Overall Project Review - Paper Furnish Optimization3

Lean Six Sigma

Paper Furnish OptimizationBlack Belt Project

United States Gypsum Co.

Project Launched: 1/27/10

Define

2

• Value Stream Map for Deeper Understanding and Focus

• Identify Key Input, Process and Output Metrics

• Develop Operational Definitions• Develop Data Collection Plan• Validate Measurement System• Collect Baseline Data• Determine Process Capability• Complete Measure Gate

Improve

Lean Six SigmaDMAIC Improvement Process Road Map

• Project Charter• Voice of the Customer• SIPOC Map• RACI Chart• Communication Plan• Effective Meeting Tools• Inquiry and Advocacy Skills• Time Lines, Milestones,

and Gantt Charting

• Review Project Charter • Validate High-Level Value Stream Map and Scope• Validate Voice of the Customer

and Voice of the Business• Validate Problem Statement

and Goals• Validate Financial Benefits• Create Communication Plan• Select and Launch Team• Develop Project Schedule• Complete Define Gate

ToolsActivities

ControlMeasureDefine Analyze

Kaizen, 5S, NVA Analysis,Generic Pull Systems,

Four Step Rapid Setup Method

Identify and Implement Quick Improvements with Kaizen

Define

3

Project Charter

Problem: Optimization of furnish storage, blending, and processing has not been realized.Uncontrolled furnish blends lead to added costs for: using more expensive furnish when not necessary

Goal: Optimize furnish handling and processing to achieve a paper cost reduction of $xx,xxx (using expected furnish pries from Jul10-Dec10)

Furnish substitution in filler system

Problem/Goal Statement

Gate Review Schedule

Financial Impact

Team

Reduce paper cost $xx,xxxc versus 2010Furnish pricing using Jul10-Dec10Total potential savings of $xx,xxx

All $ at this point are Type I hard savings

Will address weight reduction opportunities in Project 2.

Core Team members (% of contribution) – 95%Supporting members – 5%Project sponsor – Plant managerLSS Deployment Champion – CorporateBlack Belt Master Black Belt coach

Tollgate Scheduled Revised CompleteDefine: 02/26/10 - 02/26/10

Measure: 03/26/10 04/01/10 04/01/10

Analyze: 04/23/10 06/18/10 06/18/10

Improve: 05/14/10 03/24/11 03/24/11

Control: 06/04/10 04/25/11 Scheduled

Define

Project Operational DefinitionsFurnish/wastepaper

Bales of recycled paper “scraps” that are used to make gypsum wallboard paper, which consist of layers, or “plies”.

Gypsum wallboardGeneric name for Sheetrock (USG Trademark product).

Liner/FillerLiner refers to the top several plies of paper, i.e. the “face” of the sheet.Filler refers to plies of the paper that lie underneath the liner plies.

PulperEquipment that mixes the wastepaper bales with water to form a stock or slurry of paper.

FeltContinuous pad that plies of paper are sprayed onto, provides support for sheet of paper until it is thick enough to travel through equipment.

4

Define

Project Operational Definitions (cont.)Filler Cobb/Liner Cobb

Quality test that determines how many grams of water the finished sheet of paper (filler side or liner side) will absorb in a given amount of time.

TensileThe strength of the paper when measured by how much force it takes to pull apart a strip of paper (in the MD or CD direction), another key quality test.

MD/CDMachine direction (parallel) or Cross direction (perpendicular), refers to the orientation of the paper fibers in the sheet.

Basis weightThe weight of the paper in a given amount produced, measured in lbs per thousand square feet (#/MSF).

5

Define

Project Operational Definitions (cont.)Furnish blend

Refers to the recipe used in the filler pulper. How many bales of OCC to how many bales of DLK.

OCCOld corrugated cartons, wastepaper typically from recycled cardboard boxes, much of this material comes from landfill sorting facilities.

DLKDouble-lined kraft, wastepaper typically from clippings on new cardboard boxes, shipped directly from box manufacturers to the plant.

SizeChemical added to help the paper (when dry) resist the tendency to absorb liquid.

