Good Afternoon, my name is Todd Durham and I’m a Six Sigma Master Black

Belt with Tenneco. Myself and the team are pleased to present a submission

for ASQ’s International Team Excellence Award on behalf of Tenneco.

1

Tenneco is a global manufacturing company with revenues of $7.4 billion

annually and consists of two divisions: Clean Air (exhaust systems: mufflers,

converters) and Ride Performance (suspension components: shock absorbers,

struts and elastomer products).

Tenneco has 26,000 employees at 14 engineering centers and 89 manufacturing

facilities which supply parts for cars, trucks, commercial and agricultural vehicles

to OEM and Aftermarket customers at more than 100 countries around the

world.

2

Tenneco utilizes many functional groups and problem solving disciplines such as

Six Sigma, BOS, Supplier Development which all fall under what we call TMS

(Tenneco Manufacturing System)

Today, we will be presenting a Six Sigma Black Belt certification project that was

recently completed at our Litchfield, Michigan Clean Air facility.

Without further ado, I would like to introduce Jeremy Oyer who is the Value

Stream Manager of the Litchfield facility and served as Champion of the project

we will be presenting today…….Jeremy.

3

Tenneco commonly uses a financial metric referred to as TAVA which is

equivalent to EVA, Economic Value Added. This chart shows how TAVA (EVA) is

calculated and the link to commonly used methods for the different terms of the

EVA calculation. It was created to help managers choose the right continuous

improvement tool for the situation they are facing.

For reducing cost by concentrating on scrap and rework, Six Sigma is the

preferred methodology.

As the value stream manager, I selected this project because I am responsible

for improving the financial metrics in the manufacturing operations at the plant

level.

4

In the yearly budgeting and planning process, the Operations and Manufacturing

Directors for the North American Clean Air Division meet to set targets for the

upcoming year. One of the major strategic initiatives for 2013 was to reduce

operating expenses (OPEX) in the manufacturing facilities.

Litchfield missed our OPEX target in November and December 2012 and

January 2013 by an average gap of 1.33%. Of all the factors that go into

calculating the OPEX, scrap was the area that had the biggest miss to target.

This information is regularly reviewed at the plant level during operation reviews

and monthly performance within the last year is always available to local project

identification groups.

5

As part of each plant’s BOS (business operating system), Tenneco facilities

target the largest problems as the biggest opportunities. Analysis at several

levels are used, as necessary, to “drill down” from organizational problems all

the way to problems by operation or part number. When beginning a six sigma

project, the analysis steps shown here are followed so that champions can

compare potential projects against each other and select which one will have the

greatest impact.

6

Pareto charts are also used to identify and prioritize issues within each facility.

These Pareto charts narrows the scope for project selection teams and begins

the process of root cause identification.

The Litchfield manufacturing site regularly reviews scrap costs by reason. In the

top right corner, you can see that three of the top eight reasons are related to

tubing integrity , which is historically linked to the tube mill and the tube forming

process. (overall tube quality)

Below that, the second level Pareto chart ranks which tube sizes contribute the

most to the tubing integrity issues throughout our plant.

On the left are examples of the tubing integrity issues that we see. Weld seam

splits when sizing, when flaring, and parent metal splits.

7

A Six Sigma project was chartered focusing on scrap reduction of 2.500-inch

tube. By selecting this single size of tube, the team could narrow the scope of

the project to a manageable level.

Between 11/1/12 and 1/31/13, we reported 21,234 pieces of 2.500-in scrap due

to tubing integrity issues. The scrap rate has an annualized cost impact of

$430,571. The goal of this project was to reduce 2.500-in tube split scrap from

10.17% to 5% of the value of goods produced for a cost savings of $218,782 by

October 31, 2013.

8

A detailed process map was created focused on the tube mill – the area where

the tube is initially created and where the integrity of the pipe is determined.

