【正文】 bers of the Product Integrity Group listed on this board for help. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL 1 2 3 4 5 F/N=L:\HS\COMPONENT UTILIZATION TEAM\ACE INTERNALEXTERNAL\PM STANDARD WORK\DMAIC Project Page 3 The DMAIC Model Guideline for Process Improvement 1. Develop Business case for 2. project. 3. Identify Owner 4. Define Mandate 5. Select Team 6. Team Leader 7. Set Team Norms 8. Determine Customer and 9. Business needs 10. Define critical Input, 11. Process and Output 12. measures 13. Define Process Start End 14. Define Process Inputs 15. Outputs 16. Determine Customer 17. Requirements 18. Map “As Is” Process ? Benchmark as Needed ? Establish MFA data collection method ? Establish QCPC data collection method ? Establish SPC data collection method ? Gather Data ? Perform Root Cause Analysis on problems. ? Develop / select alternative solutions ? Map “To Be” Process ? Develop Action Plan ? Management Review ? Pilot changes and validate improvement ? Implement Improvements / Mistake Proofing Devices ? Update Standard Work ? Implement Key Characteristics ? Monitor Metrics (Process KC’s Customer) to Verify Improvement ? Document savings ? Share Lessons Learned ? ID potential future projects. Establish direction and accountability. Understand current process. Baseline Process Performance Understand Process Opportunities ? Analyze current costs / potential savings ? Perform Waste analysis on “As Is” process. ? Understand process variation ? Understand process performance Pilot and Validation of Improvements Standardized Improvements F/N=L:\HS\COMPONENT UTILIZATION TEAM\ACE INTERNALEXTERNAL\PM STANDARD WORK\DMAIC Project Page 4 TEAM BASED DMAIC PROCESS 1. Define 2. Measure 3. Analyze 4. Improve Root Cause Analysis Why? Why? Why? Repeatable Effective Efficient Standard Work 5. Control Mistake Proof U C L xL C L xXMap information/ process flows Process Management Select Opportunity P ROCE S S W E IGHT 0. 25 0. 40 0. 25 0. 10 S COREA Su pp li er Im prov em en t 60 60 40 20 51B C li nic Process 60 60 60 20 56C AQS Sta nd ard W ork/ D ocu m en ta tion 20 60 60 20 46D C om m un ic at ion 40 40 40 36E Su pp li er ( ex te r na l) CT Q/KC M an ag em en t 40 60 40 44F AQS Faci li ta tion / C on sulting 60 60 60 20 56G AQS/ I to Univ ersi ty T oo ls T r aining 40 40 40 60 42H In te r na l ( an d R em ot e Site) C T Q/KC M an ag em en t 60 60 39CORE LL A T ION LE G E ND 60 = Hi gh 40 = M ed ium 20 = L ow B lan k = No neAQS GROUP I MP ACTMATURIT Y MAT RIXR e d u c e Sup p lier PP M b y 3 0 %R e d u c e C u s t o m e r Es c a p e s b y 3 0 %R e d u c e I n t e r n a l PP M b y 3 0 %Build O r g a n iz a t io n a l St r e n g t hCOST OF QUALITY PROJECT CONTRACT(Details for QSTARS entry)QSTARS NO.:Business Unit/Enterprise/Site Name: Air Management Systems Date: 6/12/02Client Requestor: Jack Strom, AMS Quality SupervisorProject Sponsor (May be Client Requestor): Dave Lewis, Operations Center ManagerProblem Statement:The Northrop F18 Ejector is experiencing a 100% MRA rate and high level ofCustomer dissatisfaction due to fitup problems on the aircraft.Activity Scope/Mission:Perform a prehensive process and product variation study utilizing theDMAIC approach. Incorporate needed process improvements. Initiateappropriate design changes based on followup Process Capability Study forimproved process.Goals Expected Results: Reduce 100% MRA rate to zero. Achieve total Customer satisfaction.Prior History of Problem: Ejectors not fitting up properly at Northrop. Ejectors are built to an HS designby United Tool Die, of W. Hartford, CT. Lack of robustness in both UTD welding process and design ofproduct.Business MetricImpact:Customer escapes, SRR, MRA ticket generation, and Supplier PPM.(. Cost Reduction, Customer Satisfaction, Schedule Jeopardy)Estimated Annual Savings: TBD – Current estimate is between $80,000 and $150,000 oneyear savings via costavoidance.Client Team Leader: J. StromClient Func