Six-Sigma Support Project at XXXX

August, 20th 2004

Presented par:

Jean Denis, Ninon L.,

Nathalie G.

Project Highlights

Initial Mandate● Client Objective:

● Accelerate the deployment of the ‘Process Certification initiative’ that is based on statistical tools for decision-making

● Our mandate:● Provide 57 days of support in the implementation and

deployment of the assembly & test certification process at the Mississauga plant

● Provide 27 days of support to quality engineers and some key Producers in the deployment of certification process

● Conditions :● Deployment Strategy Established● Aligned Organization● Trained People● Producers ready to initiate

Mandate Initial Conditions● Procurement

● Re-organisations ● No evidence of deployment strategy and planning● Producers not identified

● Plant● No evidence of deployment strategy or planning● Owner of deployment process not identified● Do-able projects not identified

Revised Mandate (Charter)● Objectives

● Focus the intervention to maximize our contribution given the unexpected conditions

● Highlight Risks ● Communicate Critical Success Factors ● Define and agree on a common action plan● Clarify responsibilities and expectations for all

participants● Establish and communicate the critical path, with key

deliverables, responsibilities & due dates

Roadblocks to Progression● Procurement:

● Reduced availability (< 10%)● Additional organisational changes, vacations, etc.● Analysts not identified and/or changed several times● No priority & no context for Process Certification● Evolution of mindset required, still anchored in RCCA● Fundamental understanding and mindset● Resistance, sense of urgency, priorities● Knowledge and Skills● Producers not available, committed or ready to initiate ● Competition with various dept’s and other analysts for

access

● Plant Assy’ and Test:● Owner of deployment process not visible● Leaders not formally identified, no planning, no

budget, no resources● Staff educated but not trained (or experienced)● No processes mapped● Lacking means of selecting projects at a do-able level● Measurements hit & miss, data not validated● Constant variation in product configurations

- little opportunity to characterise behaviour statistically

Roadblocks to Progression

Budget Status● 84 Days Budget :

● Procurement : 57 days ● Plant & Assembly : 27 days

● 69 Days Spent :● Procurement : 30 days ● Plant & Assembly : 39 days

Procurement

Objectives

Validate & enrich the Process Certification methodology as appropriate

Increase the key practical & applied knowledge of Process Certification methodology & Tools for Producer Certification

Improve support to producers in achieving certification

Summary of Work Accomplished

● Process Certification Deployment● Identified issues to deployment and developed

solutions/recommendations● Developed tools to enhance efficiency and

effectiveness of deployment● Producer certification

● Initiated first steps of Producer Certification with 3 producers

Procurement

Process Certification Deployment

Approach● Focusing on specific engine models, assess :

● Approach to deployment– Apparent strategy and tactics– Analysts’ roles & responsibilities

● Methodology and tools:– Specifics of Process Certification– Use of Process Robustness Index (PRI) for Producer

evaluation – Procedure/Cookbook for Process Certification interventions– Corporate Procedure– Any other available material

IssueApproach to deployment

● Internal coordination● Strategy & Planning not visible● Coordination & assignments not optimal

– Analysts’ assignment by part number/family. Therefore, analysts from different departments have parts at the same Producer:

● Overloads Producers● Unsuited to a Process-centered philosophy and methodology● Missed opportunities to share expertise● Significantly impedes deployment of Process Certification

– Communication flow between departments not properly established● Multiple audit questionnaires. Each department has its own.

● Approach to producer interventions● Analysts and auditors drive the certification by

producer or part numbers – May need months or years to implement producer-wide

IssueApproach to deployment

● Suitability and Application of tools● Not well integrated, less effective● Confusion of terminology● Misunderstandings in role and application of Process

Certification methodology – Connection not made between Process Certification training

and day to day work● Staff readiness

● Resistance of staff● Misconceptions of the method and of statistics● Misunderstanding of KPC, what is “Key”● Lack of data analysis expertise

Resolution/Recommendation Approach to deployment

● Revise and formalise the overall deployment strategy● Create and stabilise a multidisciplinary Process Certification

team– Made up of analysts, procurement experts, engineers (Black Belt level)

● Agree on realistic certification objectives and pace● Create a visible deployment “dashboard” metric ● Create a Producer-part-process criticality matrix ● Develop a standard communication plan for Producers that will

manage their perception “before, during and after” the deployment

● Develop and communicate a high level action plan including responsible and target dates

● Align People, Tools & Approach with Producers (next slide)

Resolution/Recommendation Approach to deployment

● Align People● Analyse analysts’ resistance and develop strategy to overcome● Assign one coordinator/leader of Process Certification efforts at a given

Producer ● Communicate and train personnel in the strategy and tools● Provide availability for the project

● Align tools (next slides)● Align System audits and PRI content and application● Formalise and Implement the Process Certification Worksheet tool ● Replace “cookbook” with ISO procedure that references training manual

● Align Approach with Producers● Get availability commitment● Develop and share a detailed action plan with each Producer● Efforts and action plans must be driven by specific processes

– Ex.: Instead of shop-wide gauge try-out program throughout, perform gage R&R or MSA only on measurement systems of CRITICAL processes.