Flat steel is inspected and prepared to enter the machine that will transform it

from a flat shape into a round exhaust tube. Once inside the machine, the steel

goes through a series of rollers that shape it to the correct size and the two

edges are forged together using induction current. Long tubes are cut into

manageable pieces that are process throughout the plant.

The top picture shows the first half of the mill where the steel gets rolled into a

pipe. The second picture shows where the steel gets induction welded. The last

picture shows how each roll affects the shape of the steel.

9

The process map and SIPOC identify suppliers, customers, process inputs,

outputs, as well as all workers that have a stake in producing the part in

question. The stakeholder groups that the problem solving team identified are

our sister facilities that are supplied with our products, internal and external

customers, suppliers, support departments, and manufacturing.

10

The inputs and outputs from the process maps gave insight into what required

skillsets the stakeholders needed for project success.

The stakeholder groups had all the skills necessary for a successful project

except a technical expertise in the tube making process. Therefore, an external

supplier of equipment that had technical expertise was consulted, brought in to

help, and used as a reference throughout the project.

11

Prior to official kick-off, the external supplier of equipment, considered to be

experts in the roll forming process, was brought in to train team members on the

technical aspects of the process that needed to be improved. Here is a

testimonial from one of the trainers regarding it’s success.

As the Litchfield team began to take shape, a kick off meeting was planned and

scheduled where team members would be introduced the problem and the

project scope and expectations would be shared.

12

This document is the organizational standard called a project charter and is used

for identifying the key items that define a new process improvement project.

The key team members are clearly defined as well as their responsibilities and

backgrounds. TVM (Tenneco Value Management) is a means of tracking savings

of the project. At project kickoff, a TVM# was generated to track financial

progress of the team.

Within the Litchfield facility, a regular weekly meeting occurs to discuss these

problem solving projects and what support is needed from stakeholders,

champions, managers, and the plant manager. Deadlines were given for each

phase of the project so that the team could create time-bound goals.

At this point I will hand it off to Peter Malefyt, an engineer who was the six sigma

green belt assigned to support the project.

13

The project charter, introduced on the previous slide, is also used to define the

problem statement in detail and identify the specific performance measures that

the project will impact. The goal in Litchfield was to reduce scrap by over 50%

for an annual savings of $218,782.

Although the focus is on 2.500” tube, all sizes of pipe are created from the same

process. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this project directly affects

all the tube sizes Litchfield produces as well as many key metrics that the plant

has set targets for, including efficiency, utility costs and several other

miscellaneous operating expenses. These key metrics were expected to be

impacted by a successful project and were identified as areas where we could

see additional benefits.

14

The team followed a six sigma approach. The dMAIC Problem Solving Process

Guide is a high level view of the process used in Tenneco Six Sigma teams.

During the opportunity analysis stage, the team used the tools identified in the

measure and analyze phases of the guide.

The six sigma Green Belts and Black Belts assigned to the project led the team

in tool usage. 4 out of the 9 core team members had been trained in six sigma

methodology. That training prepared the team to use the tools discussed

throughout this project.

Individual tools were chosen based on the situation, but in general the six sigma

approach was chosen because it is data driven and methodical. Poor tube

integrity has historically been a chronic issue for Tenneco and it’s Suppliers.

Tenneco is a large consumer of stainless steel tubing. Not only do we make our

own tube, but we buy a significant amount of stainless steel tubing each year. A

small change in the scrap percentage will have a large effect, so in order to

confirm small changes statistical analysis is required. That makes the six sigma

approach ideal for this process improvement effort.

15

A lot of data and information was collected with the purpose of identifying

possible improvement opportunities. Historical scrap information was analyzed

using the binomial process capability shown in the top left and it indicated some

key information about the process that we were evaluating. It has considerable

variation and no noticeable increasing or decreasing trend.

