Temp management measure analyze tollgate presentation final
-
Upload
ashley-lucci-vaughn -
Category
Science
-
view
171 -
download
1
Transcript of Temp management measure analyze tollgate presentation final
Enterprise Excellence Reduce Temp Management Equipment Repair and Scrap Expense Measure/Analyze TollgateKarla MackProject ManagerFebruary 19, 2015
DMAIC Road Map
=Tollgate Approval
2Kaizen
Agenda
Project Charter Kaizen Team Measure Analyze Improve Lessons Learned Next Steps Sign-Off Decision
3
Project Charter
4
Problem/Goal Statement
Core Team Tollgate Review Schedule
Business Impact
Belinda Cordina Project Sponsor Catherine Stemper Deployment Leader Karla Mack Green Belt Bob Pahl Black Belt TBD Process Owner Team members, role, % contribution, LSS training Jim Fisher, MFG One, 10 %, CIIP Trained Ashley Lucci-Vaughn, MFG One, 10%, CIIP Trained Dave Rawlings, Marketing, 10%, CIIP Trained Jason Price, Finance, 5%, CIIP Trained Laticia Wilson, Finance, 5%, CIIP Trained Debbie Nicolas, GSC HC Finance, 5%, CIIP Trained Becky Hudgins, GSC HC Finance, 5%, CIIP Trained Erion Lanier, Quality, 10%, CIIP Trained
Problem: The total spend of repairing and scraping Temp Management equipment has increased 19% over the past 12 mos. with no clear reason as to why and no increase in number of units serviced.
In Scope: North America Scrap & Repair Expense for Loaned Equipment & Purchased Equipment; All cost related to repair and scrap process; Approval process and criteria for scrapping and repairing equipmentOut of Scope: All other Ecolab Temp Management equipment processes upstream or downstream from the repair & scrap process as defined in this project; Chillbuster Equipment; Changes to our existing contract with MFG One beyond scrap and repair criteria
Goals: Reduce total spend of repair and scrap expense Review/Revise criteria for scrap and repair All invoices paid upon completion of approval process/criteria
Tollgate Scheduled Completed Define 12/02/14 12/02/14 Measure 02/13/15 02/19/15 Analyze 02/13/15 02/19/15 Improve 03/23/15 Control 04/20/15
Review high-level schedule milestones Define Gate Complete Measure Analyze Kaizen Complete
Potential Savings
Estimated Type 1 OI Benefits: 10%-20% ($50-$100K ) reduction in total
spend on repairs and scrap from 2014 to 2015 (Oct 2013 – Sept 2014 total spend: $500K)
Estimated Type 2 OI Benefits: % reduction in FTE time due to increase in
consistency and quality of information received (Providing opportunities to work on value-add activities)
HUGE Thanks to the TEAM!!!
5
Kaizen Team Members (Left to Right) Ashley Lucci-Vaughn, Jim Fisher, Laticia Wilson, Debbie Nicholas, Becky Hudgins, Erion Lanier, Jason Price, Karla Mack
DMAIC Road Map
=Tollgate Approval
6
Current State Process Map
7
8
Current State Data2012 2013 2014 Comments
Total Spend $ 270,085.51 $ 460,415.40 $ 422,685.05 Significant increase from 2012-2013 due to increase in repaired units over 6+ years old
Customer Request Expense
$ 34,478.09 $ 26,703.13 $ 15,189.12 IntraTemp: 15K – 2014 & 4.6K – 2013 Average Cost: $120 ($375 for IntraTemp)
Repair Expense $ 215,239.05 $ 407,595.01 $ 392,081.37 Average Cost: $360
