving process using minimum required DMAIC+R steps to ensure robustness of the resolution. • Individual summary panels of each DMAIC+R phase that is simplified and standardized, while allowing for additional information or slides to be inserted as backup information for any of the problem resolution phases. In a high level management report out, communicate with the six summary panels. For a team or quarterback deep dive, unhide information on additional slides. • Standardization of problem resolution procedures combining best practices and 6-Sigma methodology on a format that is flexible enough to be used by all business units. • Simplified and consistent communication to management in a concise way without having to rewrite what you have done. • Encourages management to ask questions in line with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.

  3. Process Layout 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements used to drive data decision through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate. Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 • Define Phase • Who is my customer, and what isthe current cost of poor quality? • Voice of the Customer • Defect Definition • Cost of Poor Quality (includeswarranty spending, as necessary) • Project Scope & Goal Measure Phase Which inputs affect ouputs?What is my current processperformance (capability)?Are defects contained? • Analyze Phase • By how much do X’s affect Y?What confidence do you have? • Graphical Analysis • Hypothesis Testing • Regression Analysis • Additional tools • Fish Bone • Gage R&R, Baseline Capability • Containment Plan Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 • Improve Phase • How can we permanently fix • the current product/process? • DOE & ANOVA • Verification data • Durability/CAE/VSA • Work plan • Control Phase • How can we make the • process stay fixed? • Control Plans • SPC – Control Charting • Audit Plans • Replicate Phase • Who else at Ford can benefit?Update corporate knowledge?Is the gain be sustained? • Replication / Best Practices • Core Books – SDS/VDS/FMEAs • Validate sustain w/ data

  4. VRT / Business Unit Name VFG Team / Functional Area Name Customer Vehicle Name & Model Year / Product Name Part / Process Name & Number VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 – Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 – Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable PART: 5230 Muffler MP&L Global Customs Ford Motor Company Plants Global Customs and Trade Process 9801 Duty Preference Program D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER • 6-PANEL Header: • Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header. The following generic fields are listed to identify project ownership (business unit), the customer, affected vehicle, process, and/or part number. • Please note: The header “VRT / VFG / CCC” information along with the footer “Project Number / BB Name” information must be updated on the SLIDE MASTER. Goto “View” then “Master” then “Slide Master” to make these changes. Manufacturing / Technical Example: Transactional Example:

  5. D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER • DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements): • Identify the Project Classification (Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost…) objectives. Typical quality classifications will be based upon the Single Agenda for Quality data (both low time in service, 3 MIS, and high time in service, 3 YIS) from GQRS and Warranty. Include total annual warranty spending and JD Power data if available. In addition, use internal data indicators to help identify the concern including Best In Class (BIC) and Best In Ford (BIF) data to address customer concerns. • Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and pareto formulates a means of prioritizing and help reflect the teams understanding of the major components making up the concern.) Data trend charts over time help define the severity of customer concerns. Data trend charts over time should include annotative updates. If needed, add backup slides. • Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project). • CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer requirements / expectations. • Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric. • Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Total Warranty Spending and Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.) • Problem Statement (include scope and goal) • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Define material) • Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not Analysis • Unexpended Warranty Calculations • TGW Verbatim Analysis • QFD

  6. D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles ’01 MY ’99 MY 3 MIS3 YIS TGW 4 6 CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61 CPU 0.27 2.11 R/1000 1.04 3.54 JD Power 0.4 Consumer Reports n/a for L66 TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE: 2002 L66 Warranty by part L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable 3 MISR/1000 TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING: $315K (2002 CY) VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “thevehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.” CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement): Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system. DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric): Muffler to body clearance less than 17mm at fascia COST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc.): $350,000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from 3MIS GQRS surveys. PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOAL Owners of 2001 MY Taurus/Sable vehicles indicate that exhaust pipes and muffler to body side ground outs are a significant issue. These ground outs conditions, particularly around the rear fascia & lower control arm, cause noises such as rattles, knocks, bangs, clunks, dings, and rubs. Reduce ground outs by 90%. Y=f(x) CASCADE: Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.) Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.) Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia) Project Y

  7. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Trend Charts ofExplorer BrakeNoise-N17:

  8. D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY • MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements): • Fishbone (Cause & Effect Diagram). Identify the key process input variables (KPIV or Xs) that affect your KPOV (Y) most (display ranking). (This is the first stage of root cause analysis, in the analyze phase you will validate the root cause with data). • MSA – Measurement System Analysis. Validate the Measurement System for your KPOV (Y), Gage R&R stated as % Study. (May be needed for both Ys and Xs performed in other stages of the project.) • Determine the Baseline Process Capability of your KPOV (Y) • Containment Plan - state actions taken to protect the customer, including statistical evidence validating action (before and after data). If containment is not needed, state why.While the team is working on permanent solution, containment actions are required to protect the customer 100%. Example of actions include Stop-ship, 100% inspection, Quarantine stock, QR’s supplier. Use additional slides with visual aids to this panel to drive home your containment resolutions. Effectiveness of containment actions must be shown with Before and After indicator. Containment Plans should include: 1. Metric/Indicator that is used to find the issue at: (a) Supplier facility, before shipping to Ford facility, (b) Assembly plant, before shipping to customers.2. Before and after statistical data evidence showing the issue is contained (Cpk, defect rate, etc) • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Measure material) • Cause & Effect Matrix • P-Diagram • PFMEA and/or DFMEA • SPC • Rolled Throughput Yield

