Presentation on theme: "6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL"— 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 Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 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 1Panel 2Panel 3Define PhaseWho is my customer, and what is the current cost of poor quality?Voice of the CustomerDefect DefinitionCost of Poor Quality (includes warranty spending, as necessary)Project Scope & GoalMeasure PhaseWhich inputs affect ouputs? What is my current process performance (capability)? Are defects contained?Analyze PhaseBy how much do X’s affect Y? What confidence do you have?Graphical AnalysisHypothesis TestingRegression AnalysisAdditional toolsFish BoneGage R&R, Baseline CapabilityContainment PlanPanel 4Panel 5Panel 6Improve PhaseHow can we permanently fixthe current product/process?DOE & ANOVAVerification dataDurability/CAE/VSAWork planControl PhaseHow can we make theprocess stay fixed?Control PlansSPC – Control ChartingAudit PlansReplicate PhaseWho else at Ford can benefit? Update corporate knowledge? Is the gain be sustained?Replication / Best PracticesCore Books – SDS/VDS/FMEAsValidate sustain w/ data
4 DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER AICRDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER6-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.CustomerVFG Team / Functional Area NameVRT / Business Unit NameVehicle Name & Model Year / Product NamePart / Process Name & NumberManufacturing / Technical Example:CCC: L66 – Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 – Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / SablePART: 5230 MufflerTransactional Example:Ford Motor Company PlantsGlobal CustomsMP&LGlobal Customs and Trade Process9801 Duty Preference Program
5 DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER AICRDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE 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 AnalysisUnexpended Warranty CalculationsTGW Verbatim AnalysisQFD
6 DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER AICRDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERVRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 MufflerPROJECT CLASSIFICATION:SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles ’01 MY ’99 MY3 MIS 3 YISTGW 4 6CUST SAT LOSSCPUR/JD Power 0.4Consumer Reports n/a for L66TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable2002 L66 Warranty by part3 MIS R/1000TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING: $315K (2002 CY)VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the vehicle 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 fasciaCOST 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 GOALOwners 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 YDEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements):Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header.Identify the Project Classification (Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost… objectives: see SAQ=Single Agenda for Quality example above)Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and pareto to help break down the issue.Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project).CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer need.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, 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 AnalysisUnexpended Warranty CalculationsTGW Verbatim AnalysisQFDPlease 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.
7 DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Extra Slide(if required)DMAICRDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERTrend Charts of Explorer Brake Noise-N17:
8 MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY DMAICRMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYMEASURE 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 MatrixP-DiagramPFMEA and/or DFMEASPCRolled Throughput Yield
9 MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY DMAICRMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYVRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 MufflerMSA & Process Capability:Engineering Test Requirement Muffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm)Gage R&R = 15 % StudyBaseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001):Z = 0.72DPMO = 255,141Cpk = (note: short term)BABBBData Collection plan includes all circled, highly ranked X’sBBAProcess Elements Element OK A Investigating B Element Not Capable C Element Removed DACONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required): Process Owner Date Before Data After Data100% audit (clearances at fascia / lower control arm. John Smith 10/17/ Cpk 1.23 CpkWhen necessary, reposition muffler assembly to obtain adequate clearance.If muffler does not shift to desired position, loosen joint attachment & reposition assembly.
