industrial technologists’ toolkit for technical management ...€¦ · compilers, using all...

Industrial Technologists’ Toolkit For Technical Management (ITTTM) Courseware Applications, Project Portfolio Template

Cultural Tools (7-12), Regular Critique Assessment’s and Standard Dedicated Audit’s

Regular critique assessments (RCA) and standard dedicated assessments (SDA) are part of ITTTM courseware systems. After reading assigned ITTTM long and short forms, team members do independent research based on RCA’s and SDA’s, posting their RCA/SDA work forms at threads in e-classroom discussion boards. All also are compilers, using all researcher postings, collectively presenting a final portfolio for each tool and at the end of the course. There are three RCA’s repeated/evolved for each tool critique, presented ahead of SDA’s, in the portfolio, as follows:

• Project Portfolio Assessment, Research Methodology, Plan (PPARMP); • Review Of Literature, Documentation Assessment (ROLDA); and, • Portfolio Presentation Management Team Assessment (PPMTA).

This template should be filled in for each assignment, in the order as presented, completed based on individual/team work following instructions in the forms (note, again, all persons on team do work independently for each form, and then all compile one portfolio of forms). Each tool portfolio uses all SDA’s compiled to reflect total team research enhanced over time to address course outcomes, and to do project deliverables for each objective. As each tool portfolio is done, phase work is a “rollover” of work already done in tool portfolios, but enhanced and better focused on project and course objectives and outcomes. This is further explained in Gantt charts below, each separate form steps, documentation in ITTTM courseware, and student project examples at www.bgsu.edu/colleges/technology/qs ).

PROJECT PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, PLAN (PPARMP) RCA

General Use/Application (done by Team Leadership—note that team leaders rotate continuously just like all other team functions): Part 1 A, B, C, D. Team leaders assign independent and grand form team members RCA and SDA compilation responsibilities, due dates. Part 2 A, B, C, D. Continuously evolve “Project” information, and diagrams, to help explain and connect all aspects of team work. Part 3. FACR—RCA is updated and addressed with each tool/phase based on FACR’s done at specific SDA’s. Part 4. General methodological reflection, based on total completed portfolio, and input from all, to assist all in improving. PART 1. Team leaders prepare threads in discussion board work areas for this tool, where all work can be posted as assigned. All persons on the team should be shown on a line below, given an assignment, corresponding to work posts in discussion board threads. Phase: Tool: Date: Compiler (s), Team Leader: Team:

Researcher 1A. Assigned Forms Due, First Half Posting Cycle

1B. Researcher Independent Work Reviewed By

1C. Grand Form Compiled, Second Half Posting Cycle

1D. Final Compiled Work Reviewed By

Example Joe Smith

ROLDA John Doe 10/8/03 James Hale

PART 2. This section should be expanded and evolved to address and develop parts 2 A, B, C, and D over time to become several pages in length and assist non-team participants (as well as team participants) in understanding the project focus and context. 2 A. Project Background: (ex, number/type persons in systems, recent changes, historical of systems/processes, product information, etc.) 2 B. Project Problem Statement: (ex. how are systems organized and managed to obtain the full benefit of collaborative communication.) 2 C. Project Objectives: (three to maximum six, perhaps provided by customer/consultation with others, continuously refined). 2 D. Project Research Methodology: (how data is gathered, analyzed with SDA’s/RCA’s. Teams do a modified Gantt chart like those below). Part 2 includes three diagrams as follow, all designed to graphically help describe how the project is being done, also continuously evolved.

Part 2 Diagram 1: Project Organizational Chart For Team (illustrate how team is organized to do work)

Part 2 Diagram 2: Facility Layout Of Process/System (illustrate the work area used to complete the project)

Project Team Leadership

Team member Team member Team member

Workers 1, 2, 3 Placed here

Workers 4, 5, 6 Placed here

Work center 2, metal

processing

Work center 3, packaging,

processing

Work center 1, general processing

Part 2 Diagram 3: Flow Chart Of Process (how product or service is produced as part of facility layout) Part 3 A, B, C, and D. Findings, Analysis, Conclusions, Recommendations (FACR-PMP) RCA. As each SDA is used and a FACR done for each, the general results and findings from all persons on the team are brought together as general project findings, analyses, conclusions and recommendations for future planning and work. All work should be organized around objectives in project. Researcher 3A. Project objective

(s) written…… 3B. Findings, analyses observed as data, documentation in SDA……

3C. Conclusions, recommendations in methods, course outcomes……

3D. ROLDA, PPMTA, PPARMP relationships?

Researcher Contribution

Collect From All, Compile

Part 4 A, B, C. General Methodological Reflection. Based on the tool and phase portfolio methodologies shown in Gantt chart forms below, all other input from all, what PPARMP issues, and opportunities are we seeing, and how can we best address these to improve and move forward (Note that places for these responses are provided after Gantt charts)? Part 4 A, Tool/SDA Project Methodology, Rollout: Tool/SDA methodology is a planned completion of tools and SDA’s in course and project with each tool and phase portfolio. Relationships to FACR, and tool/phase methodologies are updated with each portfolio, coinciding with rollout of work shown in course syllabus. Final phase II portfolio presentation has 18 tools completed, minimum. SDA 1 and 2 are enhanced ongoing throughout course; SDA 3, 4 and 5 are done as shown below; and other SDA’s may be modified per team methodology (ex: up to two SDA’s used in 3, 4, 5 can be repeated and “grown” and other SDA’s may be used from a different set of tools within the total 42 ITTTM). Are any changes recommended for the rollout at this time, and if yes, what is the basis for the proposed changes?

