the a team qsm 566 final mbp presentation rev 19 aw
TRANSCRIPT
1 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 1
QSM 566 - COHORT 1015 MBP III
The A TeamAntoine Artis
Alicia Steward
Alona Wood
Jelani A Nixon
6 OCT 2016
1
2 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Project Team
2
Project Champion: Van Rogers, Continuous Improvement Manager at TE Connectivity
Guiding Coalition: Marie Manzo, Alpha Manufacturing Team Leader
Stakeholders: TE Connectivity
Project Team: 1) Antoine Artis (QA Test Technician at TE Connectivity) 2) Alicia Steward 3) Alona Wood 4) Jelani Nixon
3 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Problem Statement (D)
TE Connectivity in Fairview, NC manufactures electrical relays using 18 sub-assemblies for the Alpha relay production line. Prior to 2015, the company produced more relays than it sold, which resulted in $1,648,106.43 of excess inventory and 707 square feet in annual storage space for the excess inventory. Our team will evaluate this issue and provide a comprehensive solution plan to significantly reduce 1) future over production and 2) storage for excess inventory.
3
4 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
SIPOC Diagram (D)
•Vendors•Facility (Warehouse, Employees)•Transportation Logistics (FedEx)•Utility Companies•Software developers
•Sales orders•Materials•Electricity•Employees
•Subassemblies•Completed relays•Shipment•Customer receives relays
•Defense Contractors•Automotive •Energy•Industrial Equipment•Consumer Electronics•Aerospace
Sales order received; sent to production planners & time line is created
Planners send order to material handlers/ parts are gathered
Parts are sent to production line; relays assembled, tested & sent to QA
QA inspects & certifies relays, sent to shipping dept.
Shipping dept. packages relays and sends to the customer
SUPPLIERS
INPUTS
INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS CUSTOMERS
4
5 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Process Map (D)
5
6 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Customer Requirements Matrix (M)
6
CHARACTERISTICS IMPORTANCE PERFORMANCE GAP TOTAL
TECHNICAL ACCURACY 5 4 1 5
PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY 3 1 2 6
RELIABILITY 5 4 1 5
7 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Data Collection Plan (M)Data to be Collected
Stratification/Grouping
NeedsOp Def? Sample Size Source &
LocationWhen
collected
Primary Responsible MBP Member
Amount of relays/sub-assemblies produced,
prices
2015, Oct.15’- monthly
Yes* 2 yrs Alpha Admin Database/
Marie
Oct. 2015 Antoine
Amount of storage space
used/sq.ft
2015, Oct.15’- monthly
Yes* 2 yrs Alpha Admin Database/
Marie
Oct. 2015 Antoine
Number of units needed for production
Production Planner/
Mfg. Team Leader
No 1 department Alpha Admin Database/
Marie
2015-Present
Antoine
* Backup Slides7
8 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Data Collection Plan (M)
51164669
4309 43094561
5768
5165
4405 4405
5057
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Dec 2015' Dec 2015'-13 Jan 16' 14 Jan-22 Mar 16' 23 Mar-10 May 16' 11 May-24 May 16'
Alpha Sub-Assemblies Count
Base Amount Amount Stored on Production Floor
8
9 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
SUBASSEMBLY OVERPRODUCTION &
STORAGE COSTS
MACHINES
PEOPLE
MATERIALSENVIRONMENT
SYSTEMS
Tornado destroying building/equipment Defective supplies
received
Outdated equipment
Severe storms knocking out power
Cheaper materials
Orders placed in bulk
METHODS
Equipment not maintained properly
Inconsistency w/production in relation to demand
Configuration of Kanban cards
Substandard trainingPoor communication throughout organization
Low morale/Lack of motivation
Fear of speaking out
Substandard procedures
Improper use of Kanban system
Ineffective reporting/documentation
PEOPLESYSTEMS
Fishbone Diagram (M)
9
10 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Pareto Chart (A)
10
11 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
A-Team Alignment with TE Connectivity Values Integrity - We must demand of ourselves and of each other the highest standards of individual and
corporate integrity.– As a result of our team evaluating the production line processes, the A-Team will ensure that the
units will be assembled at the highest quality rate possible and the number of units produced will be decreased to only the amount ordered.
