PROBLEM

RESOLUTION

PROCESS

6-PANELProblem Resolution Process

TRAINING MANUAL

Tonatiuh Lozada DuarteOctober 2014

Page 1 of 23

6-PANEL

Page 2 of 23

Corporate NEED

Global 6-Panel Reporting standard:

1) 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key

requirements and data to drive decisions through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure,

Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.

2) Assist problem solving teams with a template to guide the problem solving process using minimum

required DMAIC+R steps to ensure robustness of the resolution.

3) Individual summary panels of each DMAIC+R phase that is simplified and standardized, while allowing

for additional information or slides to be inserted as backup information for any of the problem

resolution phases. In a high level management report out, communicate with the six summary panels.

For a team or quarterback deep dive, unhide information on additional slides.

4) Standardization of problem resolution procedures combining best practices and 6-Sigma methodology

on a format that is flexible enough to be used by all business units.

5) Simplified and consistent communication to management in a concise way without having to rewrite

what you have done.

6) Encourages management to ask questions in line with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.

6-PANEL

Page 3 of 23

6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements used to drive data decision through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.

Improve PhaseHow can we permanently fix the current product/process?

• DOE & ANOVA • Verification data

• Durability/CAE/VSA• Work plan

Control PhaseHow can we make the

process stay fixed?

• Control Plans• SPC – Control Charting

• Audit Plans

Replicate PhaseWho else at Ford can benefit?Update corporate knowledge?

Is the gain be sustained?

• Replication / Best Practices• Core Books – SDS/VDS/FMEAs

• Validate sustain w/ data

Define PhaseWho is my customer, and what isthe current cost of poor quality?

• Voice of the Customer • Defect Definition

• Cost of Poor Quality (includeswarranty spending, as necessary)

• Project Scope & Goal

Measure PhaseWhich inputs affect ouputs?What is my current processperformance (capability)?Are defects contained?

Analyze PhaseBy how much do X’s affect Y?What confidence do you have?

• Graphical Analysis • Hypothesis Testing

• Regression Analysis • Additional tools

Panel 2Panel 1 Panel 3

Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6

• Fish Bone• Gage R&R, Baseline Capability

• Containment Plan

Process Layout

6-PANEL

Page 4 of 23

D M A I C R

6-PANEL Header:

Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header. The following generic fields are listed to identify

project ownership (business unit), the customer, affected vehicle, process, and/or part number.

Please note: The header “VRT / VFG / CCC” information along with the footer “Project Number / BB Name”

information must be updated on the SLIDE MASTER. Goto “View” then “Master” then “Slide Master” to

make these changes.

CustomerVFG Team / Functional Area NameVRT / Business Unit Name

Vehicle Name & Model Year / Product Name Part / Process Name & Number

CCC: L66 – Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 – Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

Manufacturing / Technical Example:

Transactional Example:

Ford Motor Company PlantsGlobal CustomsMP&L

Global Customs and Trade Process 9801 Duty Preference Program

6-PANEL

Page

5 of

23

D M A I C R

DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) Identify the Project Classification (Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost…) objectives. Typical quality

classifications will be based upon the Single Agenda for Quality data (both low time in service, 3 MIS,

and high time in service, 3 YIS) from GQRS and Warranty. Include total annual warranty spending and

JD Power data if available. In addition, use internal data indicators to help identify the concern including

Best In Class (BIC) and Best In Ford (BIF) data to address customer concerns.

2) Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and

pareto formulates a means of prioritizing and help reflect the teams understanding of the major

components making up the concern.) Data trend charts over time help define the severity of customer

concerns. Data trend charts over time should include annotative updates. If needed, add backup slides.

3) Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project).

4) CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer requirements / expectations.

5) Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric.

6) Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Total Warranty

Spending and Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.)

7) Problem Statement (include scope and goal)

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Define material)

• Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not Analysis

• Unexpended Warranty Calculations

• TGW Verbatim Analysis

• QFD

6-PANEL

Page 6 of 23

VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the

vehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.”

CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement):

Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system.DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric):

Muffler to body clearance less than 17mm at fasciaCOST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc.):

$350,000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from 3MIS GQRS surveys. PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOAL

Owners of 2001 MY Taurus/Sable vehicles indicate that exhaust pipes and muffler to body side ground outs are

a significant issue. These ground outs conditions, particularly around the rear fascia & lower control arm, cause

noises such as rattles, knocks, bangs, clunks, dings, and rubs. Reduce ground outs by 90%.

2002 L66 Warranty by part

5230-

Muffler

16.36

5246-Pipe Assy

4.03

5E212-Catalyst

2.22

5200-Muffler

2.07

5A294-Muffler

Brkt 1.22

NPF

1.08

All others

1.8

Y=f(x) CASCADE:

Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.)

Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.)

Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia)

Project Y

D M A I C R

3 MIS

R/1000

TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:

L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING:

$315K (2002 CY)

PROJECT CLASSIFICATION:SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles

’01 MY ’99 MY

3 MIS 3 YIS

TGW 4 6

CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61

CPU 0.27 2.11

R/1000 1.04 3.54

JD Power 0.4

Consumer Reports n/a for L66

6-PANEL

Page 7 of 23

D M A I C R

Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time R/1000

5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic

02468

1012141618

Jan-0

1

Mar-

01

May-0

1

Jul-01

Sep-0

1

Nov-0

1

Jan-0

2

Mar-

02

Production Month

R/1

000

1M IS BIF

3M IS BIF

6M IS BIF

9M IS BIF

1M IS

3M IS

6M IS

9M IS

12M IS

Explorer N17 (Brakes Noisy) Trend Over Time CPU

5/31/02 Cutoff Date / 60 Day Logic

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

36892

36951

37012

37073

37135

37196

37258

37317

Production Month

CP

U

1M IS BIF

6M IS BIF

9M IS BIF

3M IS BIF

1M IS

3M IS

6M IS

9M IS

12M IS

Explorer (U152) Top 100

Overall

RankVRT VFG CCC's CCC Description

CUST SAT

LOSSTGW R/1000 3MIS CPU 3MIS

JDP 2002

(Problems/100)

2002 MY

High Miles

(CPU)

21 Chassis V21 N17 Brakes Noisy 0.25 67 3.43 0.37 6.3 1.85

40 (BIC) .42 (BIF) .03 (BIF) 3.9 (BIC)

Brake Noise Indicators

6-PANEL

Page

8 of

23

D M A I C R

MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) Fishbone (Cause & Effect Diagram). Identify the key process input variables (KPIV or Xs) that affect

your KPOV (Y) most (display ranking). (This is the first stage of root cause analysis, in the analyze

phase you will validate the root cause with data).

2) MSA – Measurement System Analysis. Validate the Measurement System for your KPOV (Y), Gage

R&R stated as % Study. (May be needed for both Ys and Xs performed in other stages of the project.)

3) Determine the Baseline Process Capability of your KPOV (Y)

4) Containment Plan - state actions taken to protect the customer, including statistical evidence validating

action (before and after data). If containment is not needed, state why.

While the team is working on permanent solution, containment actions are required to protect the

customer 100%. Example of actions include Stop-ship, 100% inspection, Quarantine stock, QR’s

supplier. Use additional slides with visual aids to this panel to drive home your containment resolutions.

Effectiveness of containment actions must be shown with Before and After indicator.

Containment Plans should include:

1. Metric/Indicator that is used to find the issue at: (a) Supplier facility, before shipping to Ford facility,

(b) Assembly plant, before shipping to customers.

2. Before and after statistical data evidence showing the issue is contained (Cpk, defect rate, etc)

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Measure material)

• Cause & Effect Matrix

• P-Diagram

• PFMEA and/or DFMEA

• SPC

• Rolled Throughput Yield

6-PANEL

Page 9 of 23

10 15 20 25 30

LSLLSL Target

FASCIA CLEARANCE TO MUFFLER OLD- ALL

USL

Target

LSL

Mean

Sample N

StDev (Within)

StDev (Overall)

Cp

CPU

CPL

Cpk

Cpm

Pp

PPU

PPL

Ppk

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

*

30.0000

17.0000

19.2162

37

3.12746

3.36607

*

*

0.24

0.24

*

*

*

0.22

0.22

216216.22

*

216216.22

239276.82

*

239276.82

255141.04

*

255141.04

Process Data

Potential (Within) Capability

Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance

Within

Overall

CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required): Process Owner Date Before Data After Data

100% audit (clearances at fascia / lower control arm. John Smith 10/17/01 0.24 Cpk 1.23 Cpk

• When necessary, reposition muffler assembly to obtain adequate clearance.