10 MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Extra Slide(if required)DMAICRMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYFISHBONECause 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: cause and 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 DiagramImportant: Look for InternalIndicator at Supplierfacility and Assembly plantEnvironmentCustomerUsageSystemInteractionsPiece to PieceVartiationAging WearDesignBrake application (line pressure)Vehicle speedBraking distanceDriving habits (D)Cooling of Brake System (D)Pad modal parameters (A)Material Property VariationSurface Friction VariationManufacturing misassembly (D)Rotor/Hub AlignmentPad Geometric VariationsPad Damping DeteriorationRunning ClearanceSys Damping DeteriorationPad/Lining Wear/CrackedAging of Slide Pin WearShape of lining (A)Uneven Rotor WearLining material Characteristics (A)Humidity(wet/dry)/water/Moisture absorption (A)ContaminatesCorrosionRoad saltsSolventsTemperatureRoad inputsCustomer’s Maintenance Schedules (D)Incorrect Maintenance (D)Road Quality (D)Lot RotDeceleration rateSuspension Interactions (D)Body Sensitivities (Acoustic/Vibration(D)RotorWarpingRotor ScorchingBooster Noise Filter WearRotor Geometric VariationsThickness of lining material (A)Pad/Rotor pressure distribution (even/uneven)when apply brake (B)Chamfers in lining (A)Slots in liningInsulator typeInsulator damping/damping material (A)Caliper designRotor modalparameterProcess ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D
11 MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Extra Slide(if required)DMAICRMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYExample of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not AnalysisNOTE: 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 DMAICRANALYZE 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 TestingRegression AnalysisCorrelation AnalysisProcess FMEAP-DiagramContribution AnalysisMulti-vari studiesShainin Analysis
13 MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X” ANALYZE y=f(x)VRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 Mufflery=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 installedy=f(x)Muffler assembly aids used during installation require detailed 4.2 mm offset positioning feature to meet design intent.ANALYSIS OF VARIANCESource DF SS MS F PFactorErrorTotalFASCIA LOCATING HOLE &MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLEDETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X”REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID• incorporated the 4.2 mm design
14 DMAICRIMPROVE 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 AnalysisCorrelation AnalysisHypothesis TestingCost / Benefit AnalysisProcess Mapping (should be)
15 Implementation Workplan DMAICRIMPROVE y=f(x)VRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 MufflerImproved 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, 2001AFTER: March 1, 2002Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of YOne-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE)Analysis of VarianceSource DF SS MS F PFactorErrorTotalIndividual 95% CIs For MeanBased on Pooled StDevLevel N Mean StDevFASCI-EN (*)FASCIA-P (-*-)Pooled StDev =Implementation WorkplanPermanent / Before/After Interim Actions Who/When IndicatorsConcern C Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B)Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A) and sheet metal for In productionadditional clearance. Jan., 2002Concern C Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B)Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A) assy aid to meet design March, 2002 y and z specification.All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.
16 Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R 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 ImprovementExample of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise level is significantly improved.Noise Level (Base vs Modification)Two Sample T-Test and Confidence IntervalTwo sample T for Rr BasevsRrVerif.N MeanStDevSE MeanRr Base2932.2795% CI formuRr Base: ( 1.41, 2.96)TTestRr Base =(not =): T = 5.69P =DF = 43Mean is at theTarget of 32SonesPValue is less than .05Therefore, there is astatistical differencebetween means386X=3.2SL7ue37l36ModificationVa35al34u33dii32v31BaselinednI32928Subgroup12345
17 Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification with Durability DataDYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT operating conditionsExample of APG Durability Reliability AnalysisCumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage24681050001000015000200002500030000350004000045000Cumulative Test Mileage / VehicleCumulative Incidents / VehicleAPG or CAE/Lab test can beused for this Slot)Less is better
18 Extra Slide (if required) WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x)Additional Improve Phase Example – Workplan detail timeline chartWORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHARTAn 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, etcExample - Work Plan
19 DMAICRCONTROL X’sCONTROL 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 FMEAsControl Plans for Process and GageStatistical Process ControlStandard Operating ProceduresVisual FactoryPreventative MaintenancePrevent RecurrencePoka Yoke / Mistake ProofingDocument special cause actions (Global 8-D), as necessary.
20 VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles DMAICRCONTROL X’sVRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 MufflerAugust 27, 2002L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 SableContainment 10/17/02Fascia Change 1/2/02Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02
21 DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Extra Slide(if required)DMAICRDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERTotal Warranty Spending and Unexpended 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 productionOptimized solution availabilitySupplier is in Warranty Reduction ProgramWhat 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 toolPart pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline?Other: Efficient repair procedure (part vs. subassembly) Improved diagnostics-reduced TNI, Policy changes, Customer education to prevent failureDoes the supplier participate in Warranty Reduction Program (WRP)?Yes NoYes NoYes No
22 DMAICRREPLICATEREPLICATION 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 DMAICRREPLICATEVRT: Powertrain / FuelVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SablePART: 5230 MufflerREPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Key Actions Is this Replicable? If Yes, Where? ResponsibilityDesign Change to Assembly Aid Yes, at sister Plant (CAP) Chicago, ILL Orlando VenturaDesign Change to Fascia No, specific to Taurus/Sable designUPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Core Book Change Made Owner Document # CompletedAttribute FMEADesign FMEAProcess FMEASDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002VDSFDVS<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 )