Silo stackingProcess of stacking the paper rolls in an upright column or “silo”.

6

Define

Project Operational Definitions (cont.)Bale clamp truck

A forklift with a specially designed attachment to grab and lift rectangular bales of wastepaper.

Furnish bale tagsInformational labels printed out and applied to each wastepaper bale as it enters the plant.

WWPWastepaper Warehouse Plan, an internal document developed to contain all major procedures involved in the receipt, unloading, storing, and retrieval of furnish bales at the plant.

5sLean Six Sigma process/tool designed to help properly clean-up and organize any area to ensure efficient use of the space.

7

Define

Project Operational Definitions (cont.)Newsline

Grade of gypsum wallboard paper. Is the brown-colored sheet on the back of the gypsum wallboard, the side that is mounted to the wood/steel studs in building construction.

C/OChangeover. Refers to the process of changing from one product to another on the paper mill production line.

8

Define

Outdoor wastepaper storage area

9

Define

Wastepaper feeding into the pulper

10

Define

Filler pulper

11

Define

Paper stock being applied to the felt

12

Define

Large paper roll before being cut to width

13

Define

Finished roll of paper for gypsum wallboard

14

Define

15

Team EffectivenessFormal goals, agenda, meeting minutes, action item lists, and time schedule used for all meetings

Ground Rules set at Team Launch

Team Roles – assign timekeeper, note taker, and “engager” at each meeting

Team Meeting Frequency – Each Wednesday, 1-3pm

Tools used by Team – SIPOC, Voice of Customer analysis, Risk analysis, Communications plan, Project plan, RACI chart

Team has agreed to have an open mind and communicate thoroughly in order to avoid scheduling conflicts

DefineVoice of the Customer (VOC) – Paper Furnish

Optimization

CustomerVoice of the Customer

Key Customer Issue(s)

CriticalCustomer

RequirementWho is the Customer? What does the

customer want from us? What does the customer want from us? We need to identify the issue(s) that

prevent us from satisfying our customers.

We should summarize key issues and translate them into specific and

measurable requirements

Machine Tender (Paper Mill Wet End Operator)

Stock that meets all applicable specs

Freeness, consistency, tensile, stock flow, good recycled water quality, minimal wax/glue/trash

1. Freeness & consistency within established operating ranges

2. Tensile strength within bulletin range for paper grade

3. Continuous flow of stock4. Recycled water will pass

visual inspection of save-all pads

5. Minimize wax/glue/trash contamination

Wet End (Paper Machine)

Same as above Same as above Same as above

SIPOC – Paper Furnish Optimization

Risk Analysis – Paper Furnish Optimization• Cover most important risks (80/20 rule) – Top 3

Risk# Risk Description

ImpactType

Probability of

Occurrence Rating

ImpactRating

Priority Rating Risk Response

Owner1 - None 1 - None

(Probabilityx Impact)

Accept

Identify and DescribeRisk Response

Scope 2 - Low 2 - Little Avoid

Cost 3 - Medium 3 - Moderate Mitigate - Minimize Probability

Time 4 - High 4 - Heavy Mitigate - Minimize Rating

1*

Increased pulping time (pulper operators weigh every bale) C 4 4 16 Avoid

Be wary of this. Perform careful trials. Foreman

2*Bad quality finished paper (using

wet/degraded bales) C 3 4 12Mitigate – Minimize

Probability

Don’t rush to use all bad furnish at once

PMForemen

3*

Bad quality finished paper (changing bale blend % i.e. increasing OCC, etc.) C 3 4 12

Mitigate – Minimize Probability

Ensure scavenger & screening systems are functioning optimally

PMForemen

4

Increased furnish price ($/ton) by using local vendors to lower stock level C 3 3 9 Accept

Team must prove this cost would be offset by a quantifiable issue decrease Buyer

5Screening capacity to handle

“dirtier” furnish C 3 3 9 Mitigate – Minimize Probability

Ensure screening system are functioning optimally

PMForemen

6 Run out of waste paper furnish C 2 4 8 AvoidDon’t let stock levels fall

too low Buyer

19

Communication Plan – Paper Furnish Optimization Project

Project Sponsor

•Face to face meetings

•Gate review presentations

•Project progress updates•Go/No Go for project phases

•Updates and potential roadblocks•Phase review and validation

•Black Belt

•Project Team

•Weekly

•End of each phase per project plan

•Scheduled

•Define gate review scheduled

Process Owner

•Copy of team meeting minutes•Gate review presentations

•Monitor project progress•Major project updates

•Overall team progress

•Phase review and validation

•Black Belt

•Project Team

•Weekly

•End of each phase per project plan

•N/A

•Define gate review scheduled

Plant Employees

•Newsletter articles

•High level summary to keep all employees informed

•General “high-level” items to communicate project status

•Project Team (will rotate)

•One article generated per project Phase

Paper Mill production and supply chain employees

•Shift safety huddles•PM lunchroom monitor

•Stimulate employee buy-in and interest

•Project goals, benefits•Effects of furnish on paper machine

•Project Team (will rotate)•PM General Foreman

•Twice/monthly•Twice/monthly

Audience Media PurposeTopics of

Discussion/Key Messages

Owner Frequency Notes/Status

Measure

20

Measure Improve

Lean Six SigmaDMAIC Improvement Process Road Map

• Value Stream Map• Operational Definitions• Data Collection Plan• Statistical Sampling• Measurement System Analysis (MSA), Gage R&R• Control Charts• Process Capability, Cp & Cpk

• Identify Key Input, Process and Output Metrics

• Develop Operational Definitions

• Develop Data Collection Plan

• Validate Measurement System

• Collect Baseline Data

• Determine Process Performance/Capability

• Validate Business Opportunity

• Value Stream Map for deeper understanding & focus

• Quick Wins (Control Plans)

• Measure Gate Review

ToolsActivities

ControlDefine Analyze




Measure

Measure

21

Value Stream Map

Measure

22

Data Collection Plan – Page 1 of 3Performance

Measure Operational

Definition Data Source and

Location How Will Data Be

Collected Who Will Collect

Data When Will Data Be

Collected Sample Size Stratification

Factors How will data be

used?

Stock supply operator (bales

being used)

Stock supply – as bales are fed

PM S/C unloading

operator (bale age)

PM S/C – daily, next morning after (3) shifts worth of

production Stock supply operator (bales

being used)

Stock supply – as bales are fed

PM S/C unloading

operator (bale wgt)

PM S/C – daily, next morning after (3) shifts worth of

production

FreenessUnits unknown (plant personnel do not use units)

Flowmeter reading logged into local PM InSql Server

Logged when running by PLC PLC

PLC logs every 10 sec, will look at every min for

Minitab evaluation

1/1/10 - 3/22/10 Grade of paper

Used as a proactive

measure of sheet strength

Consistency

% of stock to water (3% = 3%

stock, 97% water)

Flowmeter reading logged into local PM InSql Server

Logged when running by PLC PLC

PLC logs every 10 sec, will look at every min for

Minitab evaluation

1/1/10 - 3/22/10 Grade of paper

Used to proactively

measure density of sheet

Tensile (Parallel)lbs of force (to tear sample)

Thwing Albert machine feeds

into MDIS system, in PM

Quality Lab

Samples of each set are prepped

and fed into Thwing Albert

PM Quality testers

As each set of paper is produced 1/1/10 - 3/22/10

Grade of paper, production shift

Used to quantify strength of sheet, minimum reject

limits

Data Collection Plan - Page 1

Grade of paper, Look at filler system only

Give idea on age of bales versus paper grade and

variability

Weight of bales being fed into

pulper Weight (lbs)

Unloading log, PM S/C

unloading office

Record number of bales being used (whse

section & row), then research unloading log.

Entire run (~ 8 to 9 days)

Grade of paper, Look at filler system only

Give idea on weight of bales versus paper

grade and variability

Age of bales being fed to

pulper Time (days)

Unloading log, PM S/C

unloading office

Record number of bales being used (whse

section & row), then research unloading log.

Entire run (~ 8 to 9 days)

Measure

Measurement System Analysis – Filler Cobb

23

Measure

Measurement System Analysis – Filler Cobb

24

%ContributionSource VarComp (of VarComp)Total Gage R&R 0.005823 4.05

Repeatability 0.005823 4.05Reproducibility 0.000000 0.00

Part-To-Part 0.137926 95.95Total Variation 0.143748 100.00

Study Var %Study VarSource StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)Total Gage R&R 0.076307 0.45784 20.13

Repeatability 0.076307 0.45784 20.13Reproducibility 0.000000 0.00000 0.00

Part-To-Part 0.371383 2.22830 97.95Total Variation 0.379142 2.27485 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 6

Measure

Measurement System Analysis – Tensile

25

Analyze

26

Improve

Lean Six Sigma: AnalyzeImprovement Process Road Map

• Cause & Effect Analysis

• Hypothesis Tests/Conf. Intervals

• Simple & Multiple Regression

• ANOVA

• Identify Potential Root Causes

• Reduce List of Potential Root Causes

• Confirm Root Cause to Output Relationship

• Estimate Impact of Root Causes on Key Outputs

• Prioritize Root Causes

• Complete Analyze Gate

ToolsActivities





Analyze

27

Current Process Performance –Newsline MD (Parallel) Tensile

Observed Special Causes:

Individual values look good, one special cause in the range chart that could not be tied back to an observable event

Five products made over observation window (~ 2 days)

Analyze

28

Current Process Performance –Newsline CD (Cross) Tensile

Observed Special Causes:

A minor issue on the individual values, but range chart ok

Five products made over observation window (~ 2 days)

Analyze

29

People

Potential Root-Cause Identification (sample)

Measurement Parts

Machines

Why Are Cycle Times >18 hours

Language barriers

Software Glitches

Unfamiliar Processes

Customer Delays

Lab Personnel

Lack of Experience

Approval required in some situations

Customer responsible for consumable ordering

Methodology

Operational Procedures

SAP System

Call not closed at time of Repair

Unavailable, system down

Parts Unavailability

Operations

Left open for testing

No access to system

Slow, Times Out

Deployment delay

Vendor Database

Missing Information

Erroneous Information

Parts Order ProcessingPart procurement process is substandard

Centralized Call Process not being followed

Constant Process Changes

Lilly Staff LevelCustomer unwilling to add another Tech to Contract

No Backfill for PTO

Order fulfillment Delays by the manufacturer

Corporate decision not to stock parts locally

Excessive Part ETA times

Part Numbers not in Database

Quality of Parts

Multiple DOA Parts

Recycled parts

Wrong part sent / Published part # incorrectLab Technician Off-site

Remote area of Plant

Tech too busy with callsLilly

Unknown escalation path

Inconsistent process application

Training issues

Manufacturers

Long hold times

Inept technical assistance

Analyze

30

Potential Root-Cause Prioritization20 inputsevaluated

8 outputsevaluatedfrom initialVoice ofCustomerAnalysis

Analyze

31

Pareto Chart (from C&E Matrix)

Key Findings:

No significant “front runners”

Numerical top 20% was 4, moved forward with top 8 (60%)

Analyze

32

Root Cause ValidationBasis weight is related to tensile (MD = 33.5%, CD = 40.2%)

Analyze

33

Root Cause Validation95% confident that 32.1% of the variation in Liner Cobb is due to filler furnish blend

Analyze

34

Summary of Critical x’sCritical X1 = Basis weight (to tensile)

Tool used = single regressionP-Value = 0.000

Critical X2 = furnish blend (to Liner Cobb)Tool used = single regressionP-Value = 0.000

Critical X3 = bale storage rotation planTool used = fishbone diagram, C&E matrixWill pilot changes while watching BW & tensile variation

Analyze

35

Other LSS Tools UsedNormality testing

Distribution identification of data set (more accurately depict process capability of some key outputs)

Sample Size Calculation (Using sample std dev. and power)

Correlation tools (single & multiple regression models)

Team Effectiveness Tools (Brainstorming)

Improve

36

Lean Six Sigma: ImproveImprovement Process Road Map

• Design of Experiments (DOE)

• Solution Selection Matrix

• Piloting and Simulation

• Develop Potential Solutions

• Evaluate, Select, and Optimize Best Solutions

• Develop and Implement Pilot Solution

• Confirm Attainment of Project Goals

• Complete Improve Gate

ToolsActivities





Improve

Improve

37

Brainstorming, Solution Selection Matrix (Tribal Knowledge)Used fishbone & CE matrix to develop list of significant inputs

Warehouse organization & bale feed procedure consistencyCritical “foundation” organizational work done. Set a solid foundation for the team to build any repeatable and consistent practices on top of. Many benefits realized in the form of job efficiency, employee morale, consistency in procedures from shift-to-shift, etc.

Team felt getting organized (alone) would help improve MD tensile variation…….. it did NOT (see next slides)

Most other inputs did not show significant correlation to MD or CD tensile results

Potential Solution Identification

Improve

38

Significant Inputs Matrix ( Data driven)Used a weighted matrix to help filter out process “noise” and find the most repeatable and significant inputs

Seven newsline runs, two methods used to analyze, CD/MD, +/- signs

Potential Solution Identification - Continued

(As TF_CD or TF_MD increases, +1 means variable increased, ‐1 means variable decreased)Product Run Date(s) R‐Sq(adj) # Variables # Data Pts FP Lw FP %fines OCC% HPDT MC %fines MC Lw Outside % OCC In% Kraft In% Kraft Out%

TF_CD News 8/30 ‐ 9/1 71.5 2 11 1 1TF_CD News 9/10 ‐ 9/11 24.9 1 30 ‐1TF_CD News 9/16 ‐ 9/17 80.0 2 GLM ‐1 0.5TF_CD News 9/16 ‐ 9/17 26.4 1 59 ‐1TF_CD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 18.1 1 GLM ‐1TF_CD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 42.9 1 7 ‐1TF_CD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 22.7 1 47 1TF_CD News 10/21 ‐ 10/22 51.9 1 6 1TF_CD News 10/21 ‐ 10/22 23.4 1 35 1TF_CD News 10/26 ‐ 10/28 26.1 3 GLM ‐1 1 0.5TF_CD News 10/26 ‐ 10/28 29.7 2 95 ‐1 1TF_CD NewsTF_CD NewsTF_MD News 8/30 ‐ 9/1 38.8 1 11 1TF_MD News 9/10 ‐ 9/11 17.6 1 30 1TF_MD News 9/16 ‐ 9/17 99.9 4 GLM 0.5 ‐1 1 ‐1TF_MD News 9/16 ‐ 9/17 21.5 1 52 ‐1TF_MD News 10/7 ‐ 10/8 15.3 1 48 ‐1TF_MD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 21.7 1 GLM ‐1TF_MD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 60.2 2 7 ‐1 1TF_MD News 10/14 ‐ 10/15 20.3 1 47 1TF_MD News 10/21 ‐ 10/22 92.0 3 6 1 1 1TF_MD News 10/21 ‐ 10/22 24.0 1 35 1TF_MD News 10/26 ‐ 10/28 29.0 2 GLM ‐1 ‐1TF_MD News 10/26 ‐ 10/28 18.4 1 16 1TF_MD News 10/26 ‐ 10/28 24.8 3 95 ‐1 1 1TF_MD News

# of times this variable used

71.5 71.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐24.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐80 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐26.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐18.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ‐42.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.7 0 00 51.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 23.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐26.1 0 0 26.1 0 0 13.05 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐29.7 0 29.7 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 38.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 49.95 ‐99.9 0 0 99.9 ‐99.9 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ‐21.5 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐15.3 0 0 00 0 ‐21.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ‐60.2 0 60.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.3 0 00 92 0 0 92 92 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ‐29 0 0 0 0 ‐29 0 0 0

18.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‐24.8 24.8 24.8 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 89.9 201.05 ‐326.1 125.2 132 218 ‐121.4 ‐98.8 80.85 54.5 0Abs value 89.9 201.05 326.1 125.2 132 218 121.4 98.8 80.85 54.5 0

Multiply Occurance by R‐Sq(adj) and total by variable

Improve

39

Solution Selection (from matrix on prior slide)

Factors taken to DOE“Non-controllable” inputs

Improve

40

Pilot Plan

DOEPart I

• First part of a two-part DOE newsline trial.• Part I used “clean” OCC furnish from Interplast.

• Hold critical non-DOE factors stable

• Complete required set point combinations

• All members • Completed 1/26/11

DOEPart II

• Second part of a two-part DOE newsline trial.• Part II used “dirty” OCC furnish from Vista Fiber.

• Hold critical non-DOE factors stable

• Complete required set point combinations

• All members • Completed 2/24/11

DOECombining

• Had to first use statistical (mean/median) testing to ensure the (21) critical variables remained “the same” during both trials so results could be combined together into one DOE.

• All critical variables were the “same”, considering the practical aspect of the operation

• Black Belt • Completed 3/4/11

DOEAnalysis

• Complete DOE Analysis for MD and CD Tensile. • Statistically solid results after analysis is complete

• Black Belt • Completed 3/8/11

ScheduleTeamSuccess CriteriaDescriptionPilot Test

Improve

41

Verify Pilot ResultsThere is a difference!

176.4

161.0

15.4 points lower

Improve

42

Verify Pilot Results - Continued

Improve

43

Verify Pilot Results - Continued

There is a difference!

7.2 gpm

8.4 gpm

1.2 gpm higher

Improve

44

Quick Wins (6)Forklift backhaul procedure

Lower occurrence of empty backhauls

Paper bale use from warehouse

Ensure consistent shift-to-shift use strategy

Section A “silo” stacking

Received approval from FM Global, 48 roll capacity vs. 36

Paint striper

Good quality tool that allowed us to efficiently paint indoor/outdoor storage lines for wastepaper bales

Bale clamp trucks overheating

Developed OBC (operator basic care routine)

Furnish bale tags

Still in process but will yield powerful information

Improve

45

Current Status SummaryKey actions completed

5 of 6 identified Quick Wins completedImplemented key sections of WWPBegan tracking filler pulper furnish blendInstalled furnish blend board at pulperDesignated indoor storage for consistent use of outside furnishBuilt two “significant inputs” matrices after thorough analyzing of multiple production runsBegan labeling all incoming DLK & OCC balesCompleted DOE

Improve

46

Current Status Summary - ContinuedLean Six Sigma Tools used

5s in raw paper warehouse (storage for furnish bales)Solution selection matrixDOE (Design of Experiments)

Lessons learnedSome “Quick Wins” may not be so quick, but still important!Scope on this project is very largeSome results are not crystal clear, must sift through process “noise”Trials are difficult in low business environments (delayed project ~ three months)

Control

47

Lean Six Sigma: ImproveImprovement Process Road Map

• Mistake-Proofing/Zero Defects

• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s)

• Process Control Plans

• Visual Process Control Tools

• Solution Replication

• Project Transition

• Implement Mistake Proofing

• Develop SOP’s, Training Plan and Process Controls

• Implement Solution and Ongoing Process Measurements

• Identify Project Replication Opportunities

• Complete Control Gate

• Transition Project to Process Owner

ToolsActivities

MeasureDefine Analyze




Improve Control

Control

48

Current Process Performance

Control

49

Full-Scale Solution Implementation Plan

Control

50

The following SOP’s and/or Documents have been updated, tested, and implemented:

Throughout the project, (15) documents were created/revised. These were various standard operating procedures, visual work instructions, equipment operating manuals, etc.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and Documentation

Control

51

Training Plan

A training plan was created for each item covered in the SOP anddocumentation section slides shown previously.

A list of training observations and “training lessons learned” wasalso created.

