2014 Annual Conference - Construction Industry Institute

Report
Don’t Let Your Project Sink: Achieving Zero Rework
through Effective Supplier Quality Practices
Tricia Thibodeaux, Fluor Corporation
RT308 – Achieving Zero Rework through Effective
Supplier Quality Practices
2014 CII Annual Conference
July 21–23 • Indianapolis, Indiana
Essential Question
What are the most effective processes and
practices for ensuring that project materials and
equipment are produced, manufactured, or fabricated
in strict accordance with all applicable
specifications, and that they are delivered to the
project site without any need for rework?
RT308 – Achieving Zero Rework through Effective
Supplier Quality Practices
Buck Blum, CB&I
Gene Nikstad, CH2M HILL
Vince Carney, Southern Co.
Jim Peters, Bechtel Corporation
Don Ellis, DuPont
Tricia Thibodeaux, Fluor
Don Holte, Procter & Gamble
Ken Walsh, San Diego State University
Phil Klefas, Aramco Services
Thais Alves, San Diego State University
Terry McMillan, Alstom Power
Shamail Ahmad, San Diego State University
Brad Monroe, Dresser-Rand
Yoshua Neuman, San Diego State University
Randy Moreland, Shell
Duc Huy Nguyen, San Diego State University
Kim Needy, University of Arkansas
Gary Weiler, Leidos Constructors
Rufaidah AlMaian, University of Arkansas
Methods
Literature
Review
Inside the
Construction
Industry
Outside the
Construction
Industry
Data Collection
Sources
Supplier Quality
Documents
Supplier Focus
Groups
Supplier Quality
Practices and
Performance Survey
Supplier Quality Data
Collection Structured
Interviews
Reports
Domestic
Suppliers
Tagged/
Engineered
Equipment
Supplier Quality
Organization
Procedures
International
Suppliers
Fabricated
Goods
(Steel & Pipe)
Supplier Quality
System
Manufactured /
Bulk Materials
Metrics, Data
Assessment, Supporting
Documents Supplier
Supplier Quality Process Map
Post Completion Feedback
Project Start
1. Planning and
Selection
2. Execution
3.1. Release
from Shop
3.2. Received
at site
3.3. Mechanical
Completion
Reject packages if they do not meet quality standards
Supplier Quality Process Map
Post Completion Feedback
Project Start
1. Planning and
Selection
2. Execution
3.1. Release
from Shop
3.2. Received
at site
3.3. Mechanical
Completion
Reject packages if they do not meet quality standards
Key Result #1
Companies who were
deemed “more effective”
in their application of
supplier quality practices
found more defects earlier
in the product cycle, thus
lowering the cost of
rework.
• Utilize model output
– Estimate the cost of
non-quality
– Make supplier
decisions based on
total delivered cost
– Determine whether
applying more
inspection is worth the
investment
0.9
Probability the inspection can catch
and repair non-conformance (Pinsp)
Key Result #2
0.99
Contours of constant
total cost of fNQ
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.99
Probability the item is fabricated correctly (Pfab)
Implementation Session
• Boarding Pass
• Published IR contents:
– Supplier Quality Processes Map
and RACI Matrix
– Estimating the Impact of the
Cost of Non-Quality
– Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
– Total Delivered Cost Discussion
• Handouts
Implementation Session Learning Objectives
• Explain the methods used
• Explain the supplier quality process map
• Demonstrate the impact of identifying non-conformances
across several stages of the supply process
• Utilize the cost-tradeoff curves to incorporate resource
decisions into supplier selection processes
Will your project suffer the same fate?
Come to our Implementation Session
Moderator
Buck Blum, CB&I
Panel
Don Ellis, DuPont
Brad Monroe, Dresser-Rand
Grand Ballroom 1-2
1:00 and 2:15 p.m.
today
Randy Moreland, Shell
Kim LaScola Needy, University of Arkansas
Ken Walsh, San Diego State University

similar documents