1

Good morning.

My name is Scott Sterbenz. I am a Six Sigma Master Black Belt at Ford Motor Company.

Our project, “The Great Escape from Foam Defects,” addresses the implementation of castor oil

derived foam for the instrument panel of the 2013 Ford Escape using DMAIC problem solving. We

worked with two of our suppliers, Faurecia and BASF, to successfully complete this project.

2

First, let me introduce Ford Motor Company and our suppliers, Faurecia and BASF. Ford Motor Company

designs, develops, manufactures, and services cars and trucks worldwide under the Ford and Lincoln brand

names. In addition, the company provides a range of services and products through Genuine Ford Parts and

Service and Motorcraft.

3

Faurecia is a global automotive supplier with 320 manufacturing and research locations worldwide. Faurecia

focuses on four areas of business: automotive seating, interior systems, automotive exteriors, and emissions

control technologies.

{CLICK} BASF is the world’s leading chemical company, with 380 production and research sites worldwide.

BASF’s products and system solutions contribute to conserving resources, ensuring healthy food and nutrition

and helping to improve quality of life.

4

First, I’ll address project and team selection.

5

During development of the 2013 Escape, there was a strong drive to deliver a compact utility vehicle with

minimal impact to the environment.

The all-new Escape featured EcoBoost engine technology, which delivers V-6 power with the fuel economy of a

four cylinder. Carpet is manufactured with post-industrial fibers and recycled plastic bottles, and seats are

constructed of soy-based foam.

However, the team felt they could Go Further. A few months before the launch of the 2013 Escape, Ford made

a decision to use castor oil foam for the instrument panel instead of petroleum-based foam. Castor oil foam is

not only derived from a renewable source, but it has been successfully used in other vehicle components.

However, this would be its first application in an automotive instrument panel.

6

Unfortunately, implementation of the castor oil foam was not going smoothly. Our instrument panel supplier,

Faurecia, was experiencing extremely high scrap rates, which was jeopardizing their profitability and the

Escape’s launch timing. The decision to assign a team to rectify the scrap levels was made by several

individuals:

{CLICK} The Director of Body Interior Engineering—who assessed the impact on quality, launch timing, and

the impact on our corporate strategy, the ONE Ford Plan;

{CLICK} The Senior Engineer for instrument panel and console materials—who was responsible for delivering

a quality product;

{CLICK} The Master Black Belt—who confirmed the project suited the DMAIC discipline;

{CLICK} and the Faurecia Process Engineer—who was responsible for delivering a profitable and quality

product on time.

The objective data used for project selection will be discussed in detail in section 1.2.2.

7

There are two types of projects at Ford—Find & Fix and Emerging Technologies.

{CLICK} Find & Fix projects are identified using warranty, customer satisfaction survey data, and production

metrics.

{CLICK} Emerging Technologies projects are identified through customer desires, upcoming government

regulations, and overall company goals.

Potential projects are fed into a proprietary algorithm that generates a Balanced Single Agenda for Quality, or

BSAQ, ranking.

{CLICK} At weekly reviews, the Master Black Belt, Body Interior Director, and Subsystem Managers review

BSAQ results and discuss project assignment based on the BSAQ ranking, fit to the Six Sigma discipline, and

impact on the ONE Ford Plan.

{CLICK} This project was selected from our Find & Fix list of projects—specifically, from production metrics.

8

For this project, Faurecia had contacted Ford’s Body Interior Director to inform him they were experiencing a

30% scrap rate during ramp-up of the Escape instrument panel with castor oil foam.

{CLICK} Prior to castor oil foam, the instrument panel was manufactured with petroleum-based foam, with

scrap levels about 1%.

{CLICK} Thus, the assignment was a problem solving task—to figure out why the scrap levels were so high

with the castor oil foaming process at Faurecia, and to achieve scrap levels equal to or less than that experienced

with petroleum-based foam.

9

The objective data which determined the priority of the project and its urgent assignment were derived from the

data sources cited in section 1.2.1.

{CLICK} First, castor oil foam scrap reduction at Faurecia was one of the highest ranking BSAQ items,

reflecting its high impact on production metrics.

{CLICK} Next, all four Six Sigma considerations were met—including the most important—unknown root

cause, indicating a good fit to the DMAIC methodology.

{CLICK} Finally, there was considerable impact on the ONE Ford Plan.

10

Let me spend a moment on our corporate strategy, and how this project affects that strategy.

