1. Synergy Group Members: Carol Cheng Carol Yiu Gary Ho Bryant Young

2. Agenda D efine M easure A nalysis I mprove C ontrol

3. SIPOC Overview of process

4. Define Determine the project’s purpose and scope. Obtain a good understanding of the current process and the customer’s needs. Recruit team members.

5. Company Charter Purpose The cross communication between marketing and manufacturing can lead to product delays and excessive financial losses. Our purpose is to reduce the review time of the documents and improve the accuracy of computer configurations. Importance Avoid customer dissatisfaction which can lead to long-term loss of business. Too many recalls of Synergy computers due to defective or unreliable setup configurations will damage the company’s reputation and potential loss of vendor partnerships. Reduce financial losses and schedule delays attributed to configuration failures by doing extensive component and system checking.

6. Company Charter Scope Determine a solution to improve accuracy of the documents among R&D, marketing and manufacturing departments. System Management Department has final veto power for system configuration. By giving authority to SMD, disputes between marketing and manufacturing will be reduced and there will be fewer schedule slips from changing configurations back and forth. Find a solution with existing resources. No additional employees or budget increases are allowed due to overhead constraints. Measures Record configuration review time by SMD, number of exchanges among different departments, number of changes proposed versus implemented, monetary losses from configuration errors and use statistical methods to compare weekly data and compare to past data.

7. Deliverables Come up with a solution for improving the accuracy of configuration document reviews. This solution may include a process change and/or software tools to automate process. A final presentation and report to upper management detailing the results of the solution by using supporting statistical data and random surveys from the departments involved. Resources Team leader: Gary Ho Team members: Carol Cheng, Carol Yiu and Bryant Young Team sponsor: Synergy Coach: Professor Saeed Full access to financial, consumer and inventory database to assist in the development of a better solution. All employees within the departments involved. Company Charter

8. Gantt Chart

9. CTQ Tree

10. Flow Chart

11. Process Flow Diagram

12. Measure Collection of data Highlight contributing factors to problem

13. Balanced Scorecard

15. Pareto Chart - Types of Errors

16. Pareto Chart – Compatibility Issues

17. Internal Benchmarking: Region Comparison # of Errors by SKU Latin AmericaNorth AmericaAsia PacificEurope # of SKUs1280150300 Compatibility Issues343.282.35 Input Issues1.3311.20.46 Availability Issues2.580.650.40.24 Total # of Issues6.915.654.883.05 SM is currently responsible for the region of Europe. Below is a regional comparison by types of errors by SKU.

18. Internal Benchmarking: Region Comparison

19. Internal Benchmarking: Comparing with Perfection * For more internal benchmarking, please refer to Appendix.

20. Internal Benchmarking: Comparing with Perfection

21. Analysis Find root cause of problems

22. Cause & Effect Diagram * For affinity diagram of root causes, please refer to Appendix.

23. Generate solutions to address root causes Implement recommended solutions Improve

24. Affinity Diagram

25. Project Recommendations Project 1: SW Automation  Verification software for marketing  Verification software for SM Project 2: Procedure  Increase frequency of marketing updates: bi-weekly  IT to provide updates regularly  IT to provide notification when component name changes Project 3: Training for marketing staff

26. Prioritization Matrices NPVDuration Change required ComplexityLabor Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 0.420.00 0.040.47 Procedure 0.010.020.070.020.010.13 Training for MKT 0.230.030.140.00 0.40 Grand Total 1.00 Options vs. All Criteria * For details, please refer to Appendix.

27. Improved Flow Chart

28. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Process StepsPotential Failure Mode Potential Effects of Failure Sev erit y Potential Causes Occur- rence Current Controls DetectionRPNRecommended Actions Responsibility Marketing Generates Report 1.component incompatible 2. components not ready 1. wrong assembly 2.unable to build computers on time 81. ignore constraints 2. marketing has inadequate information 8none21281. training for marketing 2. verification SW and IT updates IT & SM IT Updates Tool inaccurate configurations because tool not updated not checking incompatible configurations 81. IT has no procedure in place 2. no time for IT to update 8none7448establish procedure for IT to update SW tool SM Marketing Runs Tool 1. missing configuration constraint 2. false errors 1. incompatible configurations 2. time wasted 81. inaccurate constraints 2. not enough time to update 6none73361. establish update procedure 2. marketing tells IT of errors Marketing, SM, IT SM Generates Document And Checking human error entering data 1. wrong configuration 2. delay schedule 8lack of time6none296more time for verification and input SM SM Runs Tool1. names not matching 2. components missing time wasted6no procedure to update tool 7none7294establish procedure SM & IT To anticipate potential failures of the new process flow * For details, please refer to Appendix.

29. Improvement Plan: Gantt chart

30. * For details, please refer to Appendix.

31. PDCA Plan Do Check Act 1.Automated software 2.Biweekly update 3.Marketing Training 1.Do pilot for automated tool 2.Try out biweekly update 3.Train marketing 1.Check Tools 2.Compare % of human errors 3.Compare % of compatibility errors 1.If actual = expected 2.Else * For details, please refer to Appendix.

