6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process

Report
PROBLEM
RESOLUTION
PROCESS
6-PANEL
Problem Resolution Process
TRAINING MANUAL
Page 1 of 23
6-PANEL
Corporate NEED
Global 6-Panel Reporting standard:
1)
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.
2)
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.
3)
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.
4)
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.
5)
Simplified and consistent communication to management in a concise way without having to rewrite
what you have done.
6)
Encourages management to ask questions in line with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.
Page 2 of 23
6-PANEL
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
Measure Phase
Analyze Phase
Who is my customer, and what is
the current cost of poor quality?
• Voice of the Customer
• Defect Definition
• Cost of Poor Quality (includes
warranty spending, as necessary)
• Project Scope & Goal
Which inputs affect ouputs?
What is my current process
performance (capability)?
Are defects contained?
• Fish Bone
• Gage R&R, Baseline Capability
• Containment Plan
By how much do X’s affect Y?
What confidence do you have?
Panel 4
Panel 5
Panel 6
Improve Phase
Control Phase
Replicate Phase
How can we permanently fix
the current product/process?
How can we make the
process stay fixed?
• DOE & ANOVA
• Verification data
• Durability/CAE/VSA
• Work plan
• Control Plans
• SPC – Control Charting
• Audit Plans
Page 3 of 23
• Graphical Analysis
• Hypothesis Testing
• Regression Analysis
• Additional tools
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
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
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.
VRT / Business Unit Name
VFG Team / Functional Area Name
Vehicle Name & Model Year / Product Name
Customer
Part / Process Name & Number
Manufacturing / Technical Example:
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
VFG: V44 – Mechanical Malfunction
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable
CCC: L66 – Exhaust System Troubles
PART: 5230 Muffler
Transactional Example:
MP&L
R
Global Customs
Ford Motor Company Plants
Global Customs and Trade Process
9801 Duty Preference Program
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.
Page 4 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
R
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)
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.
2)
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.
3)
Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project).
4)
CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer requirements / expectations.
5)
Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric.
6)
Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Total Warranty
Spending and Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.)
7)
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
Page 5 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
’01 MY
’99 MY
3 MIS
3 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
A
I
C
R
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION:
M
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
PART: 5230 Muffler
TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:
L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable
2002 L66 Warranty by part
5A294-Muffler
Brkt 1.22
NPF
1.08
All others
1.8
5200-Muffler
2.07
5E212-Catalyst
2.22
TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING:
$315K (2002 CY)
3 MIS
R/1000
5230Muffler
16.36
5246-Pipe Assy
4.03
VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the
Y=f(x) CASCADE:
vehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.”
Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.)
CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement):
Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.)
Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system.
Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia)
DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric):
Project Y
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%.
Page 6 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
Trend Charts of
Explorer Brake
Noise-N17:
1M IS B IF
Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time R/1000
5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic
3M IS B IF
6M IS B IF
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1M IS
3M IS
6M IS
9M IS
Mar-02
Jan-02
Nov-01
Sep-01
Jul-01
May-01
Mar-01
12M IS
Jan-01
R/1000
9M IS B IF
Production Month
1M IS B IF
Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time CPU
5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic
6M IS B IF
9M IS B IF
3M IS B IF
1M IS
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3M IS
6M IS
9M IS
37317
37258
37196
37135
37073
37012
36951
12M IS
36892
CPU
R
Brake Noise Indicators
Production Month
Explorer (U152) Top 100
Overall
Rank
VRT
VFG
CCC's
CCC Description
CUST SAT
LOSS
21
Chassis
V21
N17
Brakes Noisy
0.25
TGW
R/1000 3MIS
CPU 3MIS
67
40 (BIC)
3.43
.42 (BIF)
0.37
.03 (BIF)
Page 7 of 23
2002 MY
JDP 2002
High Miles
(Problems/100)
(CPU)
6.3
3.9 (BIC)
1.85
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
R
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)
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).
2)
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.)
3)
Determine the Baseline Process Capability of your KPOV (Y)
4)
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
Page 8 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
M
A
I
C
R
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART: 5230 Muffler
MSA & Process Capability:
 Engineering TestRequirement
Muffler 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
FASCIA CLEARANCE TO MUFFLER OLD- ALL
LSL
Process Data
USL
B
B
Data Collection plan
includes all circled,
highly ranked X’s
B
Target
*
Target
30.0000
LSL
17.0000
Mean
19.2162
Sample N
Within
Overall
37
StDev (Within)
3.12746
StDev (Overall)
3.36607
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp
A
Process Elements
Element OK
Investigating
Element Not Capable
Element Removed
A
B
C
D
B
A
*
CPU
*
CPL
0.24
Cpk
0.24
Cpm
*
Overall Capability
Pp
10
15
20
Observed Performance
*
PPM < LSL
PPU
*
PPM > USL
PPL
0.22
Ppk
0.22
PPM Total
25
Exp. "Within" Performance
216216.22
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
216216.22
PPM Total
30
Exp. "Overall" Performance
239276.82
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
239276.82
PPM Total
255141.04
*
255141.04
CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required):
Process Owner Date
Before Data After 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.