In 2006, Ford initiated the ONE Ford Plan, which lays a foundation for business success and focuses on

delivering one goal—an exciting viable Ford delivering profitable growth for all.

{CLICK} Achieving this plan relies on Ford’s products delivering four key pillars which form the bedrock of

the brand. Drive Quality. Drive Green. Drive Safe. Drive Smart.

{CLICK} The problem statement was clearly understood. The high instrument panel scrap rate with the castor

oil foam is a detriment to the ONE Ford Plan and the Drive Green pillar of the Ford brand. By reducing the

scrap level, we help Ford achieve its primary goal of profitable growth for all, while simultaneously delivering

the Drive Green pillar.

Here’s how.

{CLICK} The main goal of the ONE Ford plan, profitable growth for all, includes our supplier partners. While

the threat of missing the launch date of the Escape would affect Ford’s profitability because of lost sales, the

30% scrap rate was impacting Faurecia’s profitability, as well.

{CLICK} Regarding the Drive Green pillar, the 2013 Escape would have less impact on the environment when

using foam that is from a renewable source, versus foam that is not.

11

Stakeholder groups were identified mainly through a SIPOC diagram.

This exercise confirmed we had the correct stakeholder groups within Ford, Faurecia, and BASF. However, the

SIPOC did identify two additional stakeholder groups—the Ford Louisville Assembly Plant and the end

customer. The Louisville Assembly Plant was included because they receive the instrument panel before

assembly into the vehicle. The end customer, because they are the final users of the instrument panel—its

quality directly affects their perception of the vehicle’s quality and craftsmanship.

12

The team required skills and expertise on many levels.

{CLICK} First, we needed someone with outstanding and effective problem solving skills to lead the team,

develop the data collection and analysis plan, and leverage subject matter experts.

{CLICK} We also needed a foam chemistry expert to help the team understand the physics of foam.

{CLICK} In addition, we needed a foaming process expert to optimize and troubleshoot the foaming process.

{CLICK} Lastly, we needed a project champion to remind the team of the importance of their success and to

address road blocks.

13

The Body Engineering Director recruited our team.

Scott (that’s me) is the Body Engineering Master Black Belt and one of Ford’s most recognized problem solvers.

He is also versed in advanced mathematical methods and designed experiments.

{CLICK} Bari (the gentleman to my right), Senior Engineer for Instrument Panel and Console Materials, was

part of the original instrument panel design team, but also had expertise in foam chemistry from his previous

career at BASF.

{CLICK} George, Manager of Cockpit and Trim, was a trained and highly effective Project Champion.

{CLICK} Edgar, Faurecia’s Senior Process Engineer, was an industry leader in foam chemistry and processing

knowledge.

{CLICK} Danny, BASF’s Urethane and Materials Expert, was their top foam chemist. In addition, Danny was

Green Belt trained.

14

Our team required additional training and resources to ensure project success.

{CLICK} Besides within-team training that would occur throughout the project, which is covered in section

1.3.3., team members would attend BASF’s highly-regarded Polyurethanes, or PUR, Academy, if they hadn’t

already. This comprehensive informational collection of seminars covers polyurethane chemistry, applications,

and processing.

{CLICK} In addition, we required availability of Faurecia’s instrument panel manufacturing plant in Louisville,

KY and BASF’s Research Laboratories in Wyandotte, MI for potential experimentation and trials.

15

We were prepared to work together based on skills each of us brought to the table. Ford strongly believes in

building our employees’ and suppliers’ technical excellence. We use team-based employee training before and

during the project to promote success.

Scott, trained and experienced in DMAIC problem solving, invested time with Bari and Edgar, explaining the

DMAIC process and how data would be collected and analyzed—essentially providing Green Belt training.

{CLICK} Bari, Edgar, and Danny, subject matter experts in materials, processes, and foam chemistry, utilized

open communication to further develop that knowledge and to bring Scott up to speed regarding the physics of

foam.

{CLICK} Throughout the course of the project, George, an experienced Project Champion, would share his

effective leadership style with the team through example, by managing road blocks and communicating urgency.

16

Team members were located in Dearborn, MI, Wyandotte, MI, and Louisville, KY.

{CLICK} To prepare the team to work together, an initial team meeting was held by video conference. This

facilitated introductions and led to clearly established goals and responsibilities. In addition, the Director of

Body Interior stressed the requirement of daily update meetings by teleconference to ensure he was apprised of

the project’s progress. Lastly, it was mandated that all team members would travel to Faurecia’s Louisville

Plant for the duration of the project.

