1、DMAIC STANDARD WORK TEMPLATEDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Please use this DMAIC Standard Work Template to help guide you in preparing a presentation that summarizes the key team based activities that drive both revolutionary and evolutionary improvement.Feel free to contact any of the follo
2、wing members of the Product Integrity Group listed on this board for help.DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345The DMAIC Model Guideline for Process Improvement1.Develop Business case for 2.project.3.Identify Owner4.Define Mandate5.Select Team&6.Team Leader 7.Set Team Norms8.Determine Customer and
3、9.Business needs10.Define critical Input,11.Process and Output12.measures13.Define Process Start&End14.Define Process Inputs&15.Outputs16.Determine Customer17.Requirements18.Map“As Is”Process4Benchmark as Needed4Establish MFA data collection method4Establish QCPC data collection method4Establish SPC
4、 data collection method4Gather Data4Perform Root Cause Analysis on problems.4Develop/select alternative solutions4Map“To Be”Process4Develop Action Plan4Management Review 4Pilot changes and validate improvement4Implement Improvements/Mistake Proofing Devices4Update Standard Work4Implement Key Charact
5、eristics4Monitor Metrics(Process KCs&Customer)to Verify Improvement4Document savings4Share Lessons Learned4ID potential future projects.Establish direction and accountability.Understand current process.Baseline Process PerformanceUnderstand Process Opportunities4Analyze current costs/potential savin
6、gs4Perform Waste analysis on“As Is”process.4Understand process variation4Understand process performancePilot and Validation of ImprovementsStandardized Improvements TEAM BASED DMAIC PROCESS1.Define2.Measure3.Analyze4.ImproveRoot Cause AnalysisWhy?Why?Why?RepeatableEffectiveEfficientStandard Work5.Co
7、ntrolMistake ProofUCLxLCLxXMap information/process flowsProcess ManagementSelect OpportunityPROCESS WEIGHT0.250.400.250.10SCOREASupplier Improvement6060402051BClinic Process6060602056CAQS Standard Work/Documentation2060602046DCommunication40404036ESupplier(external)CTQ/KC Management40604044FAQS Faci
8、litation/Consulting6060602056GAQS/Ito University Tools Training4040406042HInternal(and Remote Site)CTQ/KC Management606039CORELLATION LEGEND 60=High 40=Medium 20=LowBlank=NoneAQS GROUP IMPACT-MATURITY MATRIXReduce Supplier PPM by 30%Reduce Customer Escapes by 30%Reduce Internal PPM by 30%Build Organ
9、izational StrengthCOST OF QUALITY PROJECT CONTRACT(Details for Q-STARS entry)Q-STARS NO.:Business Unit/Enterprise/Site Name:Air Management SystemsDate:6/12/02Client Requestor:Jack Strom,AMS Quality SupervisorProject Sponsor(May be Client Requestor):Dave Lewis,Operations Center ManagerProblem Stateme
10、nt:The Northrop F-18 Ejector is experiencing a 100%MRA rate and high level ofCustomer dissatisfaction due to fit-up problems on the aircraft.Activity Scope/Mission:Perform a comprehensive process and product variation study utilizing theDMAIC approach.Incorporate needed process improvements.Initiate
11、appropriate design changes based on follow-up Process Capability Study forimproved process.Goals&Expected Results:Reduce 100%MRA rate to zero.Achieve total Customer satisfaction.Prior History of Problem:Ejectors not fitting up properly at Northrop.Ejectors are built to an HS designby United Tool&Die
12、,of W.Hartford,CT.Lack of robustness in both UTD welding process and design ofproduct.Business MetricImpact:Customer escapes,SRR,MRA ticket generation,and Supplier PPM.(i.e.Cost Reduction,Customer Satisfaction,Schedule Jeopardy)Estimated Annual Savings:TBD Current estimate is between$80,000 and$150,
