Lean Six Sigma project phase three.

1. Lean Six Sigma Improving FTX/STX2 Tank Draw Quality SFC Henry, Don H. II Project Initiation Date: 31/03/08 Analyze Tollgate Date: 03/07/08

7. Critical X’s: Cause and Effect Matrix Cause and Effect Matrix Key Process Output Variables Customer Importance 10 9 2 6 8 Customer Rank 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Process Step KPIV accurate tank list 5988-E QA/QC DA Form 2062 Dispatch Rank Rating Total Process Steps & Key Process Input Variables 1 T-1 RATSS 1 9 9 9 1 2 7.533 171 2 PMCS Technical Manual 9 1 1 9 9 1 10 227 3 QA/QC UMA inspector 9 1 1 3 3 3 6.3 143 4 tank sign over DA 2062 9 1 1 1 3 4 5.771 131 5 tank dispatch 5987-E 9 1 1 1 1 5 5.066 115 ### #####

8. Potential Root Causes: C & E Diagram Effect: The tank draw takes too long. Man Machine Material Method Spread thinly across multiple tasks Shortage of UMA maintenance personnel Deadlines, AOAP, Service Schedule, affect # of tanks available Tanks already in use by other units/missions BII draw uses excessive people and excess time RATTS request is not referenced by UMA to assign accurate bumper number list Tanks are PMCS’d Tanks are QA/QC’d Tanks are dispatched Excessive delays from lack of UMA personnel 5988-E not updated by UMA

9. Potential Root Causes: FMEA Process Step / Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEVERITY Potential Causes OCCURRENCE Current Controls DETECTION RPN What is the process step and Input under investiga-tion? In what ways does the Key Input go wrong? What is the impact on the Key Output Variables (Customer Requirements)? What causes the Key Input to go wrong? What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent either the cause or the Failure Mode? T-1 bumper number list not accurate excessive delays 7 lack of organization 7 none 7 343 PMCS not updated rework 7 lack of personnel 6 Army Policy 5 210 QA/QC not timely rework 4 lack of maintenance 4 EXSOP/Army policy 4 64 tank sign over already issued rework 7 lack of organization 2 Army Policy/EXSOP 2 28 tank dispatch does not go wrong no problems 1 no problems 1 EXSOP 5 5

10. Reducing List of Root Causes: Pareto Analysis Track able causes contained over 90% of the Defects. Our project will focus on tracking vehicle maintenance status.

11. Root Cause Analysis: Non-Value Add Analysis QAQC Maintenance leader Dispatch Soldier Issues bumper number list to soldier Maintenance leader checks 5988-E and verifies faults/makes repairs if needed Hand receipt Vehicle signed over to soldier Avg. Delay 2 hours Avg.Delay 15 min Avg. Delay 90 min Soldier conducts PMCS and completes 5988-E, turns it in to maintenance leader Passes QAQC Receives signed QAQC sheet Vehicle dispatched to soldier YES NO NVA time is in dark blue Total delay time is 3.75 hours Retrieves info from RATSS system Notify UMA of the # of tanks needed

12. Root Cause Analysis: Histogram The outlier was a vehicle issued that was actually NMC and required 90 minutes to repair. The vehicle that required 60 minutes was actually dispatched to another unit. Two of the five that required 45 minutes of work were deadline with a third needing a QAQC from UMA 5.25 hours were spent doing rework that is non value added

16. Tukey’s Pairwise Comparison One-way ANOVA: TIME versus DEFECT Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of DEFECT Individual confidence level = 98.87% DEFECT = D subtracted from: DEFECT Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+---------+- I -61.47 -3.75 53.97 (----------*-----------) N -66.23 -36.96 -7.70 (-----*----) Q -76.47 -18.75 38.97 (----------*-----------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- -50 0 50 100 DEFECT = I subtracted from: DEFECT Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+---------+- N -86.65 -33.21 20.22 (---------*----------) Q -88.01 -15.00 58.01 (--------------*--------------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- -50 0 50 100 DEFECT = N subtracted from: DEFECT Lower Center Upper --------+---------+---------+---------+- Q -35.22 18.21 71.65 (----------*---------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- -50 0 50 100 Statistically significant factors are in RED legend I= issued already N= no defects Q= need QAQC D=deadlined Deadlined tanks are statistically significantly different in terms of time and defects Tanks with no defects are statistically significantly different in terms of time and defects

21. Impact of Root Causes on Y

22. Prioritized Root Causes 1 In team’s Control = 9; In team’s sphere of influence = 3; Out of team’s control = 1 2 High impact = 9; Medium impact = 3; Low impact = 1 Effect (Y) Root Cause (X) Hypothesis for Relationship In/Out of Team’s Control 1 Impact 2 Score (Control x Impact) Priority of Effort rework In-accurate bumper numbers Accurate bumper numbers will increase throughput 3 9 27 2 Poor tank maintenance PMCS not completed correctly Correctly performed PMCS will improve tank draw quality 9 9 81 1 Poor tank maintenance 5988-E’s are not regularly updated Regularly update 5988-E’s will improve tank draw quality 3 9 27 3 rework Tanks are issued that are not ready for issue Rework will be reduced if the tanks are ready for issue at the time they are to be issued to units 3 3 9 4

27. Analyze Storyboard Define Project Charter T-6 IPR T2T RATSS T-5 T2T T-4 T2T T-3 T2T T-2 IPR vehicle Bumper #s Given to unit T-1 Tank draw, HETT, 5988-E update Measure BII draw measured Tank draw measured 5988-E updates measured RIE Baselines collected Critical X’s Identified Potential Root Causes Identified Root Causes Prioritized Analyze Problem: Poor tank quality at issue Goal: Improve tank quality at issue, Reduce rework, improve fault tracking Non-quantifiable Benefits Morale, tank maintenance, fault tracking