17

Each member of the team had assigned roles and responsibilities.

Scott took the role as team leader, and was expected to lead DMAIC application, determine analysis methods,

and drive the team to make decisions with objective data.

{CLICK} Bari, Edgar, and Danny were subject matter experts.

Bari was expected to provide foam processing and foam chemistry expertise, and investigate replication to other

vehicle programs upon our success.

Edgar, our leading subject matter expert, was expected to provide both foam processing and foam chemistry

expertise, as well as lead implementation of improvement actions at Faurecia.

Danny was expected to provide foam chemistry expertise and lead improvement actions at BASF.

{CLICK} George was assigned Project Champion, and was expected to motivate the team, facilitate team

meetings, remove roadblocks, and encourage replication.

18

DMAIC projects are managed though Ford’s Project Tracking System, which includes DMAIC checklists to

ensure the project is on time and meeting objectives. In addition, tollgate reviews are conducted at each phase’s

conclusion to ensure data is effectively shared and validated, road blocks are addressed, and next steps are

communicated and aligned with project goals.

Examples of critical tasks expected in each phase include:

{CLICK} At define – A project charter to guarantee alignment of goals and responsibilities

{CLICK} At measure – Gauge R&R and baseline data to validate a starting point

{CLICK} At analyze – Validation of root cause

{CLICK} At improve – Validation and justification of final solutions

{CLICK} At control – Documentation and demonstration of statistical process control

{CLICK} At replicate – Shared global knowledge

{CLICK} This project had the demanding deadline of completion before the launch of the 2013 Escape, which

was four weeks away. The project’s expected deliverable was a scrap rate similar to that of petroleum-based

foam—1% or less.

19

Now, I’ll continue with the current situation and root cause analysis.

20

Here’s a recapitulation of what has been covered thus far.

First, we had a new process at our instrument panel supplier, Faurecia, which involved replacement of

petroleum-based foam with castor oil foam.

With this new process, there was a 30% scrap rate, instead of a typical 1% scrap rate.

In addition, the launch of the all-new 2013 Ford Escape was four weeks away, and the ONE Ford Plan and Drive

Green pillar were affected.

{CLICK} For our team, the goal of the project was clear. We needed to achieve a scrap rate of 1% or less with

the castor oil foam before the launch of the 2013 Escape.

The impact of this project on the ONE Ford Plan and the Drive Green pillar were discussed in section 1.2.3.

However, we projected other potential benefits. They included an improved relationship with our suppliers,

building of technical excellence through structured problem solving, and possible increased revenue from our

dedication to the environment.

21

So how did we get to root cause?

We strongly believe in knowing how and why things work. Knowing the process and understanding underlying

physics is paramount to determining root cause and developing solutions. We started with detailed explanations

of the instrument panel foaming process, provided by Faurecia.

{CLICK} First, the PVC skin, which is the visible surface of the instrument panel, is loaded into the heated

bottom cavity of the tool and is secured with a vacuum.

{CLICK} Next, the instrument panel substrate is secured to the top cavity of the tool.

{CLICK} Then, the tool closes and two chemicals which react to create the foam—polyol and isocyanate—are

injected into the tool cavity.

{CLICK} Through an exothermic reaction, the foam expands between the PVC skin and the substrate.

{CLICK} Once expansion is complete, the tool opens and the instrument panel is removed. Excess foam is

trimmed and the instrument panel is inspected before further assembly.

22

Now, the micro-level process map, or timeline, of the foaming reaction, which we gathered from BASF. The

illustration shown is called a cup shot, the standard measurement tool to determine a foam’s reactivity profile.

Reaction times in the cup shot correlate well with reaction times in the foaming tool.

{CLICK} The moment the polyol and isocyanate are injected into the tool is time equals zero.

{CLICK} Cream time is when the exothermic reaction and foam expansion start.

{CLICK} Gel time is when the foam is still expanding, but has started to form a skin.

{CLICK} Rise time indicates when the exothermic reaction and foam expansion have ended.

{CLICK} When the foam has adequately cooled, the part is demolded, marking the cycle time.

23

One failure mode was primarily responsible for the excessive scrap level—air entrapment voids. While not

outwardly visible on a freshly foamed instrument panel, the void can be felt under the PVC skin. If an air

entrapment void is not detected through inspection, and the instrument panel is exposed to heat, a blister forms

under the skin—resulting in a warranty claim and customer dissatisfaction. Faurecia’s dedication to careful

100% inspection easily catches the failure mode, but remember that the scrap level was 30%! The team

examined examples of the failure mode so we could understand how the process was not working as intended.

24

Next, we developed a y=f(x) cascade, based on the failure mode and a team discussion regarding the physics of

foam chemistry. Development of the cascade was easier with the high- and micro-level process maps already

having been completed.

When done properly—that is—based on physics and engineering principles, potential root causes are clearly

identified—enabling value-added testing and data analysis.

25

We combined the y=f(x) cascade with the micro-level process map to create a new understanding of how air

entrapment voids likely occur. We generated an updated micro-level process map as documentation.

The explanation of how the failure mode was occurring was crystal clear through the synergy of the y=f(x)

cascade and the micro-level process map. It all came down to the physics of foam creation!

{CLICK} Air entrapment voids occur because the foam develops a skin before it is finished expanding between

the PVC skin and the molded substrate. Air attempting to escape through the tool’s vents cannot penetrate the

skinned foam and therefore becomes trapped, forming a void.

{CLICK} {READ SLOWLY} So to eliminate air entrapment voids, we need to make sure that the part is

completely filled with foam before the foam develops a skin.

26

This is directly related to the amount of time between “cream” and “gel” in the reactivity profile.

{CLICK} From chemistry, we know this time is driven by shot weight, or catalyst amount, and the energy

provided by the process for the foam reaction.

{CLICK} Those process parameters relate to thermal energy—tool temperature and chemical temperature—

{CLICK} and fluid energy—injection pressure and flow rate.

Therefore, these factors were identified as potential root causes.

27

To determine final root cause, the team developed a plan to study the contrast between castor oil foam and its

successful predecessor—petroleum-based foam. The contrast study entailed two parts—a comparison of

reactivity profiles, and a designed experiment around process variation sensitivity.

The team was prepared to use these methods and tools for determining root cause from several sources.

{CLICK} First, the training from the BASF Academy, coupled with the process and chemistry expertise from

BASF and Faurecia, taught us how to construct and measure reactivity profiles and overall foam quality.

{CLICK} In addition, our chemistry and process expertise was leveraged with designed experiments training

from Scott, our Master Black Belt, to efficiently evaluate sensitivity.

28

The team started with a baseline measurement of foam reactivity times for petroleum-based foam. The

reactivity profile was determined through cup shots, with timing indicated in seconds.

{CLICK} We then ran the same measurement for the castor oil foam for comparison.

{CLICK} As we anticipated from the revised micro-level process map in section 2.2.2., the amount of time

between “cream” and “gel” was significantly shorter with castor oil foam than with petroleum-based foam. In

fact, the time allotted to fill the part differed by 9 seconds—a 30% reduction!

Recall from the y=f(x) cascade and the revised micro-level process map that energy input is a driver of fill time.

From the evidence in our reactivity profile contrast, we pressed forward with the sensitivity DOE to prove our

hypothesis that castor oil foam may be more sensitive than petroleum-based foam to variation in process energy

input.

29

To determine this sensitivity contrast, the team developed a sensitivity DOE, which was performed on castor oil

foam first.

The factors for the DOE were a subset of the possible root causes identified in section 2.2.2.—tool temperature,

chemical temperature, and shot weight. We laid out a 2^3 full factorial with a center point. The center point

was determined from a prior optimization DOE, and the low and high settings for each factor were set at values

equal to observed current process parameter variation. This allowed for an efficient DOE which tested our

hypothesis of energy input sensitivity.

For each test instrument panel, the PVC skin was peeled back, and foam quality was assessed using a 1 to 10

Likert scale, with 1 being a perfect part. Foam cup shots are shown for illustration contrasting a perfect rating of

(1), a moderate rating of (4), and a poor rating of (8).

30

The DOE results were clear.

{CLICK} There was definitely energy input variation sensitivity, indicated by the v-shaped main effects plots.

Specifically, as process parameters drifted away from the center point, quality of the foam quickly diminished.

Sensitivity existed with all three factors—tool temperature, chemical temperature, and shot weight.

31

We then conducted an identical sensitivity DOE with petroleum-based foam.

{CLICK} The results were quite the contrast to the results with castor oil foam. There was insignificant

sensitivity to energy input variation, indicated by the shallow slopes of the main effects plots.

32

Here is where the team realized the power of understanding physics and engineering principles of the process

and failure mode.

We determined from foam reactivity profiles that castor oil foam has 30% less time to fill the part before

skinning than petroleum-based foam.