  9. D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler • MSA & Process Capability: • Engineering TestRequirementMuffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm) • Gage R&R = 15 % Study • Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001): • Z = 0.72 • DPMO = 255,141 • Cpk = 0.24 (note: short term) B A B B B Data Collection plan includes all circled, highly ranked X’s B B A Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D A • CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required):Process OwnerDateBefore DataAfter Data • 100% audit (clearances at fascia / lower control arm. John Smith 10/17/01 0.24 Cpk 1.23 Cpk • When necessary, reposition muffler assembly to obtain adequate clearance. • If muffler does not shift to desired position, loosen joint attachment & reposition assembly.

  10. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R System Interactions Piece to Piece Vartiation Customer Usage Rotor/Hub Alignment Brake application (line pressure) Cooling of Brake System (D) Material Property Variation Lot Rot Deceleration rate Suspension Interactions (D) Pad Geometric Variations Vehicle speed Surface Friction Variation Road Quality (D) Braking distance Rotor Geometric Variations Incorrect Maintenance (D) Body Sensitivities (Acoustic/Vibration (D) Driving habits (D) Manufacturing misassembly (D) Customer’s Maintenance Schedules (D) Pad Damping Deterioration Pad/Rotor pressure distribution (even/uneven)when apply brake (B) Pad modal parameters (A) Temperature Booster Noise Filter Wear Humidity(wet/dry)/water/Moisture absorption (A) Sys Damping Deterioration Lining material Characteristics (A) Caliper design Pad/Lining Wear/Cracked Thickness of lining material (A) Rotor Warping Rotor modal parameter Aging of Slide Pin Wear Road inputs Shape of lining (A) Contaminates Corrosion Road salts Solvents Insulator damping/damping material (A) Running Clearance Process Elements Element OK A Investigating B Element Not Capable C Element Removed D Chamfers in lining (A) Rotor Scorching Uneven Rotor Wear Insulator type Slots in lining Aging Wear Design Environment MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY FISHBONE Cause and Effect diagram is a problem solving tool used to identify and graphically display all possible causes of a problem or effect. It helps a team to discover root cause(s). Additional tools can and should be used to deep dive in the measure phase to help prioritize the KPIV – Key Process Input Variables: causeand effect priority matrix, fault tree / contribution analysis, process / design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process mapping, etc. • Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used tools in quality management. • Example – Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram Important: Look for Internal Indicator at Supplier facility and Assembly plant

  11. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis NOTE:ONE THING WE SHOULD MAKE CERTAIN IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT LET THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROOT CAUSE (ANALYZE PHASE) BE A DETRIMENT TO THE TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE CONTAINMENT PLAN. AN INSPECTION, SORTING, STOP SHIP, ETC. MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE CUSTOMER WITHOUT KNOWING THE "ROOT CAUSE".

  12. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) • ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements): • Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with data)? • How many samples do you need to draw conclusions? • What level of confidence do you have in your conclusions? • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Analyze material) • Graphical Analysis & Hypothesis Testing • Regression Analysis • Correlation Analysis • Process FMEA • P-Diagram • Contribution Analysis • Multi-vari studies • Shainin Analysis

  13. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler y=f(x) The current design muffler assembly aid positions the pipe to the center of tunnel, which is 4.2 mm from design position. This translates 13 mm muffler body movement toward the fascia area. CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID • 4.2 mm offset from design allows pipe position to vary when installed y=f(x) Muffler assembly aids used during installation require detailed 4.2 mm offset positioning feature to meet design intent. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0038 0.0038 0.05 0.826 Error 48 3.7236 0.0776 Total 49 3.7274 FASCIA LOCATING HOLE & MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X” REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID • incorporated the 4.2 mm design

  14. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) • IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements): • What is the optimal Y=f(x) solution? • How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical proof that the solution works.) • Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work plan must include: • Permanent/Interim actions, • Sample size, • Next steps if trial is successful, • Next steps if trial is NOT successful, • Part availability if trial is successful, • Additional actions pending. • Validation of fix after implementation. Before and after process capability of Y, showing variable data histograms, attribute data, etc. • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Improve material) • Design of Experiments (Main Effect & Interaction Plots, ANOVA Tables) • Regression Analysis • Correlation Analysis • Hypothesis Testing • Cost / Benefit Analysis • Process Mapping (should be)