Scrap Expense $ 20,368.37 $ 26,117.27 $ 15,414.56 Average Cost: $40
Note: All figures exclude the IntraTemp business that was transferred to MFG One in late 2013
Analysis Conclusions: % Scrap has decrease year over year (-4%: 2012-2013; -10%: 2013-2014) w/
75% criteria Average book value at time of scrap is $38.68 Units driving repair cost are Warmers (ORS-2038, ORS-2057, ORS-2066)
Data Supporting Problem Statement
Critical 1: Significant Increase in Repair Expense over Past 36 months
Detail: Repair expense has increased 57% from 2012 – 2014. This excludes the IntraTemp business that was transferred to MFG One in late 2013 70% increase in repair cost from 2012 to 2013 due increase repairs of units 6+ yrs old
Critical 2: Weak Criteria Around Scrap / Repair DecisionDetail: Current Criteria: If estimated repair costs > 75% of cost of new unit, the unit is scrapped
Critical 3: Lack of Visibility To Data / No Reporting Metrics Surrounding Repair ExpenseDetail: No current standardized process metrics
9
DMAIC Road Map
=Tollgate Approval
10
Team used fishbone diagram to identify greatest pain points
11
Lack of Consistent & Clear Policies (Scrap & Repair)
Lack of Billing Policies & Training on Customer Driven Cost Misuse Invalid Returns Special Request
Working Units Shipped Back to MFG One Due to Rep Turnover
What We Found
Units of 6 years old = 15K first year; 70K each additional
45% = 185K
# of times repaired = 25K
12
DMAIC Road Map
=Tollgate Approval
13
Solution Generation & Results
14
Process Scrap Customer Request RepairAssign process owner to own metrics, reporting, master data
Scrap if 6+ years old Begin tracking these request through MFG One reporting
Standardized questionnaire for CS and Sales to use to troubleshoot units
Redesign the monthly reporting from MFG One to ensure process control
Scrap if previously serviced twice
Scrap if Basin needs replaced
Scrap if repairs exceed 45% of the value of a new unit
Future State Process Map
15
Business Impact This is a Type 1 savings project
Cost savings for scrap 6+ years Year 1 savings $15k Subsequent year savings $70k
The project determines clear criteria for scrap / repair decision making Scrap units > 6 years of age Scrap returned units that have been previously repaired twice Scrap units with basin damage Scrap units whose cost to repair > 45% of new unit cost
Defined metrics enable process owners to have the data they need to approve invoices and provides quality control.
Metrics provide data to support marketing business decisions around customer management.
Customer Service and Sales Reps troubleshoot using a standardize questionnaire
Financial
Process
Pilot PlanPilot Test Description Success Criteria Test Team Schedule
Redesign the daily reporting from Ecolab
Add # of times repaired and mfg date
Test 5 units to verify data corresponds to the correct unit Erion, Karla, Becky 2/23-2/27
Reps/CS troubleshooting w/ customer using questionnaire
Test question are for flow and make sure it is a appropriate line of questioning
Rep focus group (3-5 reps of sales mgt) Dave Rawlings 2/23-3/11
Metrics & Reporting
How are metrics measured and reported monthly? What will they look like? How will they be calculated?
