Top Banner
Page 1 of 23 PROBLEM PROBLEM RESOLUTION RESOLUTION PROCESS PROCESS 6-PANEL 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Problem Resolution Process Process TRAINING MANUAL TRAINING MANUAL
23

PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

Mar 31, 2015

Download

Documents

Tristan Witting
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

Page 1 of 23

PROBLEMPROBLEMRESOLUTIONRESOLUTION

PROCESSPROCESS

6-PANEL6-PANELProblem Resolution ProcessProblem Resolution Process

TRAINING MANUALTRAINING MANUAL

Page 2: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 2 of 23

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.

Page 3: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 3 of 23

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.

Improve PhaseHow can we permanently fix the current product/process?

• DOE & ANOVA • Verification data

• Durability/CAE/VSA• Work plan

Control PhaseHow can we make the process stay fixed?

• Control Plans• SPC – Control Charting

• Audit Plans

Replicate PhaseWho 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

Define PhaseWho is my customer, and what isthe current cost of poor quality?

• Voice of the Customer • Defect Definition

• Cost of Poor Quality (includeswarranty spending, as necessary)

• Project Scope & Goal

Measure PhaseWhich inputs affect ouputs?What is my current processperformance (capability)?

Are defects contained?

Analyze PhaseBy how much do X’s affect Y?

What confidence do you have?

• Graphical Analysis • Hypothesis Testing

• Regression Analysis • Additional tools

Panel 2Panel 1 Panel 3

Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6

• Fish Bone• Gage R&R, Baseline

Capability• Containment Plan

Process Layout

Page 4: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 4 of 23

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

6-PANEL Header:

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.

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.

CustomerCustomerVFG Team / Functional Area NameVFG Team / Functional Area NameVRT / Business Unit NameVRT / Business Unit Name

Vehicle Name & Model Year / Product NameVehicle Name & Model Year / Product Name Part / Process Name & NumberPart / Process Name & Number

CCC: L66 – Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 – Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 – Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 – Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

Manufacturing / Technical Example:

Transactional Example:

Ford Motor Company PlantsFord Motor Company PlantsGlobal CustomsGlobal CustomsMP&LMP&L

Global Customs and Trade ProcessGlobal Customs and Trade Process 9801 Duty Preference Program9801 Duty Preference Program

Page 5: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 5 of 23

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

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

Page 6: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 6 of 23

VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “thevehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.”CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement): Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system.DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric): Muffler to body clearance less than 17mm at fasciaCOST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc.): $350,000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from 3MIS 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%.

2002 L66 Warranty by part

5230-Muffler16.36

5246-Pipe Assy 4.03

5E212-Catalyst2.22

5200-Muffler2.07

5A294-Muffler Brkt 1.22

NPF1.08

All others1.8

Y=f(x) CASCADE:

Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.)Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.)

Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia)

Project Y

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

3 MISR/1000

TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:

L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

MOP

R/1

000

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING:$315K (2002 CY)

PROJECT CLASSIFICATION:SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles

’01 MY ’99 MY3 MIS 3 YIS

TGW 4 6CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61CPU 0.27 2.11R/1000 1.04 3.54JD Power 0.4Consumer Reports n/a for L66

Page 7: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 7 of 23

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time R/1000 5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic

02468

1012141618

Jan-

01

Mar

-01

May

-01

Jul-0

1

Sep

-01

Nov

-01

Jan-

02

Mar

-02

Production Month

R/1

000

1MIS BIF

3MIS BIF

6MIS BIF

9MIS BIF

1MIS

3MIS

6MIS

9MIS

12MIS

Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time CPU 5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

3689

2

3695

1

3701

2

3707

3

3713

5

3719

6

3725

8

3731

7

Production Month

CP

U

1MIS BIF

6MIS BIF

9MIS BIF

3MIS BIF

1MIS

3MIS

6MIS

9MIS

12MIS

Explorer (U152) Top 100

Overall Rank

VRT VFG CCC's CCC DescriptionCUST SAT

LOSSTGW R/1000 3MIS CPU 3MIS

JDP 2002(Problems/100)

2002 MY High Miles

(CPU)

21 Chassis V21 N17 Brakes Noisy 0.25 67 3.43 0.37 6.3 1.8540 (BIC) .42 (BIF) .03 (BIF) 3.9 (BIC)

Trend Charts ofExplorer BrakeNoise-N17:

Page 8: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 8 of 23

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

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

Page 9: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 9 of 23

10 15 20 25 30

LSLLSL Target

FASCIA CLEARANCE TO MUFFLER OLD- ALL

USL

Target

LSL

Mean

Sample N

StDev (Within)

StDev (Overall)

Cp

CPU

CPL

Cpk

Cpm

Pp

PPU

PPL

Ppk

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

*

30.0000

17.0000

19.2162

37

3.12746

3.36607

*

*

0.24

0.24

*

*

*

0.22

0.22

216216.22

*

216216.22

239276.82

*

239276.82

255141.04

*

255141.04

Process Data

Potential (Within) Capability

Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance

Within

Overall

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.

MSA & Process Capability: Engineering Test Requirement

Muffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm)

Gage R&R = 15 % Study Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001):

• Z = 0.72• DPMO = 255,141• Cpk = 0.24 (note: short

term)

Data Collection plan includes all circled, highly ranked X’s

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

Page 10: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 10 of 23

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

• Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used tools in quality management.

Example – Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram

FISHBONECause 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: causeand effect priority matrix, fault tree / contribution analysis, process / design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process mapping, etc.

Environment

Customer Usage

System Interactions

Piece to Piece Vartiation

Aging Wear Design

Brake application (line pressure)

Vehicle speed

Braking distance

Driving habits (D)

Cooling of Brake System (D)

Pad modal parameters (A)

Material Property Variation

Surface Friction Variation

Manufacturing misassembly (D)

Rotor/Hub Alignment

Pad Geometric Variations

Pad Damping Deterioration

Running Clearance

Sys Damping Deterioration Pad/Lining Wear/Cracked

Aging of Slide Pin Wear Shape of

lining (A)

Uneven Rotor Wear

Lining material Characteristics (A)

Humidity(wet/dry)/water/Moisture

absorption (A)

Contaminates

Corrosion

Road salts

Solvents

Temperature

Road inputs

Customer’s Maintenance Schedules

(D)

Incorrect Maintenance (D)

Road Quality (D)

Lot RotDeceleration rate Suspension

Interactions (D)

Body Sensitivities (Acoustic/Vibration(D)

Rotor

Warping

Rotor Scorching

Booster Noise Filter Wear

Rotor Geometric Variations

Thickness of lining material (A)

Pad/Rotor pressure distribution (even/uneven)when apply brake (B)

Chamfers in lining (A)

Slots in lining

Insulator type

Insulator damping/damping material (A)

Caliper design

Rotor modal

parameter

Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D

Important: Look for Internal

Indicator at Supplier

facility and Assembly plant

Page 11: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 11 of 23

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITYMEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis

IS IS NOT

U152 4X4U152 4X2

Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads, insulator)

Other chassis component or other component of the brake system

DefectBrake squeal dominated at 6.6-6.8kHz range.

Groan, grind, or rattle

Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads, insulator)Squeal can be observed outside/ inside vehicleFront and rear brakes. Front noise is dominant

Isolated to the front or rear axle.

First observed

Normal morning braking, cold dyno test

Dyno testing (brake and vehicle)Normal customer, public road

First observed

GQRS

Dealer, fleet, and various dyno/vehicle tests, JD Power, R/1000, GQRSUsually in the morning with cold temperature and high humidity

Hot/warm noise or low humidity conditions

Noise on the first few brake applies and then goes away.

Repeatable after first few stops or continuous

Brake rotor temperature -10°C < t < 20°C

Hot

Low mileage and high mileage Isolated to low or high mileage.All U152 vehicles built through 4/2/02 Some Production months

Trend

It is cold squeal and depends on temperature and humidity. The TGW's typically range from 60-70.

It is not warm/hot noise or observed in low humidity conditions

Problem Statement: Brake squeal/audible noise.

Problem solving worksheet ("Is/Is Not Profile")

HO

W B

IG

Problem description

WH

ER

EW

HE

NW

HA

T Object

How many affected

On Object

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".