● In order to leverage efforts, identify processes common to several parts● Develop mechanism for quickly and assuredly transferring KPCs to

producers.

Resolution/RecommendationIntegration and Utility of various tools

Implement deployment process :Certifiable ProducerFunctioning Support

Infrastructure

Selection of Priority Targetsparts and processes

Legacy Producer System AuditUTCQR-09.1par 4.1.1

Identification of Target Parts & Processes:Inputs from Engineering, Assy & Test, Procurement, etc.

Apply ProCert MethodUTCQR-09.1par 4.2 & 4.3

Certify Selected Process(es)by UTCQR-09.1par 4.4 using Process Certification Worksheet

Certifiable Producer?

(per system audit)

Readiness Progress Tracking

NPI / Re-sourcingrequirement

Producer submits Readiness Plan:Model supplied by P&WCPlan validated and/or modified by P&WC

Confirm Certification on New / Changed Parts

Critical Processes Identifiedand previously Certified?

NO

YES

IssueIntegration and Utility of various tools

● Terminology not consistent between parent & subsidiary● PRI is not suited to Process Certification or

producer certification:● Producer scores are weak in areas within Process

Certification’s domain● Without criteria or standards of comparison – fails in

fundamental manner as auditing tool● Shotgun approach – check everything, no focus on

what is Critical or Key to a part or process● Deals with manufacturing hardware issues where

Producer ought to be more knowledgeable than analysts

● Is not a roadmap to certify Producer processes● Appropriate only to New Part Introduction /

Engineering Changes – should be truncated.

Resolution/Recommendation Process Certification Worksheet

ProCert Elements to be addressed

Not ad

dresse

d

need

s high

leve

l dev

elopm

ent

need

s deve

lopmen

t

Meets r

equir

emen

ts at

prese

nt

Comple

te & Sus

taina

ble

Activities foreseen / Comments prod

ucer

leve

l of e

ffort

req'

dLo

w-M

ediu

m-H

igh

P&W

leve

l of e

ffort

req'

d

estim

ated

dat

e of

co

mpl

etio

n

Step 1 Benefits/Financial ImpactN/A - process not yet selected

N/A - process not yet selected

Step 2 Team compositionRessorces are there

Need to identify a Procert team

Step 3 Process/Problem/Opportunity DefinitionThey have a high level list of operations and a process review system

1 Make a process map

First KPCs received during our visit, at Smith's request.

2 Pratt needs to identify and communicate to Smiths What part number is most critical and key characteristics for those parts

Validate the received KPCs with Pratt and new ones as they become available

MOS shows process outputs to be controlled

3 Identify KPC-Ms , Highlight them on MOS and on process map

Good MOS, that contains certain elements of a control plan, Will have to be adapted to include SPC features and reaction plan

4

Smiths has an established process for verification between the lab's CMM and shop floor gauges

5 Evidence that measurement error is kept below 20 % of tolerance spread is required

Data is measured and recorded per B.P. requirements

6

Step 4 Review & Assess Process & MetricsThey have the data, data acquisition structure and data analysis personnel

1 Start using SPC to assess process stability

Previous step is a prerequisite

2

TBD : Evaluate QN SSON & Escapes for potential improvement targets

3 As data is collected and analysed, target at least one area (machine or process) for improvement

They have the personnel that makes them able to do it if required

4 Organisational capability is in place, application is T.B.D.4

3

3

5

4

4

4

4

5

4

Was a Benefit-Effort analysis used to select the process?

Relationships between key influences (significant Xs) and KPCs (Ys) statistically determinedby hypothesis testing, regression, ANOVA, Design of Experiments (DOEs) or other such tool

Has the financial impact been determined?

Is Management support evident? What drives need & desire for improvement?

Is there a process cell team or supporting organisation?

A Process map that includes all in-scope areas or process steps / sub-processes

A clear definition of the key product characteristic (KPCd or Y) and measurement procedure(there is agreement on definitions of KPCs)

Key input, process and output indicators (KPCMs - Xs & small Ys) are identified and linked to the process map.

A Control Plan covering key input, process, and output indicators.

Measurement System Analysis showing that measurement error is not more than 20% of either the process or the tolerance spread, whichever is the lesser.

The producer is organised to collect data and sufficient data has been collected to evaluate the process performance

Process stability and special cause variation determined by Control Charts.