Tool SDA 1 SDA 2 SDA 3 SDA 4 SDA 5 Other (s) 7 OPCP PASPC ISOQSAOPP CSCVCBR DSDC 8 OPCP PASPC APEIAR TDCAIA OATCAF 9 OPCP PASPC GISPDCS SOGA GCA 10 OPCP PASPC PTTDRA QFD/ISOQSAOPP GCA cont 11 OPCP PASPC FMEA CPCATCP GSICPC or SPSACA 12 OPCP PASPC FMEA cont GBPAS TTDERA/ISOQSAOPP

Part 4 B, Tool Portfolio Methodology Rollout. Tool portfolio completion in two week posting cycle combines tasks, who should do, and when to complete in relation to all other work. Three tool portfolios are done before phase I and three after, all leading to final phase II compilation (both phases result in a “grand” accumulative portfolio, explained in the next chart). Posting cycle includes all days, and can be done ahead of time. *Astericked tasks are first done by team leader or assistant team leader on a rotating basis, and all coincide with rollout of work in syllabus.

Timeline in Days/Weeks/Months (denoted by color) Task/Action/Step

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1 0

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Faculty prepares tool discussion board area

X

Team leadership prepares PPARMP, assigns work*

X

Team leadership prepares threads in work area*

X

SDA’s researched by all, all do all SDA’s

X X X

SDA’s independently posted at threads by all

X X X X

Non-required team chat about work in motion

X X X

SDA’s compiled by team members per PPARMP

X X X X X X

RCA’s independently posted at threads by all

X X X X X X

RCA’s compiled by team members per PPARMP

X X X X X X

Tool portfolio assembled by team leadership*

X X

Tool portfolio reviewed by all on team

X X

Tool portfolio posted by team leadership*

X

Faculty assessment, post in new discussion board

X X

Required team chat about POAM, next tool

X X

Part 4 C, Phase Portfolio Methodology, Rollout.. Phase portfolio completion at mid term and final are completed with all other elements of

Use text to explain symbols…

Text boxes, Auto shapes in MS Word

course. Three tool portfolios are done before phase I, three after, all leading into final phase II compilation (phases result in a “grand” accumulative portfolio). *Startup at outset of course leads into first tool, and all tasks coincide with rollout of work as shown in course syllabus.

Timeline in Days/Weeks/Months (denoted by color) Task/Action/Step

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1 0

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

*Team prepares startup portfolio, start of course

X X

Team completes first tool portfolio

X X

Faculty assesses portfolio per POAM, requires chat

X

Team completes second tool portfolio

X X


X

Team completes third tool portfolio

X X


X

Team enhances all tools, compiled as grand forms

X X

Phase portfolio reviewed by all on team

X

Faculty assesses phase portfolio, POAM chat

X

Part 4 D. Reflections on Methodology, Plan. Based on completion of work and updates in PPARMP, what are all on the team seeing that may be modified methodologically to improve the deliverables in the project. Researcher 1. Project focus as noted in abstract, problem statement,

objectives, methodology, diagrams, FACR’s, others: 2. Assessment Question and reflective thoughts, Pros and Cons, for use in chats and in other ways, to improve:



Compiler Portfolio Reflections, Summary Of Technical Work, Assessment, Based On Individual Researcher Inputs:

Compiler Reflections To Help Improve Quality Of Work In Portfolio Based On All Individual Researcher Inputs:

Review Of Literature, Documentation Assessment (ROLDA) RCA

General Use/Application (top part): Read tool long and short forms from ITTTM and provide general tool bibliographic information and 300-500 word abstract of the tool in appropriate areas below NOTE: all must do this individually, one on team compiles all work posted). 1. Response 1A, give the main technological concept of the tool. 2. Response 2A, explain how the tool added value to the team project. 3. Response 3A, form a question pertaining to the tool for chat discussion.

General Use/Application (bottom part): Identify an article/source related to the tool, and summarize in 300-500 words (abstract). 4. Response 1B, give the bibliographic source, being careful to cite all details correctly. 5. Response 2B, explain how this article added value to the team project. 6. Response 3B, SDA connection to the article—usually one or two, minimum. Phase: Tool: Date: Researcher: Compiler (s): Team: Information Source (Tool reviewed for this toolkit completion) In Bibliographic Form:

Abstract And Synthesis Of Key Information (usually approximately 300-500 words) completed by compiler (s) based on submissions by all on team as well as their own review of the tool content: Researcher 1A. Main Technological Concept: 2A. Relationship, Value Added, To

Project/Technology: 3A. Assessment Question, Pros And Cons, For Chat:





Article Abstract Of Key Information (usually approximately 300-500 words—each tool submission requires one for each team member) :

Researcher 1B. Bibliographic Source: Author; How To Access; How/Who, Published; Type Source, etc.:

2B. Why Is This Source Relevant; How Does It Add Value (Reflections By Researcher)?

3B. SDA’s Connected:





Portfolio Presentation Management Team Assessment (PPMTA) RCA

General Use/Application (NOTE, all do this independently, and one on team compiles all posted inputs to reflect team collective views): Part 1 A, B, C. Analyze/review SDA/RCA compilations at discussion board threads, open agenda items, actions needed. Part 2 A, B. Based on all work, do Excel numerical ratings for individuals on your team and other teams based on portfolio submissions. General Note: Excel tables are activated by double clicking at table, when using a machine with excel installed. Phase: Tool: Date: Researcher (s): Compiler (s): Team:

Researcher/ Compiler

1A. Technical Project Open Agenda Items, How done, Content Specific?

1B. Presentation Improvement Actions, Management/Organization, Process?

1C. Ongoing Listing, How Issues Were Resolved, Adding Value In PPARMP.