Opinions from the cross functional team were used to identify improvement

opportunities. The cause and effect diagram and YX diagram gave us a

direction moving forward. The top ranked factors to focus on were tool wear,

setup, forge temperature, drive shaft phasing, tool alignment, and quench rate.

16

The team used a Two Sample Test of Proportions and One Way ANOVA

analysis tools during the opportunity analysis stage. These were selected by

using the Tenneco Six Sigma Hypothesis Testing Roadmaps shown here. The

roadmap shown on the left is for continuous data and the roadmap on the right is

for attribute data. The team collected both attribute and continuous data in it’s

analysis.

The black belt training provided by the six sigma master black belt team, and the

skills, and backgrounds of the individuals were enough to conclude that the team

was well-prepared to use the tools and present the data generated.

One Way ANOVA was used to analyze temperature data because the data was

continuous, it was normal (graphically shown below), the variances are

homogeneous (also graphically shown) and we had more than two sample levels

we analyzed (1500°F, 1700°F, 1850°F, 1950°F)

Two sample test of proportions was used to analyze our scrap data because the

data is attribute and falls into two categories (good or bad).

17

After the team identified the potential root causes and the six sigma tools we

wanted to use, the manufacturing team members began to collect data on the

improvement opportunities. All opportunities identified in the YX diagram, the

analysis methods we used, the results, and recommendations were tracked

using a project FMEA, which is a tool we use to keep our work organized.

An example is shown on left of the continuous forge temperature data that was

collected for the ANOVA analysis. Forge temperature is an input into the

process that we wanted to understand. The temperature values were chosen

based on measurements taken during normal operations and the values are

representative of how much the tube expanded before failure.

Below that is an example of the proportion data that was collected and used in

the two sample test of proportion analysis. Scrap proportions were taken before

and after improvement activities to show that the improvement did or did not

make a difference. It is data that was collected as an output of the process.

Regardless of the type of analysis, these steps are always followed.

18

State the Practical Problem

State the Statistical Problem

Identify the Alpha and Beta Risk

Determine the Practical Difference desired

Determine Sample Size

Perform the test

& Interpret the results

18

This shows the statistical analysis of the #1 factor identified in the YX diagram:

worn tooling. Here, two sample test of proportions was the statistical test used.

The first set of proportion data was scrap data off the suspect tooling and the

second set of proportion data was scrap off reworked tooling. The two

proportions were compared to each other to determine if the difference that we

wanted to see was achieved. What was the practical difference we wanted to

see? It’s 40% reduction in scrap. Remember the total scrap reduction for the

entire project is 50% so this one factor was thought to be the biggest key for the

project. The statistical test yielded a P-value of 0.003 and it indicated that there

is a difference between the two proportions. A P-value of greater than 0.05

indicates no difference exists. The practical result is improved tooling condition

will give us a lower scrap rate.

19

This shows the statistical analysis of the #2 factor identified in the YX diagram:

rim clearances incorrect, which is a setup issue. Here again, two sample test of

proportions was the statistical test used. The first set of proportion data was

scrap data from setup procedures that are not standardized and the second set

of proportion data was scrap from setup procedures recommended by the

tooling manufacturer. It is important to note that the first set or baseline

proportion data in this test was taken after reworked tooling discussed on the

previous slide was analyzed. We had results from the tooling condition test that

showed a greater than 40% difference was possible. For this test we wanted to

see a 25% difference from the new proportion. This statistical test yielded a P-

value of 0.017 and it indicated that there is a difference between the two

proportions. The practical result is a standardized setup based on the

manufacturer’s recommendations gives us a lower scrap rate.

20

This shows the statistical analysis of the #3 factor identified in the YX diagram:

forge temperature. Here, one-way ANOVA was the statistical test used. We

wanted to compare data from tubing forged at four different temperatures. For

this test we wanted to see a 20% difference between the different sets of data.

This statistical test yielded a P-value of 0 and it indicated that at least one of the

temperatures is different from the rest. The practical result for the team is

standardized forge temperatures makes a difference.