13、000 one-year savings via costavoidance.Client Team Leader:J.StromClient Functional Area Members Needed:Jack Strom(QE Supervisor),Chris Haddad(PE),Pete Teti(AQS),John Gaughan(AQS),Bob Kleza(Purchasing),Larry Tourigny(ME)(i.e.,Design Eng.,Buyer,Manufacturing Eng.)Central Quality/CQE Resource:Pete Teti
14、 and John Gaughan(AQS,IQA,SWQA,etc.)Estimated Expenses(Travel/Direct Charge)Estimated Project Timeline:Approximately 3 months;ECD:8/15/02Final Report Responsibility:Jack Strom and Pete Teti(TeamLeader/Functional Area Member)NOTE:DOCUMENT SAVINGS INTO UTC Q-STARS ON-LINE SYSTEMCONTRACT SIGNATURESClie
15、nt:_ Jack StromQuality Authority/Manager:_ Bob CleverdonTeamLeader:_ Peter E.TetiBusiness Manager_ Dave LewisQuality/CQE Resource:_Pete TetiEngineering Manager(If needed)_F/N=L:HSDATAQUALITOCOST-OF-QUALITY PROJECTSEmbraer ERJ 170-190 Key Characteristics Project.docExtra InspectionWarrantyEscapesScra
16、pReworkEngineering ChangesLong Cycle TimesExtra SetupsExpediting CostsLost SalesLate Delivery ChargesLost Customer LoyaltyExcess InventoryNon-Visible5-8%of SalesVisible2-3%of SalesRepairRecurringService BulletinsRecurringEngineering NoticesNon-Contractual WarrantySupplier QualityLost CredibilityHidd
17、en?Develop Team MandateCollect dataSPC,QCPC&MFASTEPSTEPTYPETYPETOTALTOTAL1 12 23 34 4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIITOTALTOTAL171715156 638388 815156 69 9 DATACOLLECTION SHEETCATEGORY1234567891011121314AVERAGE4.41 3.93 4.18 4.36 4.50 4.52 4.59 4.86 4.71 4.50 4.85
18、 4.07 4.66 4.65Supplier AQS/Process Certification Course Market Feedback-October 8-10,20020.001.002.003.004.005.006.001234567891011121314CATEGORYAVERAGE RATING OUT OF 5Page 14Hamilton Sundstrand Supplier Quality Assurance,July 2002Top ECS Escapes by SupplierJanuary-September,200239131111109877605101
19、5202530354045UNITED TOOLAND-ELMWOOD-17271P RESTOCASTING C-GLENDALE-18706OHIOALUMINUM IN-CLEVELAN-18688WALLINGFORDSP IN-WALLINGF-17370MITCHELLAEROSP A-STLAURE-44417HITCHCOCKINDUST-MINNEAP O-10817P ARAMOUNTMACHIN-MANCHEST-20481HORSTENGINEERIN-EHARTFO-10838CTLAEROSP ACE IN-CINCINNA-23073KULITESEMICONDU
20、-LEONIA-11042Supplier#of EscapesNorthrop F-18Ejector Study987654321Subgroup01000050000Sample MeanSept Aug July June May AprilMarchFeb Jan Month1Mean=3027UCL=6524LCL=-468.61000050000Sample StDev1S=2958UCL=5568LCL=348.1HS Supplier PPM by Month-2002 YTDDisplay Process Improvement Status Develop a visua
21、l method to display the overall ACE Process Improvement activity within the work group.Recommended format based on the DMAIC modelFor each activity,give status on progress within each of the 5 areas:Define,Measure,Analyze,Improve and Control.Project 1Project 2Project 3Project 4DefineMeasureAnalyzeIm
22、proveControlType PROJECT TITLE hereDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Type Date herePut a picture of the parthere(if applicable)DMAIC Project SummaryDefine,Measure,Analyze,Improve and ControlDefineImproveAnalyzeMeasureControlDefine key metric trying to improveDefine team playersDefine key proces
23、s steps(flowchart)Define key measures(i.e.,Key Characteristics)Describe the type of data that was collected at this step in the projectDescribe characteristics of the data collectionDescribe the measurement system used to collect the dataDescribe the analysis tools&techniques used by the team at thi
24、s point(RRCA,Fishbone analysis,etc.)Summarize the Teams conclusions(i.e.,capability too low,accuracy off location,yield too low,cycle time too high,etc.)Summarize the both process and product improvement ideas brainstormed at this step in the DMAIC processDescribe some of the improvement tools used
