LEAN SIX SIGMA PROJ

Project Leader (LSSBB or LSSGB)

First Name

Last Name

Function

Contact Details: Phone

Project Information

Project Title

Problem Statement

Project Scope

Project Objective (SMART)

Baseline
Performance Metrics
 Performance Metrics

Impact on Quality, Delivery,

Customer Satisfaction or Cost
(€)

Project Deliverables

Link to Company Strategic

Vision

Project Resource / Budget

Manager Phone
Sponsor Phone

Project Sponsor Approval (signature

required)

Training Course Details

Training
Course Training Start Date
Name

Project Start Date

Target Project End Date

GMA PROJECT CHARTER

Site

LSSBB / LSSGB

email

Target Improvement
email
email

Training End Date

 PROJECT PLANN

January February March April May

Week Number: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Action
DEFINE
Develop problem statement
Identify project scope
Determine SMART objective
Formulate project team
Define CTQs
Stakeholder map
Develop communication plan
Develop outline project plan
Project sponsor approval

MEASURE
Develop ‘as-is’ process map
Identify potential quick wins
Identify measurements to be taken
Develop data collection plan
Collect data
Calculate baseline capability (Y)
Team Brainstorm to identify potentiel causes of
Waste & Variation
Actual State Value Stream Mapping
Project sponsor approval

ANALYSE
Analyse Waste: Lean Tools
Analyse Variation: Six Sigma tools
Team brainstorm to identify root causes
Document root causes on Cause&Effect diagram
Perform FMEA (Process or Design)
Select top 3-5 root causes
Validate root causes
Project sponsor approval

IMPROVE
Team brainstorm solutions
Select optimum solutions
Conduct pilot study
Verify improvements
‘Future state’ process map
Review stakeholder map and comms plan
Implementation business case (cost / benefit)
Implementation timing plan
Implement actions on timing plan
Disengage old process
Monitor progress
Validate improvements: process capability &
savings (compare against baseline)
Project sponsor approval

CONTROL
Monitor progress
Select control techniques (SPC)
Update or create SOI / SLA
Develop control metrics (KPI’s)
Develop Control Plan
Share lessons learnt (organisation memory)
Handover to process owner
Thank the team
Celebrate success
Plan future activities
Project sponsor approval
T PLANNING:

May June July August September October November December

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
 SIPOC
Suppliers Inputs Process
(Providers of the required (Resources required by the
resources) process) (Top level description of the activity)
Requirements
SIPOC
Process Outputs Customers
(Deliverables from (Anyone who receives a deliverable
p level description of the activity) the process) from the process)
Requirements
 5 WHY ANAL
Problem description:

Main cause Why?

5 WHY ANALYSIS

Why? Why? Why?

Why?
 TIME ANALY
Process
Team
Necessary Comment (Necessary NVA)
Value
Step Description Non Value Waste Walk
Added
Added

Time
E ANALYSIS :
Comment (Waste) Comment (Walk) Layout plan
plan
 FAILURE MODE & EF
FMEA Date:
Process/Product:
(original)

FMEA Team: (Revised)

Responsibility: Page:

Prepared By:

Analysis
Severity Potential Occurrence
Potential Potential Effects of
Process Step Cause(s) of (1- Current Controls
Failure Mode Failure
(1-10) Failure 10)
DE & EFFECTS ANALYSIS

FMEA
Issue:
of No:

Actions Results
Revised Revised Revised
Detection Risk Priority Responsibility and
Recommend Severity Occurrence Detection
Number Target Action Taken
ed Action
(1-10) (RPN) Completion Date
(1-10) (1-10) (1-10)
lts
Revised Risk
Priority
Number
 Guidelines example for
SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
Criteria: Severity of Effect
Effect
(Customer Effect)
Hazardous - Very high severity ranking
without when a potential failure
warning mode affects safe vehicle
operation and / or involves
noncompliance with
government regulation
without warning.
Hazardous - Very high severity ranking
with warning when a potential failure
mode affects safe vehicle
operation and / or involves
noncompliance with
government regulation with
warning.
Very High Vehicle / Item inoperable
(loss of primary function).
High Vehicle operable, but at a
reduced level of
performance. Customer very
dissatisfied.
Moderate Vehicle operable, but some
comfort / convenience
item(s) inoperable.
Customer dissatisfied.
Low Vehicle operable, but some
comfort / convenience
item(s) operable at a
reduced level of
performance.
Criteria: Severity of Effect
Rank
(Manufacturing / Assembly Effect)
Or may endanger operator (machine or
assembly) without warning.
10
Or may endanger operator (machine or
assembly) with warning.
9
Or 100% of product may have to be
scrapped, or vehicle / item repaired in
repair department with a repair time 8
greater than one hour.
Or product may have to be sorted and a
portion (less than 100%) scrapped, or
vehicle / item repaired in repair
department between a half-hour and an 7
hour.
Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
product may have to be scrapped with
no sorting, or vehicle / item repaired in
repair department with a repair time less
than a half-hour. 6
Or 100% of product may have to be
reworked, or vehicle / item repaired
offline but does not go to repair
department.
5
Very Low Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or the product may have to be sorted,
item does not conform. with no scrap, and a portion (less than
Defect noticed by most 100%) reworked.
customers (greater than
75%).
4

Minor Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
item does not conform. product may have to be reworked, with
Defect noticed by 50% of no scrap, on-line but out-of-station.
customers.

Very Minor Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
item does not conform. product may have to be reworked, with
Defect noticed by no scrap, on-line but in-station.
discriminating customers
(less than 25%).
2

None No discernible effect. Or slight inconvenience to operation or

operator, or no effect.

RPN = Risk Priority Number Classifications:

Guidelines example for

SEVERITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
 Criteria: Severity of Effect Criteria: Severity of Effect
Effect Rank
(Customer Effect) (Manufacturing / Assembly Effect)
Hazardous - Very high severity ranking Or may endanger operator (machine or
without when a potential failure assembly) without warning.
warning mode affects safe vehicle
operation and / or involves 10
noncompliance with
government regulation
without warning.
Hazardous - Very high severity ranking Or may endanger operator (machine or
with warning when a potential failure assembly) with warning.
mode affects safe vehicle
operation and / or involves 9
noncompliance with
government regulation with
warning.
Very High Vehicle / Item inoperable Or 100% of product may have to be
(loss of primary function). scrapped, or vehicle / item repaired in
8
repair department with a repair time
greater than one hour.
High Vehicle operable, but at a Or product may have to be sorted and a
reduced level of portion (less than 100%) scrapped, or
performance. Customer very vehicle / item repaired in repair 7
dissatisfied. department between a half-hour and an
hour.
Moderate Vehicle operable, but some Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
comfort / convenience product may have to be scrapped with
item(s) inoperable. no sorting, or vehicle / item repaired in 6
Customer dissatisfied. repair department with a repair time less
than a half-hour.
Low Vehicle operable, but some Or 100% of product may have to be
comfort / convenience reworked, or vehicle / item repaired
item(s) operable at a offline but does not go to repair 5
reduced level of department.
performance.
Very Low Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or the product may have to be sorted,
item does not conform. with no scrap, and a portion (less than
Defect noticed by most 100%) reworked. 4
customers (greater than
75%).
Minor Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
item does not conform. product may have to be reworked, with
3
Defect noticed by 50% of no scrap, on-line but out-of-station.
customers.
Very Minor Fit / Finish / Squeak & Rattle Or a portion (less than 100%) of the
item does not conform. product may have to be reworked, with
Defect noticed by no scrap, on-line but in-station. 2
discriminating customers
(less than 25%).
None No discernible effect. Or slight inconvenience to operation or
operator, or no effect.
1

RPN = Risk Priority Number Classifications:

Score Severity Guidelines
AIAG Six
10 Hazardous without warning Injure a customer or employee
9 Hazardous with warning Be illegal
8 Very High Render product or service unfit for use
7 High Cause extreme customer dissatisfaction
6 Moderate Result in partial malfunction
5 Low Cause a loss of performance which is likely to
4 Very Low Cause minor performance loss
3 Minor Cause a minor nuisance but can be overcome
2 Very Minor Be unnoticed and have only minor effect on pe
1 None Be unnoticed and not affect the performance