Observ-ation

Collect All, Compile



2A. Analyze/review portfolio management contributions and reflect all in numerical ratings below for persons on your team.

2B. Compare and benchmark work of all teams, numerically below, how all is managed and organized relative to Gantt charts above, to what must be accomplished in PPARMP, and overall outcomes desired in course.

Int ernal Team

A ssessment

General Commun-

icat ion

Threaded Commun- icat ions

Chat Part-icipat ion (non/req.)

SDA/RCA Contribu-

t ions

Writ ing Quality In General

Analysis , Ref lect ion In Writ ing

Format Compliance

+ Details

Data Analysis, Accuracy

Did M ore/Less Than Asked

General Timeliness,

Delivery

Coopera- t ion And Att itude

Leadership, Prof.

Demeanor

Grand Total Per Individual

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low /bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contributionM EM BERTeam 1+ 1 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 2 5.08333up to 12 1 5 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7.25

1 10 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 1 8 8 6.51 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6.756 2 6 6 10 10 3 6 6 6 6 6 6.08333

10 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 8 10 8.583334 10 4 4 4 4 1 4 0 4 4 4 3.916674 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3.754 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3.916674 9 4 4 5 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4.166674 7 4 4 1 4 4 10 0 10 10 4 5.166674 9 4 4 4 4 4 10 0 10 10 4 5.58333

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE 5.5625

Ext ernal Team

A ssessment

General Commun-

icat ion

Threaded Commun- icat ions

Chat Part-icipat ion (non/req.)

SDA/RCA Contribu-

t ions

Writ ing Quality In General

Analysis , Ref lect ion In Writ ing

Format Compliance

+ Details

Data Analysis, Accuracy

Did M ore/Less Than Asked

General Timeliness,

Delivery

Coopera- t ion And Att itude

Leadership, Prof .

Demeanor

Grand Total Per Individual

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low /bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contributionTeam NameTeam 1 1 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 2 5.08333Team 2 1 5 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7.25Team 3 1 5 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 1 8 8 6.08333Team 4 1 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6.75Team 5 6 2 6 8 10 10 3 6 6 6 6 6 6.25

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE 6.28333

Continuous Documentation Tools (7-12) SDA-Ongoing Process Control Plan (OPCP)

The continuous SDA is developed over the entire course based on what is learned throughout the course. A separate discussion board work area will be set up where applied research can be conducted, systematically, on the continuous SDA’s. Note that it is assigned in the SDA tool/SDA project methodology table provided earlier, and should be assigned to various persons on the team routinely for continuous improvement. At phase review, this SDA should be highlighted and explained based on progress made toward “best practices” and accomplishment of outcomes of the course as reflected in the POAM from the course syllabus. General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issue, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR), completed by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Compiler (s): Researcher (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Part Name: Process Location: OPCP Form Of

Supplier:

Revision:

Other Pertinent General Information:

Process Description. Provide a written description of process in text format and a process flow chart depicting the same: Tools For Manufacture/Production. Describe equipment required to produce the product, consistent with the flow chart above: Process Parameters. Describe unique elements involved in processing the product which require additional explanation: Product Characteristics. Describe all characteristics of the product, primarily as attributes or variables which are critical: Class. Describe any codes or other unique identifiers per the specific industry or organization to help further distinguish the product: Product/Process Specification. Provide specific measurable definitions for each product characteristic identified above: Evaluation Method. Describe how specifications of characteristics are evaluated, what the measurement systems are: Sample Size, Frequency of Inspection. Describe the sample, how it is derived, including devices used to inspect in a step by step manner: Analysis Methods. Describe the methods and systems used to analyze the sampled data, such as statistical, experimental, and so on: Reaction Program. Describe steps to be taken when product or process is found to be functioning inappropriately: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective

(s) written…… 2. Findings, analyses observed as data, documentation in SDA……

3. Conclusions, recommendations in methods, course outcomes……

4. PPARMP, ROLDA, PPMTA relationships?





Continuous Service Tools (7-12) SDA-P Attribute Statistical Process Control (PASPC) The continuous SDA is developed over the entire course based on what is learned throughout the course. A separate discussion board work area will be set up where applied research can be conducted, systematically, on the continuous SDA’s. Note that it is assigned in the SDA tool/SDA project methodology table provided earlier, and should be assigned to various persons on the team routinely for continuous improvement. At phase review, this SDA should be highlighted and explained based on progress made toward “best practices” and accomplishment of outcomes of the course as reflected in the POAM from the course syllabus. General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issue, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR), completed by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Researcher (s): Compiler (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Supplier: Customer: Product or process:

Inspection/data gathering description: Operation: Part: Part characteristic being analyzed:

Date Time Sample n # def (np) P = np/n Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

UCL = P bar = .

Calculate Sample n = All n Summed, Σn = Calculate Number Defective (np) As All Defectives Summed, Σnp = Calculate P bar = np/n Summed/ Number Of Samples, P bar =

Calculate UCL And LCL = P bar ± 3√ P bar (1-P bar)/n UCL And LCL = (______) ± 3√ (_____) (______)/(_______) UCL = (_______) + 3 (_______) = (_________) LCL = (_______) – 3 (_______) = (_________)

SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








SDA-P Attribute Statistical Process Control (PASPC) EXAMPLE Part: Example Operator: Example Characteristic: Example Operation: Example

Inspection, Data Gathering Description (Attach Pertinent Information):

Date Time Sample n 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # def (np) 10 7 6 5 9 8 8 11 12 7 P = np/n .167 .117 .100 .084 .150 .134 .134 .183 .200 .117 Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