{CLICK} We also determined from sensitivity DOEs that castor oil foam is more sensitive to energy input

variation than petroleum-based foam.

Think of it this way.

{CLICK} Castor oil foam must hurry up to fill the part before it develops a skin, whereas petroleum-based foam

can take its time. With 30% less time to fill the part completely and properly, the castor oil foam will exhibit

sensitivity to the energy input variation from the chemicals and the process.

{CLICK} Therefore, the root cause of air entrapment voids with castor oil foam is sensitivity to energy input

variation because of a 30% reduction in time between “cream” and “gel.”

33

We really did not need to look further than the data in hand to validate root cause. We had two contrasting foam

systems—one that performed well with normal process variation, and one that performed poorly with normal

process variation.

Along with the physics of foam formation, the contrasting reactivity profiles and sensitivity DOE results

explained why that difference in part quality occurred—the reduced amount of time between “cream” and “gel”

exhibited in the castor oil foam.

The contrast between the two foam systems allowed us to turn the failure mode on and off at will—which is the

true definition of validated root cause.

34

Most stakeholder groups were involved in helping identify potential root causes.

{CLICK} The Six Sigma Team led development of the y=f(x) cascade and process maps.

{CLICK} We relied on the expertise of Faurecia for development of the high-level process map,

{CLICK} and BASF and Ford Body Engineering to develop the y=f(x) cascade and micro-level process map.

The synergy of our knowledge facilitated development of the revised micro-level process map.

35

As a result of our structured planning and execution, coupled with the thus-far successful delivery of our plan,

we encountered no resistance from any of our stakeholders. The well-documented and undisputable findings

from the contrasts in reactivity profiles and sensitivity DOEs were scientifically based and backed by strong

data.

The off-site Faurecia and Ford stakeholders were very excited with our root cause validation and gave us full

authority to proceed with solution development.

However, the team still strategized to determine if additional expertise was required or if the original project

charter, which addressed the project’s scope, goal, and timing, had changed.

{CLICK} Root cause validation told us that we required foam formulation and processing expertise, which was

covered by our subject matter experts from Ford, Faurecia, and BASF. Therefore, no additions to the team were

required and no additional training was necessary.

{CLICK} Since the project’s timing was locked into the launch date of the 2013 Escape, which was still on

schedule, project timing did not change.

36

In addition, the project’s goal of achieving a scrap rate of 1% or less was still strictly required by both Faurecia

and the Director of Body Interior, and there were indications in our data at this point the target was attainable.

{CLICK} At two weeks into the project, we had two weeks before the deadline. Daily teleconference meetings

continued, and the team moved forward to discuss potential solutions.

37

Now, I’ll cover solution development.

38

To prepare for solution development, the team created a plan leveraging data and information gathered from the

Define, Measure, and Analyze phases of the project. Specifically, our plan for solution development would

include brainstorming, reviewing the physics of foam chemistry, and creation of an affinity diagram.

The team was prepared to use these methods and tools for solution development from several sources.

{CLICK} Before our brainstorming session, we conducted a quick review of effective brainstorming rules.

{CLICK} Next, we made sure the entire team had full understanding of the proven root cause and how it related

back to what we learned at the BASF Academy.

{CLICK} Finally, Scott, our Master Black Belt, provided a training module on the construction of affinity

diagrams.

39

The solution to eliminate air entrapment voids needed to address management of energy input variation. The

question was whether to address that variation through better control of the process parameters, or, by improving

the castor oil foam to make it more robust to the energy input variation, like petroleum-based foam.

{CLICK} We used brainstorming to gather initial ideas for both scenarios,

{CLICK} physics to relate our ideas back to the failure mode,

{CLICK} and then an affinity diagram to organize the brainstormed ideas into two themes—process variation

reduction or foam robustness to process variation.

{CLICK} The result led us to two possible options.

40

Option 1 featured potential ways to reduce variation in the foam processing parameters.

To better control tool temperature variation, we could use a thermolator—essentially a thermostat. To reduce

chemical temperature variation, we could use agitators in the chemical totes to evenly distribute heat provided

by warmers. Lastly, more frequent cleaning of orifices in the injection nozzles would better regulate shot

weights, injection pressures, and flow rates.

{CLICK} Option 2 centered around robustness to energy input variation, which involved physics and the

chemistry of foam. BASF shared that the catalyst used in the isocyanate controlled the time between “cream”

and “gel.” Danny was confident he could tweak the foam formulation to achieve “cream” and “gel” times

similar to petroleum-based foam. This would, therefore, require a foam formulation change.

The team agreed both options were feasible.

41

To choose the final solution from the potential solutions, the team developed a plan to construct and analyze an

evaluation matrix using data and information gathered during the project, and by leveraging our subject matter

experts.

{CLICK} We would start with a team review of significant data from the project, along with revisiting our

training material from the BASF Academy, since understanding of foam processing and chemistry would be

necessary to construct an effective evaluation matrix.

{CLICK} Then Scott, our Master Black Belt, planned a training session for the construction and analysis of an

evaluation matrix, focusing on the unique and important assessment of probability of success.

42

To construct the evaluation matrix correctly, we first referenced our historical data to determine the magnitude

each potential solution had on the physics of the failure mode. Then, we tapped our subject matter experts at

Ford, Faurecia and BASF, who provided estimates for cost, effort, and timing for each potential solution.

{CLICK} To assess probability of success for each possible solution, we determined from both our historical

data and subject matter experts how well each potential solution addressed the physics of the failure mode. For

example, for the foam formulation change, we assessed the likelihood of BASF matching the “cream” to “gel”

time of petroleum-based foam.

Section 3.2.2.—the next slide– shows the completed evaluation matrix, which objectively directed the team to

the best solution.

43

The best solution for root cause was made clear not only through the evaluation matrix, but was also reinforced

in conversations with Faurecia and BASF.

{CLICK} Even with process improvements suggested by Faurecia, the team was uncertain whether reducing the

process energy input variation would be enough to achieve the desired scrap level. We were short on time and

could not accurately quantify how much reduction was needed to achieve the desired quality level. Therefore,

these possible solutions have “low” and “moderate” probabilities of success in the criteria table, contributing to

small bubbles in the evaluation matrix.

{CLICK} The foam formulation change, however, was an easy change for BASF and would only require a few

days of development. In addition, we had data from the sensitivity DOE on petroleum-based foam that proved a

longer time between “cream” and “gel” provided robustness to process energy input variation. Therefore, this

potential solution was represented with a large bubble in the lower left quadrant of the evaluation matrix—

indicating high probability of success and low effort.

{CLICK} Upon reviewing the completed evaluation matrix, the foam formulation change was selected as our

final solution.

44

The team pursued two methods of final solution validation.

The first validation was accomplished using reactivity profiles from cup shots. The castor oil foam formulation

change required BASF to adjust the catalyst in the isocyanate, with the objective to achieve the time between

“cream” and “gel” witnessed with petroleum-based foam.

{CLICK} With BASF’s new formulation, the time between “cream” and “gel” was now 33 seconds—similar to

petroleum-based foam and an improvement of twelve seconds over the original formulation.

45

We then proceeded with the second validation, a sensitivity DOE—which replicated the sensitivity DOE used to

determine root cause. A larger batch of the new castor oil foam was prepared and the team spent a short amount

of time optimizing the processing parameters.

{CLICK} The results were just as promising as those from the cup shots. There was negligible sensitivity to

process energy input variation, and the parts looked great!

46

Let me update our progress.

We hypothesized the root cause of air entrapment voids through use of the y=f(x) cascade and a micro-level

process map for foam formation. We validated that root cause through contrast studies with petroleum-based

foam. Finally, as a solution, we chose to modify the foam formulation by adjusting the catalyst in the

isocyanate, and certified that solution’s viability by achieving the desired reactivity profile and demonstrating

negligible process energy input sensitivity.

{CLICK} We still expected to meet the project objective of achieving 1% or less scrap before the launch of the

2013 Escape, thereby supporting the ONE Ford Plan and the Drive Green pillar. In addition, we were

anticipating possible increased revenue from our dedication to environmental responsibility.

A revisit of the possible added benefits allowed us to learn from BASF that the final solution may be zero cost.

Lastly, we also realized we were already reaping the rewards of two added benefits—an improved supplier

relationship and building of technical excellence.

47

In section 3.2.2., we presented anticipated implementation effort, cost, and probability of success in order to

generate the evaluation matrix that led the team to our final solution. The high probability of success was

validated with the data we presented in section 3.2.3.—the improved reactivity profile and outstanding

sensitivity DOE results—but the team also needed to justify the cost and effort of implementing the foam

formulation change.

48

BASF indeed confirmed the foam formulation change would be zero-cost because adjustment of the isocyanate

catalyst level was a negligible cost difference for them.

{CLICK} In addition, Faurecia confirmed the implementation cost and effort was low after constructing a scope

of work, indicating changing out the foam system was a two-day effort.