25、such as DOE,Waste Elimination,PFMEA,etc.Summarize the types of Mistake-Proofing controls used to control the variation over the long termDescribe any B/P changes,SPC Key Characteristics added,and Control Plans institutedDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Pr
26、oblemDescribe here briefly the project PROBLEMDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345ObjectiveDescribe here briefly the project OBJECTIVE.You may show the top level metric chart herethat your team is trying to improve.What is the Team attempting to accomplish?DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345P
27、roject MandateOn this page put a copy of the Team Mandate thatis supported by management.Examples areCQE Project Contract Sheets,Passport JobTickets,and Supplier Investigation forms.COST OF QUALITY PROJECT CONTRACT(Details for Q-STARS entry)Q-STARS NO.:Business Unit/Enterprise/Site Name:Air Manageme
28、nt SystemsDate:6/12/02Client Requestor:Jack Strom,AMS Quality SupervisorProject Sponsor(May be Client Requestor):Dave Lewis,Operations Center ManagerProblem Statement:The Northrop F-18 Ejector is experiencing a 100%MRA rate and high level ofCustomer dissatisfaction due to fit-up problems on the airc
29、raft.Activity Scope/Mission:Perform a comprehensive process and product variation study utilizing theDMAIC approach.Incorporate needed process improvements.Initiateappropriate design changes based on follow-up Process Capability Study forimproved process.Goals&Expected Results:Reduce 100%MRA rate to
30、 zero.Achieve total Customer satisfaction.Prior History of Problem:Ejectors not fitting up properly at Northrop.Ejectors are built to an HS designby United Tool&Die,of W.Hartford,CT.Lack of robustness in both UTD welding process and design ofproduct.Business MetricImpact:Customer escapes,SRR,MRA tic
31、ket generation,and Supplier PPM.(i.e.Cost Reduction,Customer Satisfaction,Schedule Jeopardy)Estimated Annual Savings:TBD Current estimate is between$80,000 and$150,000 one-year savings via costavoidance.Client Team Leader:J.StromClient Functional Area Members Needed:Jack Strom(QE Supervisor),Chris H
32、addad(PE),Pete Teti(AQS),John Gaughan(AQS),Bob Kleza(Purchasing),Larry Tourigny(ME)(i.e.,Design Eng.,Buyer,Manufacturing Eng.)Central Quality/CQE Resource:Pete Teti and John Gaughan(AQS,IQA,SWQA,etc.)Estimated Expenses(Travel/Direct Charge)Estimated Project Timeline:Approximately 3 months;ECD:8/15/0
33、2Final Report Responsibility:Jack Strom and Pete Teti(TeamLeader/Functional Area Member)NOTE:DOCUMENT SAVINGS INTO UTC Q-STARS ON-LINE SYSTEMCONTRACT SIGNATURESClient:_ Jack StromQuality Authority/Manager:_ Bob CleverdonTeamLeader:_ Peter E.TetiBusiness Manager_ Dave LewisQuality/CQE Resource:_Pete
34、TetiEngineering Manager(If needed)_F/N=L:HSDATAQUALITOCOST-OF-QUALITY PROJECTSEmbraer ERJ 170-190 Key Characteristics Project.docExtra InspectionWarrantyEscapesScrapReworkEngineering ChangesLong Cycle TimesExtra SetupsExpediting CostsLost SalesLate Delivery ChargesLost Customer LoyaltyExcess Invento
35、ryNon-Visible5-8%of SalesVisible2-3%of SalesRepairRecurringService BulletinsRecurringEngineering NoticesNon-Contractual WarrantySupplier QualityLost CredibilityHidden?REQUEST FOR SUPPLIER CORRECTIVE ACTIONCORRECTIVE ACTION#:Please Check One:SUPPLIER NOTIFICATION _ SUPPLIER INVESTIGATION _MATERIAL RE
36、JECT NO.:PART NO.:816731-1INITIATION DATE:10/18/02SUPPLIER NAME:ParamountPHONE:FAX:SUPPLIER CONTACT:SUPPLIER E-MAIL ADDRESS:SUPPLIER CODE#:20481LOT DATE CODE:S/N:INITIATOR NAME&TEL#:David Avery 860-654-3738HS RESPONIBILITY FOR C/AAPPROVAL:Name&Tel#:Name&Tel#:Name&Tel#:Specification:(if applicable)Re