Validate calculations of agreed upon control metrics Luke, Erion 3/2 - 3/18
Redesign the monthly reporting from MFG1
Finance and service detail: addition of age of unit, # of times repaired, type of service (repair/customer request/scrap) equipment class, unconfirmed/confirmed; nature of service
Test 25 units to verify data corresponds to the correct unit Erion, Karla, Becky 3/11-3/18
17
Pilot status will be communicated to team and stakeholders weekly – Owner: Karla Mack
Action Plan
Action Who Complete StatusFor MFG1 provided data, we will need Kathy T. to modify her monthly repair report Ashley/Jim 18-Feb
Dave, Erion, Karla to develop questionnaire for marketing Karla 19-Feb
Verify R&D about the need for component trending Karla 19-Feb
Review financial numbers with Ross Laticia 19-FebFind out the process and timeline for updating agreement btw Ecolab and MFG1 – Follow-up w/ Legal Karla 23-Feb
Hold meeting w/ stakeholders to establish process owner Karla 25-Feb
Verify Invoice Approver (Process Owner?) Karla 25-FebHave Liesel write script to get # of times unit is repaired and manufacturing date on daily report to MFG One Dave 27-Feb
Hold meeting to establish metrics calculations Karla 27-Feb
Create part drop down list for MFG One reporting Becky/Jason 27-FebCreate nature of service drop down list for MFG One reporting
Erion/Process Owner 27-Feb
18
LEGENDGreen = On TrackYellow = At RiskRed = Behind ScheduleWhite = Not StartedBlue = Complete
19
Marketing & Sales Customer Management Opportunity
Units being returned that do not need to be returned Customer misuse of equipment Customer special requests
Rep Turnover
R&D Opportunity to upgrade frequently failing components
Quality Process for approval of special request
Identified Future Efforts
Lessons Learned Process performance metrics need to be monitored, tracked
and shared with Leadership, Department Personnel, and Stakeholders
Every process NEEDS a process owner to maintain evaluate if the process is in control
Kaizens are intensive and require full engagement from all team members, so having a complete focused team increases the odds of having success
Sign Off
I concur that the Define phase was successfully completed on 02/19/15
I concur the project is ready to proceed with pilot implementation and can officially move to next phase: Improve
Catherine StemperDeployment Leader
Ross MichalsonFinance Representative
Bob PahlProject Coach
Belinda CordinaSponsor
Next Steps
Team will continue to implement action plan
Pilot plan with start Monday 2/23 with first status update on 3/02
Karla will schedule a meeting with stakeholders to establish future process owner
Appendix
Cause and Effect DiagramGaps: Standard metrics were not determined Lack of Policy to bill for equipment misuse Times when units are not returned to MFG One Times when units are shipped back and do not need repairs Incomplete rep training and procedures Unconfirmed complaints Rep turnover possibly leading to units being returned
FMEAProcess Step /
InputPotential Failure
ModePotential Failure
EffectsPotential Causes Current Controls
Actions Recommended
Resp.
What is the process step and Input under investigation?
In what ways does the Key Input go wrong?
What is the impact on the Key Output Variables
(Customer Requirements)?
What causes the Key Input to go wrong?
What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent either the cause
or the Failure Mode?
What are the actions for reducing the occurrence
of the cause, or improving detection?
Redesign the monthly reporting
from MFG1
Inconsistent model numbers
preventing data to line up properly
Manual Process None
Identify uniformed part list and use that list on each
report
Becky and Jason to develop list and
provide drop downs in reporting
Redesign the daily reporting from
Ecolab
Changes in queries SF.com may introduce
error
Invalid dataHuman error in query design
NonePiloting the
creation of the report
Liesel to write query, Erion to
test report output, Karla to help Erion
design test plan
Enforcing Scrap Criteria
Customer units sent in that work, but meet criteria and is scrapped
Scrap perfectly good units
Nothing to monitor customers
sending in units because they want
new ones
NoneReevaluate scrap criteria annually
Team to add reevaluating
criteria annually to recommendation
Reps/CS troubleshooting w/
customer using questionnaire
Condition of unit is relative and
CS/Rep may not be able to get out to the location to
evaluate in person
Working units get sent back for
repair and don't need to
Rep/CS are unable to align with opinion of
customer
None
Questions are clear and the reps/cs are
properly trained on how to
troubleshoot
Dave, Karla, Erion to develop
questions; Dave to develop training plan for reps and Erion to develop
training for cs
26
Pilot Communication PlanAudience Purpose Media Topic of Discussion Owner Freq.
Team MembersUpdate on progress
on the pilot
Weekly Email on Progress complete with red, yellow,
green status
Pilot progress, remaining action items, barriers and road blocks if applicable
Karla Mack
Weekly
Project Stakeholders
Groups
Update on progress on the pilot
Weekly Email on Progress complete with red, yellow,
green status
Pilot progress, remaining action items, barriers and road blocks if applicable
Karla Mack
Weekly
Belinda Cordina (Project Sponsor)
Update on progress on the pilot
Weekly Email on Progress complete with red, yellow,
green status
Pilot progress, remaining action items, barriers and road blocks if applicable
Karla Mack
Weekly