{CLICK} When we looked at the cost, effort, and probability of success, coupled with the likelihood of meeting

the goals of the project and all the additional benefits, we felt implementation of the foam formulation change

was justified.

49

BASF, Faurecia, and Ford shared equally in selection of the final solution.

{CLICK} BASF had commanding knowledge of the chemistry behind their foam, assuring the team they could

successfully modify the foam formulation to achieve the desired reactivity profile.

{CLICK} Faurecia had extensive knowledge of their process and equipment limitations, allowing them to

determine the foam formulation change would have higher probability of success than their proposed process

improvements.

{CLICK} Finally, the Six Sigma team and Ford Body Engineering kept the team focused on driving to the

solution by presenting applicable data and stressing the importance of addressing the physics behind the failure

mode.

50

Between our structured planning and execution, and thus-far successful delivery of our plan, we encountered no

resistance from any of our stakeholders. The well-documented and undisputable findings from our final solution

validation and justification studies were scientifically based and backed by strong data.

The off-site Faurecia and Ford stakeholders were impressed with the results and gave us full authority to

proceed with the planning for the foam formulation change.

Once again, the team reassessed the skill set present to determine if additional expertise was required for

solution implementation. We also pondered if the project charter, which addressed the project’s scope, goal, and

timing, had changed.

{CLICK} Implementing the final solution of a foam formulation change required foam chemistry and

processing expertise. That expertise was covered by our subject matter experts from Faurecia and BASF.

Therefore, no change to the team was required and no additional training was necessary.

{CLICK} In addition, project timing was still linked to the launch date of the 2013 Escape, which had not

changed. Therefore, project timing did not change.

51

In addition, the project’s goal of achieving a scrap rate of 1% or less was still a top priority for both Faurecia and

the Director of Body Interior. The data from our validation studies strongly indicated we would achieve this

target.

{CLICK} Now just shy of three weeks into the project, we had ten days until the deadline. Daily conference

meetings continued, and the team moved forward to discuss implementation plans.

52

Now, I will discuss project implementation and results verification.

53

Several stakeholder groups were required for successful planning to implement the final solution.

{CLICK} BASF would spearhead the new castor oil foam formulation, providing batches of material for testing

and supporting production volumes.

{CLICK} Faurecia would coordinate the foam changeover in their facility, and then partner with the Six Sigma

team to confirm optimum processing parameters.

{CLICK} Ford Body Engineering developed plans to subject the reformulated foam to validation tests, ensuring

no unintended consequences of modifying the catalyst. In addition, they took responsibility for project

documentation and started investigating replication to other vehicle programs.

54

Potential resistance was addressed early in implementation planning stages, through a force field analysis. A

force field analysis lists all factors that are for and against the decision for change, allowing the team to

anticipate and manage potential negative forces.

In general, the foam formulation change was transparent for Faurecia. There was no impact to cycle time and no

adjustment in operating parameters or tolerances. But since the change was occurring at Faurecia’s plant and

involved materials the tool operators and inspectors would interface with, the only anticipated resistance was

from them.

We notified the tool operators and inspectors of our final solution and the anticipated scrap reduction. Between

the expected quality improvement and their understanding of this being a transparent change, they presented no

resistance.

55

However, the Faurecia employees wanted to know more. They asked how we determined the root cause and

how we fixed it. This was an outstanding opportunity for problem solving coaching, while allowing the

operators and inspectors to learn more about their product and processes.

We shared the revised micro-level process map, reactivity profiles, and sensitivity DOE results that validated

our root cause, and then the contrast in performance with the foam formulation change.

{CLICK} They not only exhibited a complete understanding of the root cause and the validity of the final

solution, but were just as excited about the observed improvements as we were.

56

Stakeholder buy-in of the final solution was achieved at many levels of Ford and Faurecia through tollgate

reviews and quality reviews.

At these reviews, we presented reactivity profiles, examples of cup shots, trial instrument panels with the PVC

skin peeled back, and DOE results. Stakeholders were impressed with the level of improvement and helped

drive implementation. Final approvals were documented by verbal, written and electronic means.

57

Implementation started with full team communication before the old formulation of castor oil foam was replaced

with the new formulation. The amount of time required for the changeover was about 72 hours, as shown in the

Gantt Chart.

{CLICK} We used cup shots to verify the reactivity profile was as expected,

{CLICK} and then produced foamed instrument panels across four tools for an hour—or about 60 parts. The

PVC skins were peeled back to confirm on-part foam quality.