37、f drawing HS 816731.bottom view shows hole into filter cavity.Currently the hole is pluggedsomewhere between the filter and the exiting hole.Suspect cavity is filled with braze.Problem Description:F18 valves are failing performance testing.Filter pluggedNotes:All hardware will be screened on the ass
38、embly floor.paramount is to screen all hardware in house for this problem.Insert pictures&description of nonconformity below line.=Passage between filterand vent/sensing hole isplugged.Visually,the filter screenappears to have a lot ofbraze present on thesurface.DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL123
39、45Part Function Describe here briefly the FUNCTION of the part if applicable using a bullet chart.Also include a picture of the unit.DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Team Quality Engineers name Manufacturing Engineers name Design Engineers name Purchasing Buyers name Supplier Contacts name Cus
40、tomer Contacts name etc.List below the names of the TEAM members and their corresponding functions:DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345MEASUREShow a picture of the part feature that you are measuring.Describe the measurement system employed to gather the data.Show examples of the data gathered fr
41、om the process you are trying to improve.Show an example of the data collection sheet filled in or an Excel spreadsheet of the data.ANALYZEDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345List on this page charts of the measurements such as the following:Histograms(include Cp,Cpk,Pp,Ppk for variable data)Run
42、or Control Charts to see trends and patternsPareto Diagrams that illustrate top turnbacks and/or defects to go afterStatistical tests for accuracy or precision parametersetc.40030020010000.0750.0500.0250.000Individual and MR ChartObser.Individual ValueMean=0.03499UCL=0.05691LCL=0.013060.0450.0300.01
43、50.000Mov.RangeR=0.008244UCL=0.02694LCL=0380370360Last 25 Observations0.0750.0500.0250.000Observation NumberValues0.070.02Capability PlotProcess ToleranceIIIIIIIISpecificationsWithinOverall0.080.040.00Normal Prob Plot0.080.040.00Capability HistogramWithinStDev:Cp:Cpk:0.00730891.140.68OverallStDev:Pp
44、:Ppk:0.01091950.760.46Process Capability Sixpack for.045+/-.020 Dimension-16 PlacesMinitab Analysis ExampleIMPROVEList bullets of each improvement idea being explored by the teamList bullets of each improvement idea completed by the teamList bullets of improvement ideas currently in the process of b
45、eing implemented with a statusShow illustrations of the tools used to drive improvement.For example:Fishbone Diagram analysisDesign of ExperimentsProcess Failure Mode Effects Analysisetc.DEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345CONTROLDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Describe the Mistake-Proofin
46、g devices implemented into the process designed to control the variation,such as:LEVEL I:Physical devices designed into the process that prevent an error from happening at the source.LEVEL II:Warning devices such as Control Charts for SPC Key Characteristics identified for a particular process step,
47、buzzers,alarms,etc.,that depend on a human reaction for mistake-proofing effectiveness.LEVEL III:Methods implemented that detect a nonconformance prior to shipping it to the Customer.Lost Cost Savings-The Final ResultDEFINEMEASUREANALYZEIMPROVECONTROL12345Cost AvoidanceScrap dollars prevented in the futureWarranty costs avoided into the futureEtc.Customer Satisfaction