Page 9 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
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: 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 Diagram
Important: Look for Internal
System
Interactions
Customer
Usage
Brake application
(line pressure)
Deceleration
rate
Vehicle speed
Lot Rot
Cooling of
Brake System
(D)
Road Quality (D)
Braking
distance
Driving
habits (D)
Suspension
Interactions (D)
Piece to Piece
Vartiation
Rotor/Hub
Design
Indicator at Supplier
facility and Assembly plant
Alignment
Material
Property
Pad Geometric
Variation
Variations
Surface
Friction
Variation
Rotor Geometric
Variations
Incorrect
Body Sensitivities
Maintenance (D)
(Acoustic/Vibration
Manufacturing
Customer’s (D)
misassembly (D)
Maintenance
Schedules
(D)
Pad Damping
Pad/Rotor pressure
Pad modal
Temperature
Deterioration
distribution
Booster Noise
parameters (A)
Humidity(wet/dry)/
Sys Damping
(even/uneven)when
Filter Wear
water/Moisture
Deterioration
Lining material
apply brake (B)
Caliper
absorption (A)
Pad/Lining
Characteristics (A) design
Wear/Cracked
Thickness of lining
Rotor
Rotor modal
Aging of Slide
material (A)
Road inputs
Shape of
Pin Wear
Warping
parameter
Contaminates
lining (A)
Insulator
Running
Chamfers in
damping/damping
Rotor Scorching Clearance
Corrosion
lining (A)
material (A)
Uneven Rotor
Insulator
Road salts
Slots in
Wear
type
lining
Solvents
Aging Wear
R
Environment
Page 10 of 23
Process Elements
Element OK
Investigating
Element Not Capable
Element Removed
A
B
C
D
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis
Problem solving worksheet ("Is/Is Not Profile")
Problem Statement: Brake squeal/audible noise.
Problem description
IS
IS NOT
WHAT
U152 4X4
U152 4X2
Object
Defect
WHERE
On Object
First
observed
HOW BIG
WHEN
First
observed
How many
affected
Trend
Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,
insulator)
Other chassis component or other
component of the brake system
Brake squeal dominated at 6.6-6.8kHz
range.
Groan, grind, or rattle
Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,
insulator)
Squeal can be observed outside/ inside
vehicle
Front and rear brakes. Front noise is
dominant
Normal morning braking, cold dyno test
Isolated to the front or rear axle.
Dyno testing (brake and vehicle)
Normal customer, public road
GQRS
Dealer, fleet, and various dyno/vehicle
tests, JD Power, R/1000, GQRS
Usually in the morning with cold
temperature and high humidity
Noise on the first few brake applies and
then goes away.
Brake rotor temperature -10°C < t <
20°C
Low mileage and high mileage
All U152 vehicles built through 4/2/02
It is cold squeal and depends on
temperature and humidity. The TGW's
typically range from 60-70.
R
Hot/warm noise or low humidity
conditions
Repeatable after first few stops or
continuous
Hot
Isolated to low or high mileage.
Some Production months
It is not warm/hot noise or observed in
low humidity conditions
Page 11 of 23
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".
D
6-PANEL
1)
Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with data)?
2)
How many samples do you need to draw conclusions?
3)
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
A
I
C
R
ANALYZE y=f(x)
ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
•
M
Page 12 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
M
A
I
C
ANALYZE y=f(x)
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
PART: 5230 Muffler
Fascia locating holes on snow shoe
LSL
Process Data
USL
*
Target
*
LSL
Mean
Within
-1.00000
5.08993
Sample N
StDev (W ithin)
StDev (Ov erall)
y=f(x)
Overall
41
1.13172
1.19547
Potential (W ithin) Capability
Cp
CPU
*
*
CPL
1.79
Cpk
1.79
Cpm
*
Ov erall Capability
0
2
Observ ed Perf ormance
Pp
PPU
*
*
PPL
1.70
Ppk
1.70
4
6
8
Exp. "W ithin" Perf ormance
Exp. "Ov erall" Perf ormance
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
0.00
*
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
0.04
*
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
0.18
*
PPM Total
0.00
PPM Total
0.04
PPM Total
0.18
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.