  15. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler Improved y=f(x) A. Incorporate trimmed fascia and sheet metal for clearance. B. Muffler hanger bracket design modified, along with fascia and sheet metal change improved clearance 15 mm. BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001 AFTER: March 1, 2002 Implementation Workplan Permanent /Before/AfterInterim ActionsWho/WhenIndicators Concern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B) Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A)and sheet metal for In production additional clearance. Jan., 2002 Concern C11272097 Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B) Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A)assy aid to meet design March, 2002y and z specification. All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002. Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of Y One-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE) Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 8781.3 8781.3 822.74 0.000 Error 155 1654.4 10.7 Total 156 10435.6 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev Level N Mean StDev ----------+---------+---------+------ FASCI-EN 120 36.838 3.244 (*) FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343 (-*-) ----------+---------+---------+------ Pooled StDev = 3.267 24.0 30.0 36.0

  16. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R 3 . 0 S L = 3 7 6 6 X = 3 3 . 2 2 Two Sample T Two Sample T - - Test and Confidence Interval Test and Confidence Interval P P - - Value is less than .05 Value is less than .05 Two sample T for Rr Base Two sample T for Rr Base vs vs Rr Rr Verif Verif . . Mean is at the Mean is at the Therefore, there is a Therefore, there is a N Mean N Mean StDev StDev SE Mean SE Mean Target of 32 Target of 32 Sones Sones statistical difference statistical difference Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30 Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30 between means between means 32.27 32.27 Rr Rr Verif Verif 29 29 1.31 0.24 1.31 0.24 95% CI for 95% CI for mu mu Rr Base Rr Base - - mu mu Rr Rr Verif Verif : ( 1.41, 2.96) : ( 1.41, 2.96) P = 0.0000 P = 0.0000 T T - - Test Test mu mu Rr Base = Rr Base = mu mu Rr Rr Verif Verif ( ( vs vs not =): T = 5.69 not =): T = 5.69 DF = 43 DF = 43 IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification Data requires solid statistical evidence using adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent. Example of Weibull Plotting B10 Life Improvement Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise level is significantly improved. Noise Level (Base vs Modification) 3 8 3 7 e Modification u 3 6 l a 3 5 V 3 4 l a 3 3 u 3 2 d i B a s e l i n e v 3 1 i d 3 0 n I 2 9 2 8 S u b g r o u p 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0

  17. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R 10 8 Cumulative Incidents / Vehicle 6 4 2 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification with Durability Data DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT operating conditions Example of APGDurability Reliability Analysis Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage APG or CAE/Lab test can be used for this Slot) Less is better

  18. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Example – Workplan detail timeline chart WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART An overall plan showing improvement timelines for implementing containment, interim and permanent corrective actions. • Develop a work plan is to include detailed course of actions to fix the problem, including permanent/ engineering/process/quality actions, Plant trial schedule and sample size, next step after the trail, etc • Example - Work Plan

  19. D M A I C R CONTROL X’s • CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements): • Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof showing that the process is in control over time, using internal indicators. • What actions are taken to sustain the gains? (Example: Standard Operating Procedure changes (including control plan), permanent design or tooling change, etc.) • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Control material) • Process or Design FMEAs • Control Plans for Process and Gage • Statistical Process Control • Standard Operating Procedures • Visual Factory • Preventative Maintenance • Prevent Recurrence • Poka Yoke / Mistake Proofing • Document special cause actions (Global 8-D), as necessary.

  20. D M A I C R CONTROL X’s VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler August 27, 2002 L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable Containment 10/17/02 Fascia Change 1/2/02 Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02

  21. Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Total Warranty Spending andUnexpended Warranty Savings: • Unexpended roadmap opportunities for all affected model year coverage periods: • Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions: • Top spending parts for this CCC: (for each part, please explain) • Problem fixed in production • Optimized solution availability • Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program • What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY? • What is your warranty-spend savings with road map? • What are your top spending parts for this CCC? For each part: • Is the problem fixed in production? • Is there an optimal solution? • Labor time: More efficient repair process, special service tool • Part pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline? • Other: Efficient repair procedure (part vs. subassembly) Improved diagnostics-reduced TNI, Policy changes, Customer education to prevent failure • Does the supplier participate in Warranty Reduction Program (WRP)? Yes No Yes No Yes No

  22. D M A I C R REPLICATE • REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements): • Who else at Ford could be affected or could benefit? (Replication at another Plant or on another vehicle line?) • Are there any larger business unit or even global intellectual capital effects? (SDS, FMEAs, VDS, etc. in need of updates?) • After 6 months, is the process still in control and the improvement in Y and X sustained? (Control Charts, Proof from Warranty or GQRS, etc.) • Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Replicate/End material) • SPC, Control Charting

  23. D M A I C R REPLICATE VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler • REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):Key ActionsIs this Replicable?If Yes, Where?Responsibility • Design Change to Assembly Aid Yes, at sister Plant (CAP) Chicago, ILL Orlando Ventura • Design Change to Fascia No, specific to Taurus/Sable design • UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):Core BookChange MadeOwnerDocument #Completed • Attribute FMEA • Design FMEA • Process FMEA • SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002 • VDS • FDVS • <other specify here> • PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: • Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant) • Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability – 0 DPMO, Cpk=2.82) • AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )

More Related