32. Establish tools to monitor and ensure new process is being followed. Control

33. Types of Control Performance Monitoring Training (Monthly) Performance Review Management SOP (Standard Operating Procedures)

34. SOP Marketing training IT updates Use of verification software by marketing Use of verification software by SM

35. Questions ???

36. Appendix Internal Benchmarking Affinity Diagram of Root Causes Commitment Scale Communication Plan FMEA Details Prioritization Details PDCA Details House of Quality

37. Internal Benchmarking: Comparing with Perfection

38. Internal Benchmarking: 2004 versus 2005

41. Affinity Diagram

42. Commitment Scale

43. Communication Plan

44. FMEA - Severity Scale RatingCriteria: A failure could… 10Injure a customer or employee 9Be illegal 8Render the product unfit for use 7Cause extreme customer dissatisfaction 6Result in partial malfunction 5Cause a loss of performance likely to result in a complaint 4Cause minor performance loss 3Cause a minor nuisance; can be overcome with no loss 2Be unnoticed; minor effort on performance 1Be unnoticed and not affect the performance * Note: lower numbers are better.

45. RatingTime PeriodProbability 10More than once per day> 30% 9Once every 3-4 days< 30% 8Once per week< 5% 7Once per month< 1% 6Once every 3 months< 0.03% 5Once every 6 months1 per 10,000 4Once per year6 per 100,000 3Once every 1-3 years6 per 1 million 2Once every 3-6 years3 per 10 million 1Once every 6-100 years2 per billion FMEA - Occurrence Scale * Note: lower numbers are better.

46. FMEA - Detection Scale RatingDefinition 10Detect caused by failure is not detectable 9Occasional units are checked for defects 8Units are systematically sampled and inspected 7All units are manually inspected 6Manual inspection with mistake-proofing modifications 5Process is monitored via statistical process control (SPC) and manually inspected 4SPC used, with an immediate reaction to out-of-control conditions 3SPC as above, with 100% inspections surrounding out-of-control conditions 2All units automatically inspected 1Defect is obvious and can be kept from affecting customer * Note: lower numbers are better.

47. Prioritization Matrices CriteriaRelative Decimal Value NPV0.67 Duration0.05 Change required0.21 Complexity0.02 Labor0.05

48. Prioritization Matrices NPV SW Automation Procedure Training for MKT Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 101110.64 Procedure 0.1 0.20.30.02 Training for MKT 15 60.35 Grand Total17.3 NPV

49. Prioritization Matrices Duration SW Automati on Procedure Training for MKT Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 0.10.20.30.01 Procedure 10 0.110.10.40 Training for MKT 510 150.59 Grand Total25.4 Duration

50. Prioritization Matrices Change Required SW Automati on Procedure Training for MKT Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 0.20.10.30.02 Procedure 5 160.35 Training for MKT 101 110.64 Grand Total17.3 Change Required

51. Complexity SW Automati on Procedure Training for MKT Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 0.10.20.30.01 Procedure 10 200.79 Training for MKT 50.1 5.10.20 Grand Total25.4 Prioritization Matrices Complexity

52. Prioritization Matrices Labor SW Automati on Procedure Training for MKT Row Total Relative Decimal Value SW Automation 10 200.79 Procedure 0.1 55.10.20 Training for MKT 0.10.2 0.30.01 Grand Total25.4 Labor

53. PDCA - Plan SolutionMetricsResultsSteps Automated Software - # of errors caught - Errors generated by tool (tool base) - # of errors not caught - Reduction in errors (accurate report) - Target is to have 0 errors - Design (need resources from IT) - Test out software - Ready for use Biweekly update from Marketing - # of errors generated by marketing - # of human errors (inputting errors) - Reduction in errors (accurate report) - Target is to reduce errors by 50%) - Send report from marketing to S.M on Mon & Wed. - Marketing should use tool to check before sending to S.M. Training for Marketing - # of errors generated by marketing - # of human errors (inputting errors) - Reduction in errors (accurate report) - Target is to have 0 errors - Monthly training of marketing staff to understand the constraints Note: SM is responsible to oversee this process.

54. PDCA - Do Do software tools pilot run for both marketing and S.M Try out bi-weekly update to see if there are improvements Test each components individually to check results accurately Monthly training of marketing staffs

55. PDCA - Check Check Tools  Compare # of errors generated before and after using the tool  Evaluate # of errors incorrectly reported  Compare # of errors to expected (0 errors) Compare % of human errors generated by SM to expected (50%) Number of configuration errors

56. PDCA - Act If actual = expected  Will implement as standard procedure Else  Determine root cause and take corrective actions.

57. House of Quality Error Free Document from Marketing Error Free Document from System Management Communicatio n Relative Importance Knowledgeable Staff Clear Procedure for Documentation Creation Adequate Time Consistency of Component Naming Simple format / Easy to use Knowledgeable Staff Clear Procedure for Documentation Creation Adequate Time Consistency of Component Naming Simple format / Easy to use The Direct Point of Contact Team Dynamic Number of People Involved Correct Configuration5+2+1 +2+1+2+1 +2+10 Document on Time4+1 +2+1+2+1+2 +10 Ease of Communication 10000000000+2+1 +2 +1