MUFFLER HANGER BRACKET - HOLE LOCATION
(means are indicated by solid circles)
0.8
0.4
0.0
y=f(x)
HOLE #1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Source
DF
SS
Factor
1
0.0038
Error
48
3.7236
Total
49
3.7274
HOLE # 2
MS
0.0038
0.0776
F
0.05
P
0.826
R
CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID
• 4.2 mm offset from design allows
pipe position to vary when installed
Muffler assembly aids used
during installation require
detailed 4.2 mm offset
positioning feature to meet
design intent.
FASCIA LOCATING HOLE &
MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE
DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X”
REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID
• incorporated the 4.2 mm design
Page 13 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
R
IMPROVE y=f(x)
IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1) What is the optimal Y=f(x) solution?
2) How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical proof that the solution works.)
3) Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work plan must include:
a. Permanent/Interim actions,
b. Sample size,
c. Next steps if trial is successful,
d. Next steps if trial is NOT successful,
e. Part availability if trial is successful,
f. Additional actions pending.
4) 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)
Page 14 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
LSL
Target
*
30.0000
17.0000
Mean
19.2162
Sample N
Within
Overall
37
A. Incorporate trimmed
fascia and sheet metal for
clearance.
LSL
*
Target
30.0000
LSL
17.0000
Mean
36.8375
Sample N
2.51058
StDev (Overall)
3.36607
StDev (Overall)
3.25054
*
*
CPL
0.24
Cpk
0.24
Cpm
*
Overall Capability
Pp
10
15
20
Observed Performance
*
PPM < LSL
PPU
*
PPM > USL
PPL
0.22
Ppk
0.22
PPM Total
25
Exp. "Within" Performance
216216.22
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
216216.22
PPM Total
30
Exp. "Overall" Performance
239276.82
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
239276.82
PPM Total
255141.04
*
255141.04
B. Muffler hanger bracket
design modified, along
with fascia and sheet
metal change improved
clearance 15 mm.
BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001
One-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE)
Level
FASCI-EN
FASCIA-P
N
120
37
Pooled StDev =
Mean
36.838
19.216
3.267
MS
8781.3
10.7
StDev
3.244
3.343
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp
*
CPU
*
CPL
2.63
Cpk
2.63
Cpm
*
Overall Capability
Pp
20
25
30
Observed Performance
*
PPM < LSL
PPU
*
PPM > USL
PPL
2.03
Ppk
2.03
PPM Total
35
40
Exp. "Within" Performance
0.00
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
0.00
PPM Total
45
Exp. "Overall" Performance
0.00
PPM < LSL
*
PPM > USL
0.00
PPM Total
0.00
*
0.00
AFTER: March 1, 2002
Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of Y
Analysis of Variance
Source
DF
SS
Factor
1
8781.3
Error
155
1654.4
Total
156
10435.6
Within
Overall
120
StDev (Within)
Potential (Within) Capability
Target
Process Data
USL
3.12746
CPU
R
Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia IMPROVEMENT VALIDATED
StDev (Within)
Cp
C
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
Improved y=f(x)
Process Data
LSL
I
PART: 5230 Muffler
Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia BASELINE PERFORMANCE
Target
A
IMPROVE y=f(x)
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
USL
M
F
822.74
Implementation Workplan
Permanent /
Interim Actions
Concern C11298746
Revised Sable Fascia
and sheet metal for
additional clearance.
P
0.000
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
----------+---------+---------+-----(*)
(-*-)
----------+---------+---------+-----24.0
30.0
36.0
Page 15 of 23
Who/When
Robert Bryer
(AAP-PVT)
In production
Jan., 2002
Concern C11272097
Steve Hornby
Redesigned muffler
(PTSE D&R)
assy aid to meet design March, 2002
y and z specification.
Before/After
Indicators
0.2 Cpk (B)
1.2 Cpk (A)
1.2 Cpk (B)
2.0 Cpk (A)
All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions
and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.
D
6-PANEL
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
Improvement
Percent Occurrence of Noisy Stops
FRONT AND REAR BRAKES CHASSIS ROLL DYNO-NOISE
BEFORE AND AFTER DESIGN CHANGED
20.00%
17.80%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.30%
0.00%
Front Baseline
Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise
level is significantly improved.
Noise Level (Base vs Modification)
P-Value is less than .05
Therefore, there is a
statistical difference
between means
DF = 43
Page 16 of 23
Individual Value
Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval
Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.
