USAF Problem-Solving Process& Related Toolsets

Approval Information/SignaturesOODA – Observe, Orient, Decide, & Act8-Step Problem Solving Process

8. Standardize Successful Processes O O D AO O D A

a. What is needed to Standardize Improvements?- Tech Order changes?- Air Force Instruction changes?- Official Instruction changes?

b. How should improvements and lessons learned be communicated?- Continuous Process Improvement-Mgt Tool (PowerSteering)- Key meetings?

c. Were other opportunities or problems identified by the Problem Solving Process?- Restart OODA Loop

TOOLS: Checkpoints/Standardization Table, Report Out Theme Story,Broad Implementation, CPI Mgt Tool

5. Develop Countermeasures O O D AO O D A

a. Develop potential countermeasures- Tools and philosophies from Lean, TOC, 6 Sigma and BPR as

appropriateb. Select the most practical and effective countermeasuresc. Build consensus with others by involving all stakeholders

appropriately- Communicate, communicate, communicate

d. Create clear and detailed action plan- B-SMART actions- Reference Facilitation Techniques as appropriate

TOOLS: A3, Action Plans, Timelines, Financial Reporting Template

6. See Countermeasures Through O O D AO O D A

a. Which philosophy best prescribes tools that address root cause(s)?b. Which tools best address root cause(s)?c. Which method for implementation fits the tool and improvement

need?- Rapid Improvement Event?- Improvement Project?- Point Improvement or “Just Do It”?

d. If RIE or Project, create “Charter” and communicatee. What training or education is needed? By Whom?

TOOLS: 6S & Visual Mgt, Standard Work, Cell Design, Variation Reduction, Error Proofing, Quick Changeover, TPM, RIE

4. Determine Root Cause O O D AO O D A

a. What root cause analysis tools are necessary?- Why are these tools necessary?- What benefit will be gained by using them?- Who will need to be involved in the root cause analysis?

-- 10 heads are better than one-- Remember “cultural” issues related to problem

b. What is (are) the root cause(s) according to the tools?c. How will the root cause be addressed?d. Will addressing these address the performance gap?e. Can the problem be turned on or off by addressing the root cause?f. Does the root cause make sense if the 5 Whys are worked in reverse?

- Working in reverse, say “therefore” between each of the “whys”

TOOLS: 5 Whys, Brainstorming, Pareto, Affinity, Fishbone, Control Charts

3. Set Improvement Target O O D AO O D A

a. Is the improvement target measurable? Is it concrete? Is it challenging?

b. Is the target “Output Oriented”?- What is the desired output?- Should be “things to achieve”; should avoid “things to do”

-- Will be addressed by Action Plans (Step 5)c. The desired target should:

- Do what? By how much? By when?d. If it is a Process Problem, what is the future state?

- How will it be realized?TOOLS: Ideal State, Future State Mapping, B-SMART

2. Break Down the Problem/Identify O O D AO O D A

Performance Gapsa. Does the problem require more analysis or does leadership have

enough information to execute a solution?- Is this simply a leadership directive?

b. If more data is needed, how do we measure performance now?- What are the KPIs? What is the performance gap?

c. Does other “non-existent” data need to be gathered?d. What does the data indicate are the potential root causes?e. Does the data review indicate a bottleneck or constraint?

TOOLS: KPI/Metrics, Performance Gap Analysis, Bottleneck Analysis

1. Clarify & Validate the Problem O O D AO O D A

a. Does this problem, when solved, help meet needs identified by the organization? - Is it linked to the SA&D of organization?- Does it help satisfy customer needs (VOC)?

b. Does this problem, when solved, address key issues identified during SWOT analysis?

c. Has this problem been identified and directed by a Value Stream Map at the appropriate level?- What does the “Future State” need?- What resources have been identified to address this issue?

d. What opportunities were identified or observed by the process or problem area “walk”?- Will addressing or improving these issues deliver results that relate to

#a or #b?- Will addressing or improving this problem deliver the desired future

state from #c?TOOLS: SA&D, Voice of Customer, VSM, Go & See 7. Confirm Results & Process O O D AO O D A

a. How are we performing relative to the Observe phase (Steps 1 & 2)?

b. How are we performing relative to Step 3?c. How are we performing relative to Financial Reporting Template

projections?d. If we are not meeting targets, do we need to return to Step 4?

- Most problem solving “breakdowns” occur relative to improper root cause identification

TOOLS: KPIs/Metrics, Performance Mgt, SA&D, Standard Work, Audit

1. Clarify & Validate the Problem O O D AO O D A

Project Opportunity Statement: Findings revealed during a May-Dec, 2012 data collection of the 305 MXS Inspection Flight have identified a total of 123.3 task hours resulting in delays during KC-10 A-Check insp and 113.6 hours during C-17 HSC Insp.