With Process Capability determined, are there stated improvement goals (shift mean, reduce variation or both)? (if Cpk >1.33, are measures in place to sustain ? And, is there fundamental understanding of what factors influence KPCs?)

Process Inputs, parameters & outputs (Xs or KPCMs) influencing the key output indicators (Ys for capacity and quality) are prioritised for improvement.

Producer: Process - description, location:

Applicability - P/Ns,part families, engine

programs:

Smiths Orillia

P/N:family:engine program: PW 307 & PW 308

Specific Process Targeted for ImprovementUnique descriptionPlant and location within facilities

Resolution/Recommendation Process Certification Worksheet

● Provides structure for gap and progress analysis – audit criteria grounded in Process Certification training materials

● Highlights shortcomings and roadblocks ● Encourages process-specific scoping of efforts ● Consistent with PRI and Process Certification

terminology - provides familiar ground ● Step by step roadmap to Process Certification -

analyst knows what to do and Producer knows what to expect

● Provides tasks, timeline & participation of parties● Measures and tracks progress quantitatively

IssueProcess Certification Cookbook

● Need for ISO procedure to apply Process Certification & tools

● Cookbook attempts to repeat Process Certification training content

● Lack of document control :● Various versions of PRI in use● No evidence of control and approval of key

documents

Resolution/Recommendation Process Certification Cookbook

● High-level Policy/Procedure governingProducer Quality Management● Relates to corporate parent's procedure, tools and

training material● Governs deployment process and relevant documents

Procurement

Producer certification

Work Accomplished● Selected 3 Producers as test cases● Gathered relevant information● Attempted identification of relevant part numbers● Attempted to acquire associated KPC-Ms

(difficult to obtain, various opinions, not complete)● Performed site visits for Readiness Assessment ● Performed first draft Gap Analysis (Process

Certification Worksheet) ● Determined short term action plan for each

(Process Certification Worksheet)

Casting Supplier – Highlights● Analyst’s skills & mindset hinder Process Certification

deployment● Readiness

● Weakest area is Step 4 “Review & Assess Process Metrics”● Only inputs controlled using SPC● Output metric is yield

– Finished casting dimensions not measured– Use of targeting fixture is go/no-go

- no info on trends or variability● Completed Milestones

● Evaluation of Certifiability● Gap analysis● Gained ability to gather data

on part dimensional variation:decision to fix datum pts. in targeting fixture

Haley, sandcasting ProCert status(% complete)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Casting Supplier – Highlights (Cont’d)

● Next Steps & Recommendations● Suppier to revise QFD and C & E prioritisation matrix

and re-define areas of improvement● Establish meaningful Process OUTPUT metrics● Statistically identify and confirm which process

parameters, inputs and outputs are key (KPC-Ms)– Inputs already controlled by SPC must be part of that

confirmation study● Greater and more effective use of Designed

Experiments for fundamental understanding of process capability drivers

● Review the Process Certification worksheet and create a detailed action plan

Supplier Orillia – Highlights● Readiness

● Ready for Process Certification ● Weakness due only to lack of

targeted parts & related processes● Good Management support● Resources to form Process

Certification teams seem available● Good overall practice, confirmed by

initial Process Certification evaluation

● Processes mapped & documented● System for data collection

● Completed Milestones● Understanding of situation● Gap analysis● Customer permission to select

parts & processes subject to certification.

Smiths Orillia, system ProCert status(% complete)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

● Readiness● Ready for Process Certification ● Weakness due only to lack of

targeted parts & related processes● Good Management support● Resources to form Process

Certification teams seem available● Good overall practice, confirmed by

initial Process Certification evaluation

● Processes mapped & documented● System for data collection

● Completed Milestones● Understanding of situation● Gap analysis● Customer permission to select

parts & processes subject to certification.

Supplier Orillia – Highlights (Cont’d)

● Next steps & Recommendations● Engineering to supply key characteristics for subject

parts● Review the Process Certification worksheet and

create a detailed action plan● Monitor part quality and update/revise improvement

targets and KPCs as appropriate

Supplier Montreal – Highlights

● Analyst’s beliefs and approach hinder Process Certification deployment

● Readiness● Management replacement & re-organisation in process● No culture, no procedures, no tools, no measurements● History of continual quality escapes● High scrap and inventory levels

● Completed key Milestones● Understanding of situation● Gap analysis

Supplier Montreal - Highlights (Cont’d)

Next steps & Recommendations Choose among 2 options:1) Disqualify2) Massive effort, supported by Customer, to identify

and certify critical processes: Contingent on proof of Supplier’s commitment Use subject processes as models to replicate onto next

priorities Expand from initial certification successes