Page 12: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 12 of 23

ANALYZE y=f(x)ANALYZE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements):

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

• Shainin Analysis

Page 13: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 13 of 23

86420

LSLLSL

Fascia locating holes on snow shoe

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Ov erall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

0.18

*

0.18

0.04

*

0.04

0.00

*

0.00

1.70

1.70

*

*

*

1.79

1.79

*

*

1.19547

1.13172

41

5.08993

-1.00000

*

*

Exp. "Ov erall" Perf ormanceExp. "Within" Perf ormanceObserv ed Perf ormanceOv erall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overal l

HOLE # 2HOLE #1

0.8

0.4

0.0

MUFFLER HANGER BRACKET - HOLE LOCATION (means are indicated by solid circles)

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCESource DF SS MS F PFactor 1 0.0038 0.0038 0.05 0.826Error 48 3.7236 0.0776Total 49 3.7274

FASCIA LOCATING HOLE & MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X”

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.

y=f(x)

Muffler assembly aids used during installation require detailed 4.2 mm offset positioning feature to meet design intent.

REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID • incorporated the 4.2 mm design

CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID • 4.2 mm offset from design allows pipe position to vary when installed

ANALYZE y=f(x)ANALYZE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

Page 14: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 14 of 23

IMPROVE y=f(x)IMPROVE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

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)

Page 15: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 15 of 23

454035302520

TargetLSLLSL

IMPROVEMENT VALIDATEDSable Muffler Clearance to Facia -

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

0.00

*

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

2.03

2.03

*

*

*

2.63

2.63

*

*

3.25054

2.51058

120

36.8375

17.0000

30.0000

*

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

3025201510

TargetLSLLSL

BASELINE PERFORMANCESable Muffler Clearance to Facia -

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

255141.04

*

255141.04

239276.82

*

239276.82

216216.22

*

216216.22

0.22

0.22

*

*

*

0.24

0.24

*

*

3.36607

3.12746

37

19.2162

17.0000

30.0000

*

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

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.

Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of YOne-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE)

Analysis of VarianceSource DF SS MS F PFactor 1 8781.3 8781.3 822.74 0.000Error 155 1654.4 10.7Total 156 10435.6 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDevLevel N Mean StDev ----------+---------+---------+------FASCI-EN 120 36.838 3.244 (*) FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343 (-*-) ----------+---------+---------+------Pooled StDev = 3.267 24.0 30.0 36.0

Implementation WorkplanPermanent / Before/AfterInterim Actions Who/When IndicatorsConcern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B)Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A)and sheet metal for In productionadditional clearance. Jan., 2002

Concern C11272097 Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B)Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A)assy aid to meet design March, 2002y and z specification.

All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.

IMPROVE y=f(x)IMPROVE y=f(x)

BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001 AFTER: March 1, 2002

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

Page 16: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 16 of 23

IMPROVE y=f(x)IMPROVE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

Example of Weibull Plotting B10 Life Improvement

FRONT AND REAR BRAKES CHASSIS ROLL DYNO-NOISE BEFORE AND AFTER DESIGN CHANGED

0.30%

17.80%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

Front Baseline Front New Insulator &Chamfer

Per

cent

Occ

urre

nce

of N

oisy

Sto

ps

Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification Data requires solid statistical evidence using adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent.

Two Sample T-Test and Confidence IntervalTwo sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.

N Mean StDev SE MeanRr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30Rr Verif 29 32.27 1.31 0.2495% 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 DF = 43

Mean is at the Target of 32 Sones

P-Value is less than .05Therefore, there is a statistical difference between means

Two Sample T-Test and Confidence IntervalTwo sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.

N Mean StDev SE MeanRr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30Rr Verif 29 32.27 1.31 0.2495% 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 DF = 43

Mean is at the Target of 32 Sones

P-Value is less than .05Therefore, there is a statistical difference between means

Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise level is significantly improved.

0Subgroup 10 20 30 40 50

2829303132333435363738

Ind

ivid

ual V

alue 66

X=33.22

3.0SL=37

Baseline

Noise Level (Base vs Modification)

Modification

Page 17: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 17 of 23

IMPROVE y=f(x)IMPROVE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

0.033

0.004

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

Baseline New Insulator & Chamfer

Obj

ectiv

e N

oise

Inde

x

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle

Cu

mu

lati

ve I

nci

den

ts /

Veh

icle

Example of APG Durability Reliability AnalysisCumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage

APG or CAE/Lab test can be used for this Slot)

Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification with Durability Data

DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT operating conditions

Les s

is

bet t

er

Page 18: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 18 of 23

IMPROVE y=f(x)IMPROVE y=f(x)

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

• 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

WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHARTAn overall plan showing improvement timelines for implementing containment, interim and permanent corrective actions.

Problem Definition - The GQRS and AWS indicator pointed out the following area of concern:

The PERMANENT/INTERIM engineering/process/quality actions we are working on is/are:

Item Date Before After Indicator

1 4/2/02 17% 0.30% % Noisy stop

We are running a trial of ___________ piecesNo trail needed in assembly plants. Development and Test carried out at Dyno Lab

If all goes well, we will have parts in house on 4/02/02 (date)

Explorer Customer experienced Brake Squeal after vehicle sitting at rest over night. Noise on the first few brake applies and then goes away.

Project ImprovementAction

New Rubore insulator and chamfer

Additional Improve Phase Example – Workplan detail timeline chart

Page 19: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 19 of 23

CONTROL X’sCONTROL X’s

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

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.

Page 20: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 20 of 23

252015105Subgroup 0

41.540.539.538.537.536.535.534.533.532.5

Sam

ple

Mea

n

Mean=36.91

UCL=40.67

LCL=33.15

15

10

5

0

Sam

ple

Ran

ge

R=6.521

UCL=13.79

LCL=0

IMPROVEMENT SUSTAINED AND IN CONTROL!Xbar/R Chart for Muffler Clearance to FaciaITEM CONTROL

DATE RESPONSIBLE

C11298746 Revised Sable Fascia and sheet metal for additional clearance.

In production J an 2002.

Robert Bryer Body Structures Engineer AAP-PVT

C11272097 Redesigned muffler assembly aid to meet design y and z specification

March 2002 Steve Hornby PTSE design engineer, Andrew Schmid BB, Pat Swann BB

Submit for financial approval and order new parts

In plant May 2002

Tuan Nguyen Randy Wright AAP PVT

Audit Plan On going 4 Poster test, M-10 drive, WRAP On line clearance checks Monitor daily

Ongoing V.O. 4-poster test M-10 drive, WRAP performed at AAP/CAP

Follow up audit during full production with new aid

May 2002 Ken Eckert/John Kamph/Patricia Swann

SDS-FMEA-DVP review

Confirm system design requirements in place -ER-0052 Ver 15 Clearances Around the Exhaust System

Req Details 17164 20328 20331 20332 21239 21240

Verification Method DVM-0033-ER –ER-0005 Ver 11 Exhaust Static Location

Req Details 23094/23484 Verification Method 10675

SDS identified for update –ER-0039 Design for Assembly

Req Details 8624 Verification Method DVM-0033-ER

April 2002 Pat Swann, Steve Hornby, Hank Newsome Dan Valle/Mark Dixon

CONTROL X’sCONTROL X’s

L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable

August 27, 2002

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

MOP

R/1

000

Containment 10/17/02

Fascia Change 1/2/02

Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler

Page 21: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 21 of 23

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMERDEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

Total Warranty Spending andUnexpended Warranty Savings:

• Unexpended roadmap opportunities for all affected model year coverage periods:

• Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions:

• Top spending parts for this CCC: (for each part, please explain)

• Problem fixed in production

• Optimized solution availability

• Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

1) What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY?

2) What is your warranty-spend savings with road map?

3) What are your top spending parts for this CCC? For each part:

• Is the problem fixed in production?• Is there an optimal solution?

• Labor time: More efficient repair process, special service tool

• Part pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline?

• 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)?

Page 22: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 22 of 23

REPLICATEREPLICATE

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

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

Page 23: PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCESS Page 1 of 23 6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL.

6-PANEL6-PANEL

Page 23 of 23

PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant) Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability – 0 DPMO, Cpk=2.82) AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )

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 designUPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):

Core Book Change Made Owner Document # Completed Attribute FMEA Design FMEA Process FMEA SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002 VDS FDVS <other specify here>

REPLICATEREPLICATE

DDDD MMMM AAAA IIII CCCC RRRR

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesCCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / FuelVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/SableVEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 MufflerPART: 5230 Muffler