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. 2
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 3 • 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
6 -PANEL D M A I C DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER 6 -PANEL Header: q 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: V 44 – Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable CCC: L 66 – 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. 4
6 -PANEL D 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 5
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable SAQ #26 L 66 - 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 L 66 A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: M CCC: L 66 - Exhaust System Troubles PART: 5230 Muffler TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE: L 66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable 2002 L 66 Warranty by part 3 MIS R/1000 TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING: $315 K (2002 CY) VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the Y=f(x) CASCADE: vehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle. ” Y= L 66= 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): Muffler to body clearance less than 17 mm at fascia Project Y COST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc. ): $350, 000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2. 5 TGWs from 3 MIS 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%. 6
6 -PANEL D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Trend Charts of Explorer Brake Noise-N 17: 7
6 -PANEL D 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 8
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable CCC: L 66 - Exhaust System Troubles PART: 5230 Muffler MSA & Process Capability: ü Engineering Test Requirement Muffler to Body Clearance (17 -30 mm) ü Gage R&R = 15 % Study ü 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 A Process Element OK Investigating Element Not Capable Element Removed A B C D B A 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. 9
6 -PANEL D M A I C R 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 Piece to Piece Vartiation Rotor/Hub Cooling of Brake System (D) Road Quality (D) Suspension Interactions (D) Incorrect Body Sensitivities Maintenance (D) (Acoustic/Vibration Manufacturing Customer’s (D) misassembly (D) Maintenance Schedules (D) Pad/Rotor pressure Pad Damping Pad modal Temperature distribution Deterioration 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 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 Design facility and Assembly plant Alignment Material Property Pad Geometric Variations Surface Friction Variation Rotor Geometric Variations Braking distance Driving habits (D) Aging Wear Indicator at Supplier Environment 10 Process Element OK Investigating Element Not Capable Element Removed A B C D
6 -PANEL D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Example of Additional Tool – U 152 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". 11
6 -PANEL D 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 • A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements): • M Shainin Analysis 12
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D M A I C ANALYZE y=f(x) VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable CCC: L 66 - Exhaust System Troubles 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) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source DF SS Factor 1 0. 0038 Error 48 3. 7236 Total 49 3. 7274 MS 0. 0038 0. 0776 F 0. 05 P 0. 826 R 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 13
6 -PANEL D 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) 14
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable CCC: L 66 - Exhaust System Troubles 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 Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of Y One-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE) Analysis of Variance Source DF SS Factor 1 8781. 3 Error 155 1654. 4 Total 156 10435. 6 Level FASCI-EN FASCIA-P N 120 37 Pooled St. Dev = Mean 36. 838 19. 216 3. 267 MS 8781. 3 10. 7 St. Dev 3. 244 3. 343 F 822. 74 P 0. 000 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled St. Dev -----+---------+-----(*) (-*-) -----+---------+-----24. 0 30. 0 36. 0 15 Implementation Workplan Permanent / Interim Actions Concern C 11298746 Revised Sable Fascia and sheet metal for additional clearance. Who/When Robert Bryer (AAP-PVT) In production Jan. , 2002 Concern C 11272097 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 5 th, 2002.
6 -PANEL 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 B 10 Life Improvement Example of hypothesis testing. U 152 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 16 Individual Value Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif. Mean is at the N Mean St. Dev 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 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 Subgroup 3. 0 SL=37 66 Modification X=33. 22 Baseline 0 10 20 30 40 50
6 -PANEL D M A I C IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification with Durability Data DYNO: SAE J 2521 & Simulated LACT operating conditions APG or CAE/Lab test can be used for this Slot) 10 Less is better Cumulative Incidents / Vehicle Example of APG Durability Reliability Analysis Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage 8 6 4 2 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 R 35000 40000 45000 Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle 17
6 -PANEL 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 18
6 -PANEL D 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. 19
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D M A I C R CONTROL X’s VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable CCC: L 66 - Exhaust System Troubles PART: 5230 Muffler August 27, 2002 L 66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable Containment 10/17/02 Fascia Change 1/2/02 Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02 20
6 -PANEL D M A I C R 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? • Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions: • Top spending parts for this CCC: (for each part, please explain) Yes • Problem fixed in production Yes 2) What is your warranty-spend savings with road map? 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? • Labor time: More efficient repair process, special service tool No • Part pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline? • Optimized solution availability Yes No • Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program • 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)? 21
6 -PANEL D 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 22
6 -PANEL VRT: Powertrain / Fuel D M A I C R REPLICATE VFG: V 44 - Mechanical Malfunction VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable CCC: L 66 - 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 q Attribute FMEA q Design FMEA q Process FMEA ü SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002 q VDS q FDVS q <other specify here> PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: ü Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant) ü Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability – 0 DPMO, Cpk=2. 82) ü AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152, 000/yr, 2. 1 R/1000 ) 23
Скачать презентацию PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS 6 -PANEL Problem Resolution Process
a1e682b895248f847e9b1fc593316aa2.ppt