Control

52

Control Plan

Control

53

Replication Opportunities

A list of replication opportunities was developed. This mainly focusedaround other USG facilities that could benefit from the findings in thisproject.

Control

54

Process RACI Chart

Capt

ure/

Sust

ain

Proj

ect R

esul

ts

Revi

ew O

CC b

lend

eac

h ru

n

Revi

ew O

CC fo

rmul

a ea

ch ru

n

Use

scan

ner t

o re

cord

bal

es u

sed

Cont

inue

FIF

O W

P in

vent

ory

rota

tion

Use

c/o

time

boar

d, re

cord

exce

ptio

nsRe

view

c/o

tim

e pe

rform

ance

Mon

thly

OCC

% b

lend

dec

isio

n

Follo

w W

WP

proc

edur

es

Audi

t con

trol p

lan

Prov

ide

assi

stan

ce w

ith n

ew

issu

esEv

alua

te n

ew fu

rnis

h su

pplie

rs

Calc

ulat

e/re

port

mon

thly

pro

ject

savi

ngs

Process Owner R A A R R R A A R C C I

Process Operators R A A A A I

Project Sponsor A I I I

Black Belt C C C C A/R A/R C A/R

Paper Buyer A/R I

Control

55

Project Risk ManagementThree main risk areas were brainstormed and risks identified for each major category listed below.

Business Risk Management: Potential risks resulting from the planned solution and implementation plan on the business and its customers

Organizational Acceptance Risk Management: Risks related to lack of cultural buy-in for the proposed solution and implementation

Sustainment Risk Management: Risks related to sustaining the project gains over the long-term

Control

Barriers & Issues

56

Control

57

Lessons LearnedBased on learnings from this project:

What would you have done differently?Better use of technical resources (bale labeling/scanning)Possibly divided this project into pieces (very large scope)

What worked really well?Team selection/balance worked very wellEngaged employees through early buy-in of objectivesUse of visual controls (furnish board, signposts, c/o time board)

What will you do differently in future projects?If data results are variable, look to use weighted selection matrix sooner in project

Control

58

Lessons Learned (cont.)Based on learnings from this project:

What are some additional recommendations related to lessons learned?

ScheduleTough to meet initial schedule with large project scopeTrial scheduling was difficult (low news volume, production schedules)

Business ImpactWith decent pricing spreads between the various furnish grades there is money to be saved!

TeamworkTook the talents of the entire team to keep project movingDiscovered talents of other personnel in department as well

Control

59

Financial BenefitsConsidering furnish substitution

Charter proposed savings of $xx,xxx/yrActual 8 month savings = $xx,xxx ($x,xxx/mo, $xx,xxx annualized)Introducing new procedures (not yet optimized) earlier in project most likely led to reduced attainment of potential monthly savingsRemaining difference tied up in real blend increases seen

Charter goal proposed increasing type x furnish blend% by 25%Actual “end of month” increase achieved has only been 5%Lower newsline volume, short run cycles, and changeover ramp time has made it difficult to achieve the END OF MONTH blend goal of a 25% increaseActual blend % when running newsline products is a 50% increase!!

Mar11 savings = ~$x,xxx (17% type x furnish increase), C/O times being reduced

Control

60

MGPPMulti-Generation Project Plan (MGPP)

Generation 12010/2011

Generation 22011

Generation 32012/2013

Vision Use current LSS team to improve furnish handling process.

Optimize wet end chemistry in order to reduce shrinkage, improve drainage, and lower size usage.

Install (2) xxx formers to better control basis weight variation.

Process Generation

First major step to be completed. Will focus on operating procedures with minimal capital investments.

Second step after successful completion of furnish optimization project. Will include vendor on team and require minimal capital investments.

Third major step, will require approximately $1,000,000 in capital investments.

Platforms / Technology

Use current MDIS system and PLC data. Also uses manual documentation sheets.

Use current MDIS system and PLC data. Also uses manual documentation sheets. Vendor will likely need to supply data or additional instrumentation for critical variable monitoring.

Will use PLC and other similar technology. This forming technology is much better at producing a consistent and uniform sheet.