.280

.260

.240

.220

.200

.180

.160

.140

.120

.100

.080

.060

.040

.020

UCL = 271 P bar = .138 LCL = .005 .000 Calculate Sample n = All n Summed, Σn = 600 Calculate Number Defective (np) As All Defectives Summed, Σnp = 83 Calculate P bar = np/n Summed/ Number Of Samples, P bar = .138

Calculate UCL And LCL = P bar ± 3√ P bar (1-P bar)/n UCL And LCL = .138 ± 3√ .138 (.862)/60 UCL = .138 + 3 (.0445) =.271 LCL = .138 – 3 (.0445) = .005

Tool 7 SDA-ISO/QS Audit, Objective Prioritization Plan (ISOQSAOPP) General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Researcher: Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Organization Under Discussion: Current Operation: Location: General Description Of Operations/Production Functions/Systems Being Assessed As An Internal Audit:

ISO/QS Element (TS 16949 2002—Other Standard)

Organization Area/Function Technical Description

Actual Audit Findings/ Preliminary Information

Actions Required, Recommendations For Change

(list each element as a separate category for analysis/audit)

(describe the technical function being audited)

(explain how the area/function compares to the standard)

(explain anticipated necessary actions, changes required) Criticality Level: HML Where H = 5; M = 3; L = 1

Planning Statement Or Issue, Particularly As Associated With The Service Environment:

Fac = Facility issues; Cost = Cost issues Time = Time issues Pers = Personnel issues

Criticality HML Objectives Prioritized, 5 Being Highest: Fac Cost Time Pers

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Problem Background: Resources? (Budget/Other Concerns)?

Task/Deliverable/Objective: Who Will Do? How Measured?

Gantt Chart Showing Time/Task/Deliverable (Goal/Step/Objective) Relationships (Indicate Weeks/Days/Months: X = ) Task/Deliverable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1. 2. SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 7 SDA-Cultural System Core Values, Change Behavior, Relationship (CSCVCBR) General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Researcher Technological Defining Element/Core

Value, Observed, Explained: Technological Change Issues, Actions, Behaviors Assessed:

Core Value Innovation Relationship, Opportunity To Improve:

1. 1. 1. 1.

Identify and explain possible opportunities to use data and documentation, systemically, to facilitate assessment and innovation opportunities in technological systems for positive change: Identify and explain possible opportunities to tie the quality system and information system together systemically, in an organization, to facilitate assessment and innovation opportunities in technological systems for positive change: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 7 SDA-Documentation System Design, Communication (DSDC)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Researcher Communication Method, Internal And

External Customers: Toolkit/Blackboard Design Element, How Does It Work?

How To Improve Professional Relationships, Communication?

1. 1.

1. 1.

Identify How The Systems’ Design You Are Advocating Can Assist In Tying Together PPDPOA, TPMSS, FACR, TRIRPA And Other Elements Of Team Problem Solving And Improvement: Explain ISO/QS Characteristics And Other Necessary Entities To Be Possessed By Documentation And Communication Systems, Categorically, Particularly Focused On Assessment And Innovation Functions: Using The Template At The End Of The Applications Complete A Cause And Effect Diagram Indicating Issues And Opportunities For Systemic Documentation Relationships/Improvements, Particularly Focused On Assessment And Innovation Functions: Identify And Explain Why Your Organization Is Well Suited To The Documentation And Communication System Being Developed, Particularly Focused On Assessment And Innovation Functions: Identify And Explain How The Communication And Documentation System Will Add Value To Basic Functions Like Organizing And Running Online Team Meetings, Knowing What To Include In The Agenda, Doing Announcements, And So On: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress.

Researcher 1. Project objective (s) written……

2. Findings, analyses observed as data, documentation in SDA……







Tool 8 SDA-Technological Driver, Change Assessment, Innovation Analysis (TDCAIA)


Researcher Technological Driver,

Why, How Significant Chronologically:

Current Change Status, Historical Lineage,

Assessed?

Traditions, Values Under Pressure,

Chronological Impacts:

Intervention, Innovative Action, Other

Issues As Effects: 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

Based On The Current Assessment, What Can Be Learned, And How Can We Add Value To The Broader Technological Systems For Future Assessment And Innovation Opportunities (What Might We Do Differently Next Time)? Using The Template At The End Of The Applications Complete A Cause And Effect Diagram Indicating Issues And Opportunities For Systemic Historical Relationships/Improvements, Particularly Focused On Assessment And Innovation Functions: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 8 SDA-Applications/Process Engineering, Innovation, Applied Research (APEIAR)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Researcher (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Technological Process, Application, Systems Or Function Being Audited, Description (Attach Appropriate Documentation To Help Define): Technology Systems Required For Doing The Work (Address Categories Below For Each Application/Process Engineering Issue):

Application/Process Engineering: 1.

Design Changes Described: 1.

Materials And Process Issues: 1.

Data, Documentation Support: 1.

Key Energy Sources Consumed By The Technology Being Audited (Address Categories Below For Each Application/Process Engineering Issue): Application/Process Engineering: 1.




Resources Used To Maintain, “Run”, The Technology, Once Produced (Address Categories Below For Application/Process Engineering): Application/Process Engineering: 1.




Resources And Environmental Impact, General Statement (Address The Categories Below For Application/Process Engineering): Application/Process Engineering: 1.




Explain The Technologists’ Responsibility, Other Ethical Issues (Address The Categories Below For Application/Process Engineering): Application/Process Engineering: 1.




Assess Recommended Changes To Make The Technology More Efficient (Address The Categories Below For Application/Process Engineering): Application/Process Engineering: 1.




Address Each Of The Following Areas Of Thought And Action Based On The Above Audit Information And Findings. Applied Research Opportunities Innovation Issues Infrastructural Change Change, Management Plan

1.

1. 1. 1.

Training Methods: 1.

Team Relationships And Opportunities: 1.

Measureables: 1.

Explain A Possible Standard Procedure (SOP) For Training To Implement Change, Address Innovation, Applied Research:

Explain How Applied Research And Innovation Systems Relate To Technological Leadership And Management Issues:









Tool 8 SDA-Open Agenda Tracking, Corrective Action Form (OATCAF)


General Problem Requiring Improvement, Detailed Description:

Operation: Location:

Open Agenda Topic/Issue/Activity When Started/Done? Follow Up Details/Actions?

1. 1. 1.

Concern/Complaint/Problem Title:

General Background Information On Issue Or Problem Requiring Improvement:

Identified Defect Or Problem Requiring Improvement, Detailed Description:

Root Causes/Definition (Attach A Cause And Effect Diagram):

Immediate Interim Action/Effective Date, Containment:

Permanent Action, Effective Date And Verification (describe improvements made in components, assemblies, SOP’s, processes and locations, inspection procedures, or other permanent changes: Control For Prevention:

Other pertinent information/source and general description of concern. Attach or refer to appropriate information, and explain how to access: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 9 SDA-General Cost Analysis (GCA)


Operation/Part: Process Location:

General Use/Application: 1. Study examples and general information below, after reviewing content and discussions in long and short forms. 2. Identify all necessary costs associated with product as part/unit costs. 3. Calculate the Break Even Point (BEP) and Profit or Loss (P or L) based upon team’s project. 4. Calculate Payback (PB) In Percent based upon team project figures. 5. Perform a Value Analysis on product, process or related functions.

Part/ Unit Costs

Materials/ Components

Operation Or Function

Specifications/ Related Information

Sub- Unit Cost

Total Unit Cost

Dir. Cost

Ind. Cost

Other Costs

Total Part Costs

Column Grand Totals

Cost Descriptions: Break Even Point (BEP): where income equals expense. BEP = FC/(SIU – VCU) Fixed Costs (FC): Taxes, Interest, Utilities. Variable Costs Per Unit (VCU): Material And Labor (also called direct). Sales Income Per Unit (SIU), revenue generated. Indirect Costs, Support Services Such As Sales, Engineering, Quality.

(Profit) +(Cost Of Production, Sales Cost) Payback (PB) In Percent CI/ITC = PB Cash Inflow (CI), Labor savings +Scrap, reject savings (others) Initial Total Cost (ITC) Cost of system (shipping, setup, training, etc.) Sub Unit Cost, Various Parts Or Costs. Total Unit Cost, Multiple Sub Units Can Be Summed As A System.

Example Break Even Point (BEP) based upon: BEP = FC/(SIU – VCU) FC = $100.00 VCU = $.50 Per Unit SIU = $1.00 Per Unit BEP = 100.00/ (1.00 - .50) = 100/(50) = 200 Or $200.00

Example profit or loss (P or L) based upon: P or L = I – (FC + VC). I = $200.00 FC = $100.00 VC = $100.00 P or L = 200.00 – (100.00 + 100.00) = 200.00 – (200.00) = 0

Calculate BEP based upon team’s project. BEP = FC/(SIU – VCU) FC = VCU = SIU = BEP = FC/(SIU – VCU)

Calculate profit or loss (P or L) based upon team’s project. P or L = I – (FC + VC) I = FC = VC = P or L = I – (FC + VC)

Technical Description Of Proposed Improvement: This typically will include general information about where the improvement is located in production, how it works, and anticipated general enhancements to be noted. Specific cash inflow generated by upgrade is listed also, such as:

• Quality defects will be reduced by 20% = $1/unit inflow • Production rate will be increased by 10% = $.10/unit inflow • Safety improvement reduces lost time accidents by 50% = $.20/unit inflow • Work stoppage reductions will enhance throughput by 50% = $.50/unit inflow • WIP reductions at workplace will be enhanced = $.40/unit inflow

Total cash inflow = $2.20/unit Example Payback (PB) Calculation: CI/ITC = PB CI = $700.00 ITC = $1050.00 PB = $700.00/$1050.00= 61% (annually)

Calculate Payback (PB) for project: CI/ITC = PB CI = ITC = PB =

Perform Value Analysis Based On The Following Notes. Note 1: Value Rating (VR) Is Low Value = 1; High Value = 10. Note 2: Part Cost (PC) Is The Actual Production Cost. Note 3. % Of Total Cost (TC%) Is An Estimated % Based On Best Information Available. Note 4. Value Added Weight (VAW) Is Calculated Based On (VR) (PC) (TC%) Multiplied To Provide A Value Which Can Be Compared To Other Parts Of Product. Current Product Cost: Target Production

Cost: Current Sales Cost:

Target Sales Cost:

Other Costs or Functions:

Part/Component Function/Purpose Value Rating (VR) (1-10)

Part Cost (PC)

% Of Cost Total

(TC%)

Value Added Weight (VAW)

Alternatives to Add Value

Column Totals:

Value Analysis Summary Statement: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 9 SDA-Standard Operation General Analysis (SOGA) General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:


Operator(s) Team Members:

Part/Service:

# Of Pieces Other Pertinent Information: Shift:

General Operation Information Potential Waste Reductions/Analysis Create Symbol

Step Operation Procedures Description Time Other/Remarks

(add rows as needed to expand for extensive processing) General Summary: Process/Functions To Be Improved – How? Total Cycle Time: 1. Potential Waste: 2. Others 3. SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 9 SDA-General Inspection System P Data Collection System (GISPDCS)