Mean is at the
N
Mean
StDev
SE Mean
Target of 32 Sones
Rr Base
22
34.46
1.40
0.30
32.27
Rr Verif 29
1.31
0.24
95% CI for mu Rr Base - mu Rr Verif: ( 1.41, 2.96)
T-Test mu Rr Base = mu Rr Verif (vs not =): T = 5.69 P = 0.0000
Front New Insulator &
Chamfer
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
Subgroup
3.0SL=37
66
Modification
X=33.22
Baseline
0
10
20
30
40
50
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
IMPROVE y=f(x)
Additional Improve Phase Examples –
Verification with Durability Data
Objective Noise Index
0.100
0.075
0.050
DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT
operating conditions
0.033
0.025
0.004
0.000
Baseline
New Insulator & Chamfer
Cumulative Incidents / Vehicle
Example of APG Durability Reliability Analysis
Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage
APG or CAE/Lab test can be
used for this Slot)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
R
35000
40000
Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle
Page 17 of 23
45000
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
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
R
x Problem Definition - The GQRS and AWS indicator pointed out the following area of concern:
Explorer Customer experienced Brake Squeal after vehicle sitting at rest over night. Noise on the first few brake applies and
then goes away.
x The PERMANENT/INTERIM engineering/process/quality actions we are working on is/are:
Project Improvement
Item
Date
Action
Before
After Indicator
1
4/2/02
New Rubore insulator and chamfer
17%
0.30% % Noisy stop
x We are running a trial of ___________ pieces
No trail needed in assembly plants. Development and Test carried out at Dyno Lab
x If all goes well, we will have parts in house on 4/02/02 (date)
Page 18 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
R
CONTROL X’s
CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)
Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof showing that the process is in control over time, using
internal indicators.
2)
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.
Page 19 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
C11272097 Redesigned muffler assembly aid to meet design y and z
specification
Submit for financial approval and order new parts
Audit Plan
On going 4 Poster test, M-10 drive, WRAP
On line clearance checks
Monitor daily
Follow up audit during full production with new aid
SDS-FMEA- Confirm system design requirements in place
DVP review
-ER-0052 Ver 15 Clearances Around the Exhaust System
· Req Details 17164 20328 20331 20332 21239
21240
· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER
–ER-0005 Ver 11 Exhaust Static Location
· Req Details 23094/23484
· Verification Method 10675
SDS identified for update
–ER-0039 Design for Assembly
· Req Details 8624
· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER
DATE
RESPONSIBLE
C
R
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
In
Robert Bryer Body Structures
production Engineer AAP-PVT
Jan 2002.
March 2002 Steve Hornby PTSE design
engineer, Andrew Schmid BB,
Pat Swann BB
In plant
Tuan Nguyen Randy Wright
May 2002 AAP PVT
Ongoing
V.O. 4-poster test M-10 drive,
WRAP performed at AAP/CAP
May 2002
April 2002
Ken Eckert/John
Kamph/Patricia Swann
Pat Swann, Steve Hornby,
Hank Newsome
Xbar/R Chart for Muffler Clearance to Facia
IMPROVEMENT SUSTAINED AND IN CONTROL!
Sample Mean
C11298746 Revised Sable Fascia and sheet metal for additional
clearance.
I
PART: 5230 Muffler
41.5
40.5
39.5
38.5
37.5
36.5
35.5
34.5
33.5
32.5
Subgroup
UCL=40.67
Mean=36.91
LCL=33.15
0
5
10
15
20
15
Sample Range
CONTROL
A
CONTROL X’s
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
ITEM
M
25
UCL=13.79
10
R=6.521
5
0
LCL=0
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
Dan Valle/Mark Dixon
Page 20 of 23
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
Total Warranty Spending and
Unexpended Warranty Savings:
• Unexpended roadmap opportunities for
all affected model year coverage periods:
1) What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities
for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY?
2) What is your warranty-spend savings with road
map?
• Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions:
• Top spending parts for this CCC:
(for each part, please explain)
Yes
• Problem fixed in production
Yes
R
3) What are your top spending parts for this CCC?
For each part:
No
•
Is the problem fixed in production?
•
Is there an optimal solution?
No
•
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
• Optimized solution availability
Yes
No
• Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program
•
Page 21 of 23
Does the supplier participate in Warranty
Reduction Program (WRP)?
D
6-PANEL
M
A
I
C
R
REPLICATE
REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements):
1)
Who else at Ford could be affected or could benefit?
(Replication at another Plant or on another vehicle line?)
2)
Are there any larger business unit or even global intellectual capital effects?
(SDS, FMEAs, VDS, etc. in need of updates?)
3)
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
Page 22 of 23
D
6-PANEL
VRT: Powertrain / Fuel
M
A
I
C
R
REPLICATE
VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable
CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
PART: 5230 Muffler
REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):
Key Actions
Is 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 Book
Change Made
Owner
Document #
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 )
Page 23 of 23

similar documents