KC-10 C-170

50

100

150

Inspection Hrs11/9 Non-Value Hrs

2. Break Down the Problem and Identify O O D AO O D A

Performance Gaps11 of 26 Pre-Dock meetings missing key Mx personnel24 of 26 Pre-Dock meetings required additional research

by MXS personnel (missing TNB/Supply information). Avg weekly delay time for: KC-10 = 11hrs C-17 = 9hrs

3. Set Improvement Target O O D AO O D A

Develop and implement countermeasures that will contribute to the 20% HSC/A-Check delays initiative, by Dec 1, 2013.

1-Mar

1-Apr1-M

ay1-Ju

n1-Ju

l1-A

ug1-Se

p1-O

ct1-N

ov1-D

ec0

40

80

Inspection Delays

Inspection Delays

4. Determine Root Cause O O D AO O D A

20% of all HSC and A-Check delays attributed to current Management processes

Personnel Process

Machine

Complacency (not everyone attending the Pre-dock meeting)

Sheet Metal discrepancies not evail'd prior to HSC/A-Ck

P & S holds conducts meeting. MXS has little voice in outcome

TNB and Supply status not verified prior to Pre-Dock meeting

No enforced attendance to Pre-Dock meetingNot enough specialists to

cover 24-7 operations (wait to sign off write ups.

781K write-up verbage leads FL to await HSC/A-Ck.

No standardized pre-dock meeting process

AFI-21-101

Key results from RCA:- Pre-Dock planning, attendance and process lack

standardization- Flight line processes prior to acft accepted by

MXS are creating delays that could be avoided

6. See Countermeasures Through O O D AO O D A

Event POC Sched StatusGenerate new predock requirements

SSgt Biggs 27-Mar-13 c/w

Generate MXS Predock attendance requirement proced

TSgt White 27-Mar-13 c/w

Change Metals Tech shift schedule to 24 hour coverage

MSgt Harrell 15 April 13 c/w

Implement: Doc #’s and TNB verified prior to Pre-Dock meet

TSgt White 15 April 13 c/w

Implemented MXS pre-pre-dock meeting

SMSgt Davies 15 April 133 Jan 14

c/w

ID manning document issues regarding KC-10 positions

Chief Snelgrow

1 Oct 1312 Apr 14

c/w

5. Develop Countermeasures O O D AO O D A

7. Confirm Results & Process O O D AO O D AGreat efficiency realized with the combined efforts of Combs, Production, & DC

Pre-Dock Meeting

Supply Number (Parts)

Specialist Availability

TNB Status Acft downtime (after flying)

All required members now present.

Document #’s categorized appropriately and valid

Expertise now available 24 hrs per day

Parts on-hand detailed by GO81 rep at Pre-Dock

Flight Line realized severity of time, now work c/w inside hangar

Impact: Acft Status is known by all

Impact: 98.9% delays reduced/ correct parts issued

Impact: Drastic decrease in inspection time to FMC status

Impact: Major reduction in DD’s returned to flight line

Impact: Inspection cycle time decreased to parts availability

Combs= Parts issuer DC= Dock Chief Delays reduced >20%

8. Standardize Successful Processes O O D AO O D A

With the implementation of stardardized managerial practices, the delays have greatly been reduced. By utilizing various AFSO21 methods the ACFT phased inspection delays have been reduced by > 20%

Created Benchmark achievement for other bases to emulate New Pre-Dock meetings are standardized by written policy Manning document reviewed and updated to reflect need of

assets All meetings are tracked by production superintendent and

sustained through documentation Entry into CPI-MT/approval to proceed with future events of the

project

Team Lead: TSgt WhiteTeam Members: Chief Snelgrow, SMSgt Bondi, MSgt Kennedy, SMSgt Evans, Facilitors(s): (L) MSgt Patrick Muma, (CoFac) MSgt Nails, (Ob) TSgt Smith J.

Approval Information/SignaturesChampion: Maj Szatkowski, 305 MXS/CCProcess Owner: Capt Sarrah Jones, 305 MXS/MOO

USAF Problem-Solving Process 305 MXS HSC/A-Check Management Delays:

Improvement Event #1

Pre-Dock Meeting

Supply Number (Parts)

Specialist Availability

TNB Status Acft downtime (after flying)

Key members not present.

Document #’s not valid

Expertise not available 24 hrs per day

Parts on-hand unknown at Pre-Dock

Often several days from last Acft flt to MXS accept

Impact: True Acft Status is Unkn at meet

Impact: Parts need re-order and delay during fix

Impact: Delays to insp, waiting for next shift

Impact: DD’s pushed back to AMXS

Impact: Ineffic. use of time, before acft enters

VSM Highlights

-Est and enforce Pre-Dock process-Generate and enforce Pre-Dock attendance by all req.- Implemented MXS pre-pre-dock meeting- Implement: Doc #’s and TNB verified prior to Pre-Dock meet- Change Metals Tech shift schedule to 24 hour coverage - ID manning document issues regarding KC-10 positions