Between the core team members, four Faurecia tool operators, and two Faurecia inspectors, impact on resources

was minimal.

58

The Six Sigma Team suggested slight modifications to the foaming process start-up and inspection procedures.

{CLICK} We added a cup shot check at the beginning of each shift so the production team could verify and

document the reactivity profile several times daily.

{CLICK} For the inspectors, we implemented an enhanced method to monitor scrap levels. Specifically, we

segmented the instrument panel into a grid, allowing scrap to be tracked more meaningfully for localized

problem solving and the study of trends.

{CLICK} The use of p-charts for statistical process monitoring, was unaffected.

59

Upon full implementation of the revised castor oil foam formulation, scrap immediately plummeted to about

0.7%, illustrated through the p-chart which reflects data the first two weeks after implementation.

{CLICK} We achieved the scrap level of 1% or less, and we beat the project deadline by three days.

60

There were additional benefits with the successful completion of this project, which were discussed in sections

2.1.1. and 3.2.4.

{CLICK} Additional soft benefits included an improved relationship with BASF and Faurecia and building of

technical excellence, both ONE Ford behaviors. Faurecia and BASF learned the structure and benefits of

DMAIC problem solving, and Ford learned more about foam chemistry and processing. For all of us, the

learning would benefit future programs.

{CLICK} An additional hard benefit included increased revenue from Ford’s continued dedication to the

environment, related to our Drive Green pillar. While this metric is impossible to measure, the project did

receive mention in Ford’s Annual Sustainability Report, which is sent to our shareholders.

{CLICK} For the final hard benefit, what we expected to be a low cost solution resulted in an actual zero cost

solution.

61

Finally, I will address preservation and stakeholder communication.

62

Recall from section 3.2.2. that the team decided to address root cause through robustness to process energy input

variation instead of controlling it, because we were unsure reducing process energy input variation alone would

achieve the target scrap level.

{CLICK} However, with the scrap rate already below the 1% target, we now had the time and resources to

implement our ideas related to reducing process energy input variation. We installed thermolators to better

control tool temperature, an agitator to better control chemical temperatures, and a preventative maintenance

schedule to reduce variability in injection pressure, flow rates, and shot weight.

{CLICK} In response, the scrap rate fell further to a negligible 0.1%, shown in the last stages of the p-chart.

{CLICK} In addition, we completed the project documentation, updated corporate databases, and revised

control plans and PFMEAs with the new process information.

{CLICK} Finally, the Faurecia Process Engineer continued to review daily cup shot results and utilize scrap

reports with the new measurement system.

63

Maintaining the benefit of cost savings was in everyone’s best interest.

{CLICK} We have continued to monitor the scrap rate at Faurecia for the last 18 months, and are pleased to

report the scrap levels have remained at 0.1%, evidenced by internal scrap reports and p-charts.

{CLICK} In addition, Ford continues to work with Faurecia and BASF on other components and vehicle lines,

maintaining our improved supplier relationship.

{CLICK} However, the greatest honor of a successful project is when it is replicated. The achievements of our

team were noticed by several other vehicle lines. In fact, Focus—Ford’s compact offering—immediately

implemented castor oil foam for its instrument panels. Several other Ford and competitive vehicles have

included castor oil foam in their plans, as well.

64

Certainly, this project achieved the goals of the ONE Ford Plan and helped Ford deliver the Drive Green Pillar.

{CLICK} By reducing the scrap rate to negligible levels, we positively impacted the profitability of our

supplier, Faurecia. Also, launching the 2013 Ford Escape on time enabled full sales potential of this all-new

vehicle. Both of these affected the main goal of the ONE Ford Plan—Profitable Growth for All.

{CLICK} In addition, successful use of castor oil foam in place of petroleum-based foam contributed to the

Drive Green pillar, one of the four pillars of the Ford brand. This was further achieved with other vehicle lines

replicating our success.

65

We share success stories because tools or methods used in one project are often useful in another.

We presented project results at multiple levels within stakeholder groups—Ford Body Engineering, Faurecia,

and BASF—through design reviews, technical reviews and quality reviews.

Our structured problem solving method was clearly communicated through the display of DOE data, reactivity

profiles, cup shots, and foamed instrument panel samples.

Feedback was very positive, and resulted in the team receiving an award at a Body Interior Department all-hands

meeting.

66

Thank you for allowing me to share the story of our great escape from foam defects. To the judges and

audience, your attention was sincerely appreciated.

We look forward to your questions.