• If muffler does not shift to desired position, loosen joint attachment & reposition assembly.

MSA & Process Capability:

Engineering TestRequirement

Muffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm)

Gage R&R = 15 % Study

Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001):

• Z = 0.72

• DPMO = 255,141

• Cpk = 0.24 (note: short term)

Data Collection plan

includes all circled,

highly ranked X’s

D M A I C R

Process Elements

Element OK A

Investigating B

Element Not Capable C

Element Removed D

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

A

B

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

6-PANEL

Page 10 of 23

D M A I C R

• Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used tools in quality management.

Example – Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram

FISHBONECause and Effect diagram is a problem solving tool used to identify and graphically display all possible causes of a problem or effect. It helps a team to discover root cause(s). Additional tools can and should be used to deep dive in the measure phase to help prioritize the KPIV – Key Process Input Variables: causeand effect priority matrix, fault tree / contribution analysis, process / design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process mapping, etc.

Environment

Customer

Usage

System

Interactions

Piece to Piece

Vartiation

Aging Wear Design

Brake application

(line pressure)

Vehicle speed

Braking

distance

Driving

habits (D)

Cooling of

Brake System

(D)

Pad modal

parameters (A)

Material

Property

Variation

Surface

Friction

Variation

Manufacturing

misassembly (D)

Rotor/Hub

Alignment

Pad Geometric

Variations

Pad Damping

Deterioration

Running

Clearance

Sys Damping

Deterioration

Pad/Lining

Wear/Cracked

Aging of Slide

Pin Wear Shape of

lining (A)

Uneven Rotor

Wear

Lining material

Characteristics (A)

Humidity(wet/dry)/

water/Moisture

absorption (A)

Contaminates

Corrosion

Road salts

Solvents

Temperature

Road inputs

Customer’s

Maintenance

Schedules

(D)

Incorrect

Maintenance (D)

Road Quality (D)

Lot RotDeceleration

rate Suspension

Interactions (D)

Body Sensitivities

(Acoustic/Vibration(D)

Rotor

Warping

Rotor Scorching

Booster Noise

Filter Wear

Rotor Geometric

Variations

Thickness of lining

material (A)

Pad/Rotor pressure

distribution

(even/uneven)when

apply brake (B)

Chamfers in

lining (A)

Slots in

lining

Insulator

type

Insulator

damping/damping

material (A)

Caliper

design

Rotor modal

parameter

Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D

Important: Look for Internal

Indicator at Supplier

facility and Assembly plant

6-PANEL

Page 11 of 23

D M A I C R

Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis

IS IS NOT

U152 4X4

U152 4X2

Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,

insulator)

Other chassis component or other

component of the brake system

DefectBrake squeal dominated at 6.6-6.8kHz

range.

Groan, grind, or rattle

Foundation brake (caliper, rotor, pads,

insulator)

Squeal can be observed outside/ inside

vehicle

Front and rear brakes. Front noise is

dominant

Isolated to the front or rear axle.

First

observed

Normal morning braking, cold dyno test

Dyno testing (brake and vehicle)

Normal customer, public road

First

observed

GQRS

Dealer, fleet, and various dyno/vehicle

tests, JD Power, R/1000, GQRS

Usually in the morning with cold

temperature and high humidity

Hot/warm noise or low humidity

conditions

Noise on the first few brake applies and

then goes away.

Repeatable after first few stops or

continuous

Brake rotor temperature -10°C < t <

20°C

Hot

Low mileage and high mileage Isolated to low or high mileage.

All U152 vehicles built through 4/2/02 Some Production months

Trend

It is cold squeal and depends on

temperature and humidity. The TGW's

typically range from 60-70.