Accountability - We create an operating discipline of continuous improvement that is an integral part of our culture.
– The A-Team will identify the root causes of the overproduction.
Teamwork - We foster an environment that encourages innovation, creativity, excellence and results through teamwork.
– The A-Team will work together using our diverse backgrounds and talents in order to successfully meet TE Connectivity goals as well as our own, as a team and as individuals. The A-Team will analyze how schedulers, material handlers and the production line work together in order to assist with creating efficiencies.
Innovation - We encourage, expect and value creativity, openness to change and fresh approaches.– The A-Team will use our fresh perspective of the production process and offer calculated
suggestions that will better the company as a whole.
11
12 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Cost of Poor Quality (A) Type of Costs At the beginning of 2015, there were 311,709 extra
subassemblies. The average cost of a subassembly is $5.27. (311,709 excess sub-assemblies @ $5.27 each = $1,642,706).
Comparable storage (707 sq. ft) in the local area =
$5400 ($450 a month*12 = $5,400)
Total Cost is $1,648,206.00 Cost Drivers Number of relays produced by greater than the demand
The additional relays produced increase storage space needed/ material used/labor hours
12
13 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Recommendations (A)
The A-Team recommends that TE Connectivity utilizes the excess sub-assemblies to reduce the amount of production, then increase production as needed dependent upon sales to maintain equilibrium.
We also recommend that a procedure be established to ensure that the Kanban cards are reflecting actual sales, to be performed on a bi-monthly basis.
13
14 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Future State Process Map (A)
14
Our process map does not need to be updated due to the fact that the process changes occur within certain points, as circled here.
15 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Theory Of Constraints (A)Main Constraints- Production planners correctly identifying demand signal- Kanban cards not in sync with demand signal- Material handler/batch handling during sub-assembly production
15
16 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Secondary Benchmarking Planning (A)
16
Potential Topics for Benchmarking
What data do we have suggesting this is important?
What secondary sources might we
use?
What search words would be helpful in finding the information?
Who on the team will investigate?
Overproduction Root cause of MBP
Manufacturer’s best practices
Variation reduction, waste prevention, fluctuating demands
Alicia
Kanban System Root cause of MBP
Companies that utilize systems
Kanban, pull system
Alona
Automotive Production Line
MBP’s product uses assembly line
Search engines, books, articles
Automotive production line, assembly line
Jelani
Efficiency similar products produced, and have assembly lines
Search engines, articles, best practices
Production, financials, data, processes
Antoine
17 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Secondary Benchmarking Process (A)
Panasonic Competitive TelephoneSurvey
Reserved2
High3
High3
8
Toyota Generic TelephoneSurvey
High3
High3
High 3
9
Lucent Technologies
Functional Questionnaire High3
High3
High3
9
Potential Partners
Type of Bench
markingMethodology
Level of Cooperation
Expected
Relevance Expected
Level of Expected
Breakthrough Total
• Internal • Competitive • Functional • Generic
• Survey • Questionnaire • Telephone • Focus Group• Site Visit
• High 3• Reserved 2• Low 1
• High 3• Some 2• Low 1
• Innovative 3• Useful 2• Lagging 1
• Sum Cooperation/ Relevance & Breakthrough
17
18 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Implementation Strategy (I)
TE Connectivity’s two part strategy approach to matching production to the demand signal:
– First component: Reducing production in fiscal year 2015 and utilizing excess sub-assembly inventory
– Second component: Updating the in-house Kanban system for the fiscal year 2016 so the demand signal matched the production output, resulting in inventory maintained at appropriate levels (excess inventory eliminated)
18
19 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Implementation Strategy (I)
Date Inspected
Amount Stored (inventory Amount)
Amount Sold
Difference Staff Assigned
Jan 2015 311,709 - +311,709 Antoine/Maria/Van
Jan–May ‘15 213,338 128,558 +84,780 Antoine/Maria/Van