Part:

Reviewed By:

Supplier:

Gage/Device:

Operation:

Characteristic/Attributes:

General Inspection Description:

No. Date Operator Run Quantity

Sample Size

Number Rejected

Number Accepted

Corrective Actions

1

2

Operator: Location:

General Observations/Other:

# Sample Number (n)

Number Def. (np)

Explanations/Reasons For Rejects:

1 2









SDA-P Data Collection System (PDCS) EXAMPLE

Operation: Example Part: Example Characteristic/Attributes: Shape, Color, Buldge, Rip

Operator: Example Location: Example

General Corrective Actions/Other:

# Sample Number (n)

Number Def. (np)

Shape

Color

Buldge

Rip

Explanations/Reasons For Rejects:

1 60 10 5 1 3 1 2 60 7 4 1 2 3 60 6 2 2 2 4 60 5 3 1 1 5 60 9 5 3 1 6 60 8 2 2 2 2 7 60 8 3 4 1 8 60 11 5 4 2 9 60 12 5 3 3 1 10 60 7 4 3

Tool 10 SDA-Preliminary Technology Transfer, Development And Resources Audit (PTTDRA)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Technology Systems Being Audited, Definition: Previous Systems For Doing The Work (Prior To Transfer Of Current Systems Being Audited):

Key Developmental And Transfer Impacts Noted By Using The Technology Being Audited: Proposed Methods For Using Technology In A Third World Developing Culture: Elements Of Technology Systems Which May Cause Difficulty In Developmental And Transfer Circumstances, Particularly Associated With Civility, Safety, Security: Recommended Design Changes For The Technology Systems To Make Them More Appropriate For Transfer: Key Energy Sources Consumed By Producing The Technology Being Audited: Resources Used To Maintain, “Run”, The Technology, Once Produced: Resources Impact, General Statement, Based On Technology Use Compared To Previous Systems To Do The Work, Prior To Transfer: Specific Resources Savings Based On Previous Statement: 1.

Specific Resources Losses Based On Previous Statement: 1.









Tool 10 SDA-Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Compiler (s): Researchers (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Supplier: Customer: Product Or Process:

Supplier Technical Capabilities. Describe How Customer Demands Are Met. Provide A Priority Rating By Supplier Of Technical Capabilities, 1, 5 Or 9. Customer Requirements Stated And Prioritized By Customer. 1 Is A Low Priority And 9 Is High. (1, 5, 9)

Supplier Priority Rating For Each Customer Requirement. Use Priority Rating Of 1, 5 Or 9. 1 Is Low Priority And 9 Is High. Supplier Comments About Customer Requirements Should Be Placed Here. Grand Totals: Sum All Values In Horizontal Rows.

Customer Should Provide Priority Ratings Of Each Technical Capability Statement Provided By Supplier As A 1, 5 Or 9. Grand Totals: Sum All Values In Boxes. Higher Numbers Indicate Top Priorities. Customer Should Provide Comments About Supplier Technical Capabilities.

At Matrix Intersections Where Customer Demands And Supplier Capabilities Cross, Supplier Places Priority Rating In Upper Right Of Box. Customer Priority Rating Goes In Lower Left Of Box. Averaged Two Numbers Goes In Center Of Box As Sum For Grand Totals. Values Used Are 1, 2 Or 3.









Tool 11 SDA-Failure Mode And Effects Analysis (FMEA)


Part Name/Service: Process/Service Location: FMEA Form Of

Supplier: Product, Process or Design FMEA, and Why? Revision:

Other Pertinent General Information, Particularly Oriented To Other Supportive Documentation And Data Attached:

Process Description. Provide a general written text description of the process, and detailed flow chart of same:

Product Description. Provide a general written text description of the product, and detailed step by step functioning of same:

Potential Failure Mode. Describe the general failure which has occurred or may occur, giving appropriate details to help all improve on same:

Key Characteristics. Describe key characteristics in product or process to be addressed to decrease likelihood of failure (rank order according to level of criticality, 1 being low and 10 being high):

Characteristic Ranking 1-10:

Potential Effects of Failure. Describe the general failure effects, particularly focused on implications for damage to surrounding environment (provide a rating of severity where 1 is low and 10 is high):

Severity Rating 1-10:

Potential Causes of Failure. Describe general failure cause, particularly focused on process or product design which are implicated, with sufficient details to enable improvement. Also provide a occurrence of failure rating ( 1 = low and 10 = high):

Occurrence Failure 1-10:

Current Detection Control. Describe systems or methods of detecting failure which can lead to control of failure, including methods for same. Also provide a rating from 1-10 to indicate likelihood of occurrence ( where 1 = high and 10 = low):

Detection Control 1-10:

Risk Priority Number (RPN). Provide a RPN based on multiplying severity X occurrence X detection. RPN Calculated:

Recommended Action. Describe appropriate actions to be taken in process or product to alleviate failure, including area to take action and when (if multiple actions are needed, add rows):

Responsible Area: When:









Tool 11 SDA- Culture Political Correctness Audit, Tradition, Change Planning (CPCATCP)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Technology Systems Or Circumstances Being Audited, Definition/Description: Key PC Impacts Noted By Using The Technology Being Audited (Diversity, Civility, Ethics, Security Issues, Others): Elements Of Technology Systems Which Cause Difficulty And In What Ways: Identify Key Project PC Planning Issues And Provide Objectives And Related Details And Information For Planning Purposes.

Criticality Level: HML Where H = 5; M = 3; L = 1

Planning Statement Or Issue:


Criticality HML Project Related PC Objectives Prioritized, 5 Being Highest: Fac Cost Time Pers

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Based On Key Project Related PC Issues, Detail Change Strategies Below And How To Take Appropriate Actions.

PC Issue, Change, Tradition Relationships, Infrastructurally

Training Opportunities, Methods Related To Data And Documentation, Broader Systems

Measureables, Impacts/ Other Relationships/Observations

1.

1. 1.

Assess Recommended Changes In Terms Of Infrastructure And General Resources To Make The Technology Systems More PC Appropriate And Reflect These In Other Necessary Documentation Systems (PPDPOA, OPCP, ISOQSAOPP, PASPC, Others:

Attach A Completed Cause And Effect Diagram Demonstrating Effective Communication For Strategic Planning On Categories Above. SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Tool 11 SDA-Standard Procedure Safety Analysis, Corrective Action (SPSACA)



Concern/Complaint/Problem Title, General Description:

Current Standard Procedure Potential Accident/Safety Hazard Recommended Change In Procedure

1.

Concern/Complaint/Problem Title:

General Background Information On Issue Or Problem Requiring Improvement:

Identified Defect Or Problem Requiring Improvement, Detailed Description:

Root Causes/Definition (Attach A Cause And Effect Diagram):

Immediate Interim Action/Effective Date, Containment:

Permanent Action, Effective Date And Verification (describe improvements made in components, assemblies, SOP’s, processes and locations, inspection procedures, or other permanent changes: Control For Prevention:

Other pertinent information/source and general description of concern. Attach or refer to appropriate information, and explain how to access: SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective





Collect

From All, Compile Compiler Portfolio Reflections, Summary Of Technical Work, Assessment, Based On Individual Researcher Inputs:


Tool 11 SDA-General Safety Inspection Checklist /Pareto Chart (GSICPC)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. How To Use: • Assume GSIC is used 2 times per month, generating opportunities for OK/not safe a total of 28 times, annually. • Provide simulated data which demonstrates main safety/maintenance issues, organized in Pareto format, for an annualized basis. • Modify as deemed appropriate to best make the case for team project, and delete these instructions prior to presentation. Compiler (s): Researcher (s): Team: Phase: Tool: Date:

Operation: Location: Reason For Inspection: Inspection By: Individuals Interviewed: Reviewed By: Other Pertinent Information: Approval Date:

Checklist Item OK Not Safe

Not App.

Actual Site Explanations/Action/Other

Good Housekeeping/Cleanliness Piling and Storage/Tagging Systems Aisles, Walkways, and Exists Tools And Supplies Ladders And Stairs Machinery And Equipment Floors, Platforms, and Railings Electrical Fixtures/Equipment Dust, Ventilation, and Explosives Overhead Valves, Pipes, Markings Protective Clothing/Equipment Washroom, Lockers, Shower, Deluge Unsafe Practices/Horseplay/SOPs First Aid Facilities Vehicles, Hand and Power Trucks Fire Fighting Equipment Guards And Safety Devices Lighting, Work Tables/Areas General Maintenance Safety Training, Communication Company/OSHA Standards – Comply Cranes, Hoists, Conveyors Scrap And Rubbish Other Items, Circumstances Other Pertinent Information (Attached And Explained):

20 42

18 38

16 34

14 30

12 26

10 21

Freq

uenc

y O

f Occ

urre

nce

8 17

% O

f Tot

al

Occ

urre

nce General Shape Of

Chart Is Constant, But Frequency And % Values Shift To Present Relationships In Facts. Pareto Is Often Done Early In Analyses, based On Histograms. It Is Used To

6 13

4 9

2 5

0 1

Show Areas Needing Attention Versus Those We Can Postpone--A Good Decision Tool.

Shade Columns To Show Differences Among Findings Rank Findings From Highest To Lowest And Left To Right

% Of Occurrences Is For Each Attribute Relative To Total Of All Occurrences. Chart Can Be Expanded To Show Unlimited Numbers Of Attributes









SDA Example--Pareto Charting (PC)

Supplier: Customer: Example, fictional Product or process: Example customer survey inpu

20 42 18 38 16 34

14 30 12

26 10

21 8 17 6 13

4 9

2 5

Freq

uenc

y O

f Occ

urre

nce

0

1

% O

f Tot

al

Occ

urre

nce

General Shape Of Chart Is Constant, But Frequency And % Values Shift To Present Relationships Inherent In Facts Being Shown. Pareto Is Often Done Early In Analyses, Piggy- Backed On Histograms. It Is Used To Show Areas Needing Attention Versus Those We Can Postpone. Thus It Is A Good Decision Tool.

Shade Columns To Show Differences Among Findings Rank Findings From Highest To Lowest And Left To Right

Hig

h R

PM S

quea

l

Noi

se L

evel

Fini

sh

Ble

mis

hes

Too

Hea

vy

Ava

ilabi

lity

% Of Occurrences Is For Each Attribute Relative To Total Of All Occurrences. Chart Can Be Expanded To Show Unlimited Numbers Of Attributes

Tool 12 SDA-General Benchmarking/Auditing Process, Systems (GBAPS)


Describe The Process, Product, Issue Or Problem Requiring Benchmarking/Auditing:

What Are The Comparative Groups Or Organizations To Be Benchmarked/Audited?

Describe The General Data Collection And Analysis Methods:

Describe General Differences Noted Between Our Group And The Group Being Benchmarked/Audited: Describe The Overall Plan To Be Followed In The Benchmark/Audit, Including Pre And Post Steps, Timeframes And Follow Through:

Specific Issue/Concern? Timeframe What Is The Measurable? Who Will Do And How?

1.

Describe Basic Steps, Procedures And Protocol To be Followed In The Daily Conduct Of The Benchmarking Audit:

Contact Methods Clearances/Security General Arrangements Methods Of Communication

1.

Data To Be Reviewed? How To Review Data? Documentation To Be Reviewed? How To Review Documentation?

1.

Identify What Existing Resources Will Be Used In The Improvement, Based On The Benchmarking Process:

Existing Equipment?

Existing Space? Operator Training? Other?

1.

Identify What New Resources Will Be Required For Improvement, Based On The Benchmarking/Auditing Process: New Equipment? New Space? New SOP’s, Training? Other?

1.

After Completion Of The Benchmarking/Auditing Process, Identify All Findings Requiring Corrective Actions, And In What Ways:

Findings? Corrective Actions? Who Will Address? When To Be Completed?

1.

Explain How Operators, Supervisors, Quality, Engineering And Other Personnel Were Involved In The Process, Pre And Post:

Describe General Differences Noted Between Our Group And The Group Being Benchmarked/Audited: Describe New Goals, Or Changes To Be Made, Based On What Was Studied, Potential Implications For Strategic Planning:

Describe Groups To Be Communicated With, And Communication Methods To Be Used, Internal And External:

Describe New Broad Based Objectives Recommended At The Group/Team Level And Beyond, Based On Benchmarking/Auditing: Describe, In Detail, The Process Benchmarked, Differences Between The Way We Do It And The Process Benchmarked, Based on The Study:

Describe Changes/Improvements Recommended In Our Benchmarking/Auditing System Or Process, Based On This Study:









Tool 12 SDA- Technology Transfer, Development, Environment/Resources Assessment (TTDERA)

General Use/Application: SDA focuses technical content and deliverables on project objectives, all associated with technological assessment for improvement. All researchers on team complete the information below and submit to the compiler for finalizing in portfolio. When completed, all researchers should be listed as contributing, detailing technical assessment issues, as reflections by all related to the SDA. Compilers also develop reflections synthesized over time, based on inputs contributed by each, and their own review and reflections of the team’s work. This also involves use of SDA-FACR (below) to determine findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations (FACR) ultimately merged into grand form format by compilers for inclusion in the final portfolio when compiled by team leadership. Persons not contributing substantially at SDA’s, and FACR responses should have lower scores shown in PPMTA at final grand portfolio. Technology Systems Being Audited, Definition/Explanation (from PTTDRA, other documentation previously done, further matured, developed): Previous Systems For Doing The Work Prior To Transfer Of Current Systems Being Audited (from PTTDRA, other documentation previously done, further matured, developed): Key Developmental And Transfer Impacts Noted By Using The Technology Being Audited (from PTTDRA, other documentation previously done, further matured, developed): Proposed Methods For Using Technology In A Third World/Developing Culture, Specifically Designed To Reduce Environmental Impacts, Other Implications Longer Term: Elements Of Technology Systems Which May Cause Difficulty In Developmental And Transfer Circumstances, Particularly Associated With Civility, Safety, Security, Environmental Impacts, Other Implications Longer Term: Recommended Design Changes For The Technology Systems To Make Them More Appropriate For Transfer, And To Reduce Environmental Impacts, Other Implications Longer Term: Key Energy Sources Consumed By Producing The Technology Being Audited Environmental Impacts, Other Implications Longer Term: Resources Used To Maintain, “Run”, The Technology, Once Produced, Environmental Impacts, Other Implications Longer Term: Resources Impact, General Statement, Based On Technology Use Compared To Previous Systems To Do The Work, Prior To Transfer Other Implications Longer Term: Recommended Resource Management Changes For The Technology Systems To Make Them Less Environmentally Intrusive: Identify Key Project Environmental And resource Planning Issues, For Technology Transfer And development And Provide Objectives And Related Details And Information For Planning Purposes.

Criticality Level: HML Where H = 5; M = 3; L = 1

Planning Statement Or Issue:


Criticality HML Project Related Environmental/Resource/Technology Transfer Objectives Prioritized, 5 Being Highest: Fac Cost Time Pers

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Based On Key Project Related Environmental/Resource/Technology Transfer Issues, Detail Change Strategies Below And How To Take Appropriate Actions. Environmental/Resource/Technology Transfer Issue,

Change, Tradition Relationships, Infrastructurally Training Opportunities, Methods Related To Data

And Documentation, Broader Systems Measureables, Impacts/ Other Relationships/Observations

1.

1. 1.

Assess Recommended Changes In Terms Of Infrastructure To Make The Technology Systems More Environmental, Resource, Technology Transfer Appropriate And Reflect These In Other Necessary Documentation Systems (PPDPOA, OPCP, ISOQSAOPP, PASPC, Others: Attach A Completed Cause And Effect Diagram Demonstrating Effective Communication For Strategic Planning On Categories Above. SDA-FACR General Use/Application: o Identify the project objective being addressed (usually at least one or two would be anticipated from PPARMP). o Explain findings, analyses observed as various data and documentation in SDA (ex: how form/work relates to ISO 9000?). o Explain conclusions, recommendations based on findings, analyses in data, documentation (ex: improvements to form, other tools to try). o Address relationships in other forms, particularly PPARMP to provide direction in methodology for project. o SDA compilers use SDA FACR’s posted at discussion boards compiled as grand forms for portfolio presentation with all SDA’s. o Team leadership summarizes SDA FACR inputs to show what was learned, objective accomplishment, course outcome progress. Researcher 1. Project objective








Major Effect, Symptom

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects


Problem, Cause,

Major Issue

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects


Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects


Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects

Sub-issues, Effects

General Cause And Effect Analysis Diagram

industrial technologists’ toolkit for technical management ...€¦ · compilers, using all...

Documents