21

Validation occurred during small production runs where the team addressed the

issues that were analyzed. The box plot and control chart show these test runs

and the results. During validation, the team made small changes and verified

they worked but did not optimize these changes or implement any system

controls.

Another method for validating our root causes was to perform gauge R&R’s on

the measurement systems that we used in our analysis. This critical step

allowed the team to be confident in the data that was collected.

22

We knew that after the analysis was performed, we needed to communicate with

management and the six sigma master black belt to verify we were going down

the right track. Stakeholders were updated on the status of the project and

feedback was given on the appropriateness of the methods and routines. This

checklist is what the master black belt used to document the progress and give

necessary feedback. The updates to the stakeholders were scheduled during

the project and team selection phase and took place throughout all the project

phases. These updates allowed the team to communicate and address risks in

the project. The stakeholder resistance that the team identified at this point was

concern about buy-in. To address this, results of the test runs were shown to

prove that the work being performed was making a difference. At certain times,

team members other than the core 9 were pulled into the project to accomplish

specific tasks. For example, the maintenance lead person was pulled in to

install the trial test equipment that could measure our temperature data.

23

At this point the team had identified root causes and improvement opportunities.

From there solutions to the problems needed to be developed. A brainstorming

session was held to identify all possible solutions for addressing the root causes

identified. The team took into consideration all the possible solutions and

analyzed which of these solutions makes the process most capable of achieving

the scrap target. This slide shows possible tools we could use to develop

solutions. A YX diagram was used again to rank the possible solutions that the

team developed. Cost to benefit analyses were required in order to justify the

costs of implementation. The problem solvers also used knowledge of

regression analysis, cost analysis, mistake proofing, pre-control, embedded

tests, capability analysis, and gage R&R to develop these solutions.

Key team members had had Lean training as well as Six Sigma training so the

team was well-prepared to use these methods and tools.

24

Cost and capability data on each identified improvement idea was generated

and analyzed to weigh the merit of possible improvements. Production,

temperature, destruct test, scrap, and measurement data from process

characteristics was collected to analyze with the tools we had available. The

improved capability of the process is what the team focused on and then later

determined cost justification for management to base decisions on. This allowed

us to identify the solutions that would have the greatest impact.

This method was used on all identified root causes discussed in 2.3.2 – Tooling

condition, forge temperature, and setup clearances.

25

This slide includes additional tools and techniques the team used and why that

tool is used. The purpose of these tools is to make sure that the final

improvements we end up moving forward with are the most appropriate.

In order to prepare the team to use the tools, the purpose of the analysis was

shared with the team members charged with collecting data.

26

Once the team identified that we wanted to base decisions off of the tools in the

previous slide, we moved forward with using those tools to generate

conclusions. In order to solve the problem of worn tooling, we looked at the cost

benefit relationship, capability, feasibility, and repeatability/reproducibility of each

possible solution. This analysis led us to move forward with purchasing new

tooling and measuring the wear to determine the next time we need to replace.

27

In order to address the setup issues, the analysis led us to measure the rim

clearances on the tooling as shown in this picture (this distance between the top

and bottom rolls and this distance between the side pass rolls on each section

throughout the mill). We set them to the same value as the end of the previous

(good) production run. This is important to do before any production occurs.

We were led to this conclusion through the same analysis that was shown on the

previous slide as well as a review of pre-control which helped to determine which

measurement system would give us quick reliable feedback to base production

decisions on.

28

In order to solve the problem of non-standardized forge temperatures, we moved

forward with a permanently mounted infrared thermometer and logic controls to

stop the process if it is out of our specified tolerance range. The measurements

from this equipment are monitored by the PLC (the machine) and by the

operator on the display screen. As part of the analysis, we looked graphically at

regression and the relationship between our input data (as measured by the

possible solution) and our output data (tube integrity). The solution we proposed

gave us the best correlation between input and output data. This is key because

if we control the input data (like temperature) we want to have a good idea on

how our process output data will respond.