Score Occurrence Guidelines

AIAG
10 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk < 0.55 More than once per day
9 Very High: Persistent Failures, Ppk >= 0.55 Once every 3-4 days
8 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.78 Once every week
7 High: Frequent Failures, Ppk >= 0.86 Once per month
6 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 0.94 Once every 3 months
5 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.00 Once every 6 months
4 Moderate: Occasional Failures, Ppk >= 1.10 Once per year
3 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.20 Once every 1-3 years
2 Low: Relatively Few Failures, Ppk >=1.30 Once every 3-6 years
1 Remote: Failure is Unlikely, Ppk >=1.67 Once every 6-9 years

Score Detection Guidelines

AIAG
10 Almost Impossible: Absolute certainty of non-detection
9 Very Remote: Controls will probably not detect
8 Remote: Controls have poor chance of detection
7 Very Low: Controls have poor chance of detection
6 Low: Controls may detect
5 Moderate: Controls may detect
4 Moderately High: Controls have a good chance to detect
3 High: Controls have a good chance to detect
2 Very High: Controls almost certain to detect
1 Very High: Controls certain to detect
mple for PROCESS FMEA (PFMEA)
OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA DETECTION EVALUATION C

Probability Likely Failure Rates Rank Detection Criteria

Almost Absolute
Impossible certainty of
non-
>/ 100 per thousand pieces 10 detection.

Very High:
Persistent
Failures Very Remote Controls will
probably not
detect.
50 per thousand pieces 9

Remote Controls
have poor
20 per thousand pieces 8 chance of
detection.
High:
Frequent Very Low Controls
Failures have poor
chance of
10 per thousand pieces 7 detection.

Low Controls may

detect.

5 per thousand pieces 6

Moderate Controls may

detect.

2 per thousand pieces 5

Moderate:
Occasional
Failures
 Moderately Controls
High have a good
chance to
detect.

1 per thousand pieces 4

High Controls
have a good
chance to
detect.

0.5 per thousand pieces 3

Low:
Relatively
Few Failures

Very High Controls

almost
certain to
detect.
0.1 per thousand pieces 2

Very High Controls

certain to
detect.
Remote:
Failure is </ 0.01 per thousand pieces 1
Unlikely

= CC = SC or HIC

ple for DESIGN FMEA (DFMEA)

OCCURRENCE EVALUATION CRITERIA DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA
Probability Likely Failure Rates Rank Detection Criteria
Almost Absolute
Impossible certainty of
non-
>/ 100 per thousand pieces 10 detection.

Very High:
Persistent
Failures Very Remote Controls will
probably not
detect.
50 per thousand pieces 9

Remote Controls
have poor
20 per thousand pieces 8
chance of
High: detection.
Frequent Very Low Controls
Failures have poor
10 per thousand pieces 7 chance of
detection.

Low Controls may

detect.
5 per thousand pieces 6

Moderate Controls may

Moderate: detect.
Occasional 2 per thousand pieces 5
Failures

Moderately Controls
High have a good
1 per thousand pieces 4 chance to
detect.

High Controls
have a good
0.5 per thousand pieces 3
chance to
Low: detect.
Relatively Very High Controls
Few Failures almost
0.1 per thousand pieces 2 certain to
detect.

Very High Controls

Remote:
certain to
Failure is </ 0.01 per thousand pieces 1
detect.
Unlikely

= CC = SC or HIC
elines
Six Sigma Bad
or employee

service unfit for use

stomer dissatisfaction
alfunction
rformance which is likely to result in a complaint
rmance loss
sance but can be overcome with no performance loss
have only minor effect on performance Good
not affect the performance

idelines
Six Sigma
ore than once per day > 30% Bad
nce every 3-4 days < 30%
nce every week < 5%
nce per month < 1%
nce every 3 months < 0.03%
nce every 6 months < 1 per 10,000
nce per year < 6 per 100,000
nce every 1-3 years < 6 per million
nce every 3-6 years < 3 per 10 million
nce every 6-9 years < 2 per billion Good

delines
Six Sigma
Defect caused by failure is not detectable Bad
Occasional units are checked for defects
Units are systematically sampled and inspected
All units are manually inspected
Manual inspection with mistake-proofing modifications
Process is monitored (SPC) and manually inspected
SPC is used with an immediate reaction to out of control conditions
SPC as above, 100% inspection surrounding out of control conditions
All units are automatically inspected
Defect is obvious and can be kept from affecting the customer Good
PFMEA)
DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA
Suggested
Range of
Detection
Inspection Types Methods Rank
Manual Inspection Cannot
detect or is
not checked.
10

Manual Inspection Control is

achieved with
indirect or
random 9
checks only.