It is not warm/hot noise or observed in

low humidity conditions

Problem Statement: Brake squeal/audible noise.

Problem solving worksheet ("Is/Is Not Profile")

HO

W B

IG

Problem description

WH

ER

EW

HE

NW

HA

T Object

How many

affected

On Object

NOTE: ONE THING WE SHOULD MAKE

CERTAIN IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT LET

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROOT

CAUSE (ANALYZE PHASE) BE A

DETRIMENT TO THE TIMELY COMPLETION

OF THE CONTAINMENT PLAN. AN

INSPECTION, SORTING, STOP SHIP, ETC.

MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE

CUSTOMER WITHOUT KNOWING THE

"ROOT CAUSE".

6-PANEL

Page 12 of 23

D M A I C R

ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with data)?

2) How many samples do you need to draw conclusions?

3) What level of confidence do you have in your conclusions?

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Analyze material)

• Graphical Analysis & Hypothesis Testing

• Regression Analysis

• Correlation Analysis

• Process FMEA

• P-Diagram

• Contribution Analysis

• Multi-vari studies

• Shainin Analysis

6-PANEL

Page 13 of 23

86420

LSLLSL

Fascia locating holes on snow shoe

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Ov erall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

0.18

*

0.18

0.04

*

0.04

0.00

*

0.00

1.70

1.70

*

*

*

1.79

1.79

*

*

1.19547

1.13172

41

5.08993

-1.00000

*

*

Exp. "Ov erall" Perf ormanceExp. "Within" Perf ormanceObserv ed Perf ormanceOv erall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overal l

HOLE # 2HOLE #1

0.8

0.4

0.0

MUFFLER HANGER BRACKET - HOLE LOCATION

(means are indicated by solid circles)

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 0.0038 0.0038 0.05 0.826

Error 48 3.7236 0.0776

Total 49 3.7274

FASCIA LOCATING HOLE &

MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE

DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X”

y=f(x)

The current design muffler

assembly aid positions the

pipe to the center of tunnel,

which is 4.2 mm from design

position. This translates 13

mm muffler body movement

toward the fascia area.

y=f(x)

Muffler assembly aids used

during installation require

detailed 4.2 mm offset

positioning feature to meet

design intent.

REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID

• incorporated the 4.2 mm design

CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID

• 4.2 mm offset from design allows

pipe position to vary when installed

D M A I C R

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

6-PANEL

Page 14 of 23

D M A I C R

IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) What is the optimal Y=f(x) solution?

2) How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical proof that the solution works.)

3) Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work plan must include:

a. Permanent/Interim actions,

b. Sample size,

c. Next steps if trial is successful,

d. Next steps if trial is NOT successful,

e. Part availability if trial is successful,

f. Additional actions pending.

4) Validation of fix after implementation.

Before and after process capability of Y, showing variable data histograms, attribute data, etc.

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Improve material)

• Design of Experiments (Main Effect & Interaction Plots, ANOVA Tables)

• Regression Analysis

• Correlation Analysis

• Hypothesis Testing

• Cost / Benefit Analysis

• Process Mapping (should be)

6-PANEL

Page

15 of

23

454035302520

TargetLSLLSL

IMPROVEMENT VALIDATED

Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia -

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

0.00

*

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

0.00

*

0.00

2.03

2.03

*

*

*

2.63

2.63

*

*

3.25054

2.51058

120

36.8375

17.0000

30.0000

*

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

3025201510

TargetLSLLSL

BASELINE PERFORMANCE

Sable Muffler Clearance to Facia -

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

255141.04

*

255141.04

239276.82

*

239276.82

216216.22

*

216216.22

0.22

0.22

*

*

*

0.24

0.24

*

*

3.36607

3.12746

37

19.2162

17.0000

30.0000

*

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

Improved y=f(x)A. Incorporate trimmed

fascia and sheet metal for

clearance.

B. Muffler hanger bracket

design modified, along

with fascia and sheet

metal change improved

clearance 15 mm.

Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of YOne-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE)

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 8781.3 8781.3 822.74 0.000

Error 155 1654.4 10.7

Total 156 10435.6

Individual 95% CIs For Mean

Based on Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev ----------+---------+---------+------

FASCI-EN 120 36.838 3.244 (*)

FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343 (-*-)

----------+---------+---------+------

Pooled StDev = 3.267 24.0 30.0 36.0

Implementation Workplan

Permanent / Before/After

Interim Actions Who/When Indicators

Concern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B)

Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A)

and sheet metal for In production

additional clearance. Jan., 2002

Concern C11272097 Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B)

Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A)

assy aid to meet design March, 2002

y and z specification.

All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions

and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.

BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001 AFTER: March 1, 2002

D M A I C R

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

6-PANEL

Page

16 of

23

D M A I C R

Example of Weibull Plotting B10 Life Improvement

FRONT AND REAR BRAKES CHASSIS ROLL DYNO-NOISE

BEFORE AND AFTER DESIGN CHANGED

0.30%

17.80%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

Front Baseline Front New Insulator &

Chamfer

Perc

ent

Occurr

ence o

f N

ois

y S

tops

Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification Data requires solid

statistical evidence using adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent.

Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval

Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30

Rr Verif 29 32.27 1.31 0.24

95% CI for mu Rr Base - mu Rr Verif: ( 1.41, 2.96)

T-Test mu Rr Base = mu Rr Verif (vs not =): T = 5.69 P = 0.0000 DF = 43

Mean is at the

Target of 32 Sones

P-Value is less than .05

Therefore, there is a

statistical difference

between means

Two Sample T-Test and Confidence Interval

Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif.

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30

Rr Verif 29 32.27 1.31 0.24

95% CI for mu Rr Base - mu Rr Verif: ( 1.41, 2.96)

T-Test mu Rr Base = mu Rr Verif (vs not =): T = 5.69 P = 0.0000 DF = 43

Mean is at the

Target of 32 Sones

P-Value is less than .05

Therefore, there is a

statistical difference

between means

Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise level is significantly improved.

0Subgroup 10 20 30 40 50

2829303132333435363738

Ind

ivid

ualV

alu

e 66

X=33.22

3.0SL=37

Baseline

Noise Level (Base vs Modification)

Modification

6-PANEL

Page

17 of

23

D M A I C R

0.033

0.004

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

Baseline New Insulator & Chamfer

Ob

jecti

ve

No

ise

In

de

x

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle

Cu

mu

lati

ve In

cid

en

ts /

Veh

icle

Example of APG Durability Reliability Analysis

Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage

APG or CAE/Lab test can beused for this Slot)

Additional Improve Phase Examples –

Verification with Durability Data

DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT

operating conditions

6-PANEL

Page 18 of 23

D M A I C R

• Develop a work plan is to include detailed course of actions to fix the problem, including permanent/ engineering/process/quality actions, Plant trial schedule and sample size, next step after the trail, etc

Example - Work Plan

WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHARTAn overall plan showing improvement timelines for implementing containment, interim and permanent corrective actions.

x Problem Definition - The GQRS and AWS indicator pointed out the following area of concern:

x The PERMANENT/INTERIM engineering/process/quality actions we are working on is/are:

Item Date Before After Indicator

1 4/2/02 17% 0.30% % Noisy stop

x We are running a trial of ___________ piecesNo trail needed in assembly plants. Development and Test carried out at Dyno Lab

x If all goes well, we will have parts in house on 4/02/02 (date)

Explorer Customer experienced Brake Squeal after vehicle sitting at rest over night. Noise on the first few brake applies and

then goes away.

Project Improvement

Action

New Rubore insulator and chamfer

Additional Improve Phase Example –

Workplan detail timeline chart

6-PANEL

Page

19 of

23

D M A I C R

CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof showing that the process is in control over time, using

internal indicators.

2) What actions are taken to sustain the gains? (Example: Standard Operating Procedure changes

(including control plan), permanent design or tooling change, etc.)

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Control material)

• Process or Design FMEAs

• Control Plans for Process and Gage

• Statistical Process Control

• Standard Operating Procedures

• Visual Factory

• Preventative Maintenance

• Prevent Recurrence

• Poka Yoke / Mistake Proofing

• Document special cause actions (Global 8-D), as necessary.