May - Oct ’15 8,558 247,000 -238,442 Antoine/Maria/Van
Dec 2015 5768 5116 +652 Antoine/Maria/Van
Dec ‘15- 13 Jan ’16
5165 4669 +496 Antoine/Maria/Van
14 Jan ‘16- 22 Mar ‘16
4405 4309 +96 Antoine/Maria/Van
23 Mar ‘16- 10 May ‘16
4405 4309 +96 Antoine/Maria/Van
11 May ‘16- 24 May ‘16
5057 4561 +496 Antoine/Maria/Van
19
TE Connectivity began utilizing the stored extra sub-assemblies in fiscal year 2015. A procedure where staff assigned checked the Kanban card
against the demand system was created, shown below:
20 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Cost of Implementation Strategy (I)
20
Antoine/Marie/Van: Assess the required demand of
sub-assemblies to make Kanban adjustments
(20 mins)______________________________
1 man hr per meeting expended
5 meetings to date= 5 man hrs total
$260,000 Budget / 2080 hrs= $125/hr
$125/hr * 5 man hrs= $625.00
Antoine:Adjust Kanban card quantities to meet
required demands (20 mins)
Adjust labels to read correct amounts (1 hr)
Obtain final count of subassemblies (10 mins)
Document of results (10 mins)
________________________________
1.66 man hrs per meeting expended5 meetings to date= 8.3 man hrs total$60,000 Budget / 2080hrs = $28.84/hr
$28.84/hr * 8.3 man hrs = $239.37*The cost to implement this
strategy will be $864.37
21 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
ROI
21
ROI ROI 2015 – 2016 Jan 2016 – May 2016
COPQ - Excess Inventory $1,648,206 0
Expense ($864.37) $0
Start Inventory 311,709 5768
End Inventory 5768 4561
Inventory Reduction 305,941 1207
Cost of Sub-Assembly $5.27 $5.27
Benefit of Inventory reduction $1,612,309.07 $6,360.89
Net Benefit $1,611,444.70 $6,360.89
Total Benefit = $1,617,805.59
22 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Payback
PaybackPayback 2015 2016 Total
Revenues $1,612,309.07 $6,360.89 $1,618,669.96
Total Cost $864.37 $0 $864.37
Net $1,611,444.70 $6,360.89 $1,617,805.59
Total Benefit = $1,617,805.59/16 = $101,112.85 per month
*Implementation/Payback complete within first month*
23 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Monitoring and Control Plan (C)
23
24 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Tangible and Intangible Results (C) Tangible-TE Connectivity's Alpha line will produce 20% less of what they produced before during a set time period, eliminating waste.
-TE Connectivity has educated workers to update the Kanban system according to the supply demand signal.
Intangible-TE Connectivity’s cultural is changing as evidenced by employees becoming more aware and proactive in production errors.
24
25 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Lessons LearnedAs a team we learned about working together and for one
another. We learned that not all situations require all of the tools we
have learned, but might take a combination of tools and principles to yield the desired results and for continuous improvement.
We learned that the company that you are helping may not see you as help and reject the information and/or the suggestions you offer.
25
26 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Senior Champion/Sponsor CommentsMarie Manzo, TE Connectivity Alpha Manufacturing Team Leader:Noticeable change in the turnaround times, quantities of the sub-assembly production, and more floor space now available. The major factor supporting these changes were the sub-assembly quantity modifications in conjunction with the Kanban system (Kanban Supermarket).The area of improvement for the project is the amount of time between the Project Champion implementing modifications, to when the changes take place. Some of the sub-assembly production equipment has manual features and adapters which need to be modified.Overall, the product did align with the company expectations and goals, and was a success.
26
27 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management 27
Backup Slides
27
28 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Operational Definitions
What defines the term “overproduction” as it relates to monthly quotas?Overproduction refers to the amount of subassemblies
that are left over after all relays ordered have been produced and shipped to the customer.
What defines the term “base amount”?
The base amount refers to the amount of sub-assemblies the Kanban cards allow to circulate through the system.
28
29 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Current Value Stream Map
29
30 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
Future Value Stream Map
30
31 QSM566 10062016 © 2016 The National Graduate School of Quality Management
QSM 566 – COHORT 1015
31