29

Management likes to see small production runs to confirm results of the

proposed solutions. The box plot and control chart show these test runs and the

results. Three clear sections are visible showing baseline, initial solution

development, then optimized solution. During validation, the team used six

sigma tools to optimize results but did not implement any system controls yet.

30

In addition to a reduction in scrap dollars, the team anticipated some potential

benefits that would come from the final solutions. The problem that was

investigated can be seen in sister facilities throughout the region. This led the

team to believe that benefits we saw in Litchfield would be possible at sister

facilities as well. The Litchfield representative of the organization’s core

competency team was included in the project from the kick-off so the knowledge

generated could easily be shared from facility to facility. A secondary metric

being tracked by the team, was efficiency. With the proposed solutions, the

team agreed that an improvement in overall efficiency would most likely be seen.

31

In order to justify the costs associated with each solution, data needed to be

collected and analyzed to prove the benefits of the solutions were worth the

cost. This slide shows the cost benefit analysis of each solution. The first

solution will take six months to see the return on investment. Because of the

high cost of implementation for all our proposed solutions, the team tried to

determine if an alternative solution would yield similar results without incurring

such a financial burden. We worked with suppliers of the proposed systems to

trial and estimate the impact of the solutions PRIOR to purchase.

32

After reviewing the performance of the project up to this point, changes in

circumstances needed to be accounted for. What we just went over were our

final solutions, however, at first, we had suggested an expensive laser

measurement device to accurately measure the entire contour of each piece of

tooling. That was a problem because management had outlined a specific

budget for fiscal year 2013 and the capital investment required to implement the

team’s suggestion exceeded the allowable spending. Therefore an alternative

was needed that could have a significant impact but come in under budget. It

was determined that if the team used blade micrometers, rather than the

proposed new laser measurement device, we could achieve the desired results

at a minimal cost. This was not the only stakeholder resistance found during the

solution development phase. The team discussed and addressed a potential

increase in initial setup time. In order to address this before implementation,

supervisors and management were involved in determining what an allowable

increase would look like and how it should be reported. It was determined that if

manufacturing noted the cause for the increase in setup time, then 20 additional

minutes would be allowed. If the increase exceeded 20 minutes, additional

review would need to take place.

Scope, deliverables, project timing, and routines established in the project

selection phase were all confirmed with emails and face-to-face communication

33

among stakeholders in weekly meetings and found to be effective. At this point,

a controls engineer and IT technician were included in order to plan

implementation of the improvements.

Now I’ll hand it off to Richard Bell, who is the Black Belt at the Litchfield plant.

33

This table shows the stakeholders, identified in the project planning stage, and

how they were involved in solution planning and implementation.

Managers allocated resources, reviewed potential solutions and placed limits on

capital expenditures.

We used our equipment suppliers as a source of knowledge regarding the

correct application and maintenance of our roll forming equipment.

The manufacturing team members were instrumental in finding ways to integrate

new practices and procedures into their daily routine.

And, Our Quality/Six sigma resources were used to lead the DMAIC process.

They designed experiments, verified results, updated process documentation

and shared this information with Tenneco’s Tube Mill, Core Competency Team.

34

Project management meetings were held weekly with the Plant Operations

Manager, Black Belts and Engineering support.

In each of these meetings, we reviewed the past weeks scrap performance,

planned for the implementation of solutions and anticipated Stakeholder

resistance.

This chart shows the stakeholders in the left column, the types of resistance

they each exhibited in the middle and how resistance was identified on the right.

Management wanted solutions implemented as quickly as possible.

Equipment Suppliers needed, approved, purchase orders and enough time to

provide the proper equipment and

Manufacturing wanted assurance that production down time, caused by

equipment installation, didn’t prevent the tube mill from meeting its production

schedules.

35

This resistance, described on the previous slide, was addressed through the

various techniques shown here.

For some items, management support was needed. Such as, providing

additional resources and prioritizing solution implementation. and for others face-

to-face communication during project meetings was adequate.

We knew that the resistance items had been adequately addressed, through the

feedback we received during team meetings, as well as, positive feedback

relayed through management.

36

This chart shows how the stakeholders demonstrated buy-in to the proposed

solutions prior to implementation.

The formal approval process for obtaining capital spending (CAR) was approved

by management and the requested equipment was funded.

Suppliers provided feedback and testimonials that supported our planed actions

and the remainder of the Stakeholders showed acceptance through verbal

approval and active support.

37

For our solutions to be implemented successfully, we needed to create

standardized reaction plans for non-conforming equipment setup and or tooling

conditions. This was addressed through the PFMEA, Control Plan and Standard

Setup procedures.

This chart is an example of what we created to verify the roll forming setup. If

the measurement results indicate a risk of poor product, adjustments are made

until the situation is corrected.

38

And,

A formalized procedure for monitoring and managing tooling condition was

created to assure a more timely reaction to deteriorating dimensional

characteristics of the roll forming equipment.

39

As well as,

The replacement of visual weld temperature assessment with a continuous

infrared monitoring device. Prior to fully implementing this procedure it was

necessary to determine the optimal operating range for each of the materials

utilized in our process.

40

Primary results from our solutions can be seen here.

The chart on the left shows our scrap cost (weighed against the value of goods

produced) declined, after solution implementation.

Our pre-implementation, scrap cost as a percent of the value of goods produced

(depicted by the top red line) averaged approximately 10% and the average post

implementation performance (the bottom green line) averaged 5%

Over this same period, our secondary metric of Tube Mill production efficiency

(chart on the right), was not negatively affected by the scrap reduction solutions.

Based on this information, we concluded that our goal of reducing scrap cost by

50%, without negatively affecting production efficiency had been achieved.

41

Additional benefits from this project included production efficiency improvements

in internal customer departments, decreased Tube Mill related scrap costs in

other Tenneco Clean Air facilities across North America, as well as, improved

effectiveness of team meetings.

The Box Plots of Productivity, in the upper right corner of this slide,

demonstrates an improvement in internal productivity at the Litchfield plant, after

tube mill solutions were implemented.

While this project focused on the reduction of tube mill related scrap in our

Litchfield plant, sister facilities achieved similar results with parallel projects

using the knowledge generated at Litchfield (lower right).

The effectiveness of team meetings is difficult to track with a chart, however,

weekly team meetings saw steady improvement in contributions from individuals

where, during kick-off, team members were more reserved.

42

To maintain our gains in scrap efficiency:

Management and technical personnel, involved with the project, periodically

review the standardized setup documentation.

Scrap data is tracked on a daily basis and trend charts are posted at the Tube

Mill.

Biweekly Meetings are held with management, engineering and Tube Mill

personnel to discuss performance and address any issues that arise within the

process.

43

The main benefits of this project and how the team plans to maintain those

benefits are shown here.

Systems are in place to control the improvements; regular meetings, Control

Plan audits and high level operation reviews keep the focus where it needs to

be, so that the changes are not lost over time.

The pareto, shown here, is part of the operation review and is evidence that this

has become part of our operating strategy.

44

Communication systems were already in place to notify internal stakeholders of

the results of the project. The results were shared during weekly meetings with

those stakeholders directly involved.

A communication board within the main walkway is setup for six sigma activities

and results. After project completion, the results were posted for all Plant

employees to review.

External stakeholders, with whom propriety information can be shared, are

communicated to through Tenneco’s, core competency meetings and tube mill

six sigma activity.

Official communication to customers is handled through the quality department.

45

That wraps our presentation today.

From the entire project team, I want to say thank you for the opportunity to

present our work at this event.

46