Manual Inspection Control is

achieved with
visual 8
inspection
only.
Manual Inspection Control is
achieved with
double visual
inspection 7
only.

Gauging / Control is
Manual Inspection achieved with
charting
methods,
such as SPC 6
(Statistical
Process
Control).
Error - Proofed / Control is
Gauging based on
variable
gauging after
parts have
left the
station, or
GO/NO GO 5
gauging
performed on
100% of the
parts after
parts have
left the
station.
 Error - Proofed / Error
Gauging detection in
subsequent
operations, or
gauging
performed on 4
set-up and
first piece
check (for
set-up
causes only).
Error - Proofed / Error
Gauging detection in-
station, or
error
detection in
subsequent
operations by
multiple
layers of 3
acceptance,
supply,
select, install,
verify, cannot
accept
discrepant
part.

Error - Proofed / Error

Gauging detection in-
station
(automatic
gauging with
automatic 2
stop feature).
Cannot pass
discrepant
part.
Error - Proofed Discrepant
parts cannot
be made
because item
has been 1
error-proofed
by process /
product
design.

= Blank

MEA)
DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA
 Suggested Range of
Detection Methods Rank
Design Control will not
and/or can not detect a
potential cause/mechanism
and subsequent failure 10
mode; or there is no Design
Control.

Very remote chance the

Design Control will detect a
potential cause/mechanism
and subsequent failure 9
mode.

Remote chance the Design

Control will detect a potential
8
cause/mechanism and
subsequent failure mode.
Very low chance the Design
Control will detect a potential
cause/mechanism and 7
subsequent failure mode.

Low chance the Design

Control will detect a potential
cause/mechanism and 6
subsequent failure mode.

Moderate chance the Design

Control will detect a potential
cause/mechanism and 5
subsequent failure mode.

Moderately high chance the

Design Control will detect a
potential cause/mechanism 4
and subsequent failure
mode.
High chance the Design
Control will detect a potential
3
cause/mechanism and
subsequent failure mode.
Very high chance the Design
Control will detect a potential
cause/mechanism and 2
subsequent failure mode.

Design Control will almost

certainly detect a potential
1
cause/mechanism and
subsequent failure mode.

= Blank
 Value Stream Mapping

Mapped Area:

Date:
 Production Scheduling

Production Plan

Physical Information Flow

Digital Information Flow

Truck Process Box (I)

2x per
Week
Supplier XY

Material Flow
Supplier / Customer Process Box

Takt Time:

Operators:

Availability:

Shifts/Day:

Time/Shift:
Shifts/Day:

Time/Shift:

Srap Rate:

Rework Rate:

Process Steps
 Value Stream Mapping Symbols:

Kanban Signal

Production Plan

Kanban Collection

cal Information Flow

Kanban Board

Searching

Kanban Card

Inventory

Proc

I
FIFO
FIFO Lane Pull

Push Supermarket
ols:

Process Box (II)

Assembly Cell
 Con
Control Plan No Prototype / Production Customer
Part Number / Revision Customer Contact:
Part Name / Description Plan Prepared By:
Characteristic

Part /
Process Name / Operation Description Tool/Jig
Process No No. Product
 Control Plan

Characteristic Methods

Characteristic
Class (Key or
Process Critical) Product / Process / Specification / Tolerence
n
Date (originated) = Date (revision) =
Customer Eng. Approval (if required) =
Customer Quality Approval (if required) =
Methods
Sample
Reaction Plan
Evaluation Measurements Technique Control method
Size Frequency
 Key
Critical
A product characteristics for which reasonably aniticpated variation is likely to significantly affect customer satisfaction with a
A product characteristics for which reasonably aniticpated variation is likely to significantly affect the products safety or compl