6-PANEL

Page 20 of 23

252015105Subgroup 0

41.5

40.5

39.5

38.5

37.5

36.5

35.5

34.5

33.5

32.5

Sam

ple

Mean

Mean=36.91

UCL=40.67

LCL=33.15

15

10

5

0

Sam

ple

Range

R=6.521

UCL=13.79

LCL=0

IMPROVEMENT SUSTAINED AND IN CONTROL!

Xbar/R Chart for Muffler Clearance to FaciaITEM CONTROL

DATE RESPONSIBLE

C11298746 Revised Sable Fascia and sheet metal for additional

clearance. In

production Jan 2002.

Robert Bryer Body Structures

Engineer AAP-PVT

C11272097 Redesigned muffler assembly aid to meet design y and z

specification March 2002 Steve Hornby PTSE design

engineer, Andrew Schmid BB, Pat Swann BB

Submit for financial approval and order new parts

In plant

May 2002 Tuan Nguyen Randy Wright

AAP PVT

Audit Plan On going 4 Poster test, M-10 drive, WRAP

On line clearance checks Monitor daily

Ongoing V.O. 4-poster test M-10 drive,

WRAP performed at AAP/CAP

Follow up audit during full production with new aid

May 2002 Ken Eckert/John

Kamph/Patricia Swann

SDS-FMEA-

DVP review

Confirm system design requirements in place

-ER-0052 Ver 15 Clearances Around the Exhaust System · Req Details 17164 20328 20331 20332 21239

21240

· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER

–ER-0005 Ver 11 Exhaust Static Location · Req Details 23094/23484

· Verification Method 10675

SDS identified for update

–ER-0039 Design for Assembly · Req Details 8624

· Verification Method DVM-0033-ER

April 2002 Pat Swann, Steve Hornby,

Hank Newsome

Dan Valle/Mark Dixon

L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable

August 27, 2002

Containment 10/17/02

Fascia Change 1/2/02

Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02

D M A I C R

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler

6-PANEL

Page 21 of 23

D M A I C R

Total Warranty Spending and

Unexpended Warranty Savings:

• Unexpended roadmap opportunities for

all affected model year coverage periods:

• Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions:

• Top spending parts for this CCC:

(for each part, please explain)

• Problem fixed in production

• Optimized solution availability

• Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

1) What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities

for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY?

2) What is your warranty-spend savings with road

map?

3) What are your top spending parts for this CCC?

For each part:

• Is the problem fixed in production?

• Is there an optimal solution?

• Labor time: More efficient repair

process, special service tool

• Part pricing: Does it meet 70%

guideline?

• Other: Efficient repair procedure (part

vs. subassembly) Improved

diagnostics-reduced TNI, Policy

changes, Customer education to

prevent failure

• Does the supplier participate in Warranty

Reduction Program (WRP)?

6-PANEL

Page 22 of 23

D M A I C R

REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements):

1) Who else at Ford could be affected or could benefit?

(Replication at another Plant or on another vehicle line?)

2) Are there any larger business unit or even global intellectual capital effects?

(SDS, FMEAs, VDS, etc. in need of updates?)

3) After 6 months, is the process still in control and the improvement in Y and X sustained?

(Control Charts, Proof from Warranty or GQRS, etc.)

Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Replicate/End material)

• SPC, Control Charting

6-PANEL

Page 23 of 23

PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT:

Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant)

Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability – 0 DPMO, Cpk=2.82)

AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )

REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):

Key Actions Is this Replicable? If Yes, Where? Responsibility

• Design Change to Assembly Aid Yes, at sister Plant (CAP) Chicago, ILL Orlando Ventura

• Design Change to Fascia No, specific to Taurus/Sable design

UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):

Core Book Change Made Owner Document # Completed

Attribute FMEA

Design FMEA

Process FMEA

SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002

VDS

FDVS

<other specify here>

D M A I C R

CCC: L66 - Exhaust System TroublesVFG: V44 - Mechanical MalfunctionVRT: Powertrain / Fuel

VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler