STANDARD REPORTING METHOD

FOR PROBLEM SOLVING

6-PANEL
Wrong Doc* Reduction in South East
Region of the UK
Green Belt: John Smith
Project Champion: Hannah Taylor

Process Owner: Franco Massa

Project Team: Ellie Wright, Sam Tucker, Lee Banks**
Project Location: Warley UK
Project Completion Date: 18th September 2015

*Operational definition appendix 2

A14 Page 1
**Fictive names
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

Wrong Doc Ford Credit UK Sales Team/Dealers/Business Centre

Process: Wrong Docs within Purchasing Process.

PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE:

 Drive efficiencies and cost Wrong docs within the
effectiveness UK is currently
 Work together effectively as one team Wrong Doc % showing that UK East
as the highest % of
Rates in UK wrong docs. This was
Sales Regions drilled down further to
the South East region
in particular.

VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: The UK Sales Team are dissatisfied that Wrong Docs within the South East region of the UK are
currently higher than the national average.
CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement): Wrong doc rate to be reduced to national average of 30% or better. (see
appendix 1 for other CTQs)
DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Objective Metric): Any purchasing document that fails to meet the administrational
requirements by containing an error or defect and is defined as a wrong document. (See Appendix 2 for the wrong doc definition)
COST OF POOR QUALITY: : Costs for additional checking at the Business Centre. Rework and time spent at the dealership
manually amending customer details (not lean), resulting in less time generating business. In addition the delay is leading to poor
liquidity for the dealer. FCE Account Managers, time spent supporting both dealer activity and Business Centre Ford Credit
requirements. Car Customer delay in receiving finance and vehicle.
PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOAL 5 Dealerships within the East Region of the UK are generating Wrong Doc
Volumes higher than the national average of 30%.
Page 2
 KPOV Characterization D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
Wrong Documents DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

DPMO = 400,000
(varies region to region)

Page 3
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
KPOV Definition
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

First time received retail purchasing package,

incorrect in some way according to Ford Credit
Purchasing Procedure 200 preventing
completion of the transaction and causing
rework to correct the errors.

Page 4
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

Process Flow Chart

Area of Focus

Page 5
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
Strategy Slide D M A I C R

Useful
1. Contrast and Convergence Contrast
A. Region to region
B. Different Dealers X X
C. Different Operators Incorrect KPOV Correct
Documents Documents

2. Y to X (Walk the process, watch documents being completed,

question operators and subject matter experts on why they think
mistakes are being made, etc.)

Page 6
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
Cause & Effect Diagram w/ Ranking: MSA & Process Capability:
 MSA:
Walk the process- Green Belt walked the process and
completed all measurements as he is an SME within
the process.
An Operational Definition of a wrong doc was created
to detect a defect.
MSA is acceptable
 Baseline Capability:
100 purchasing packages were sampled across 5
dealers between March-June 2015
40 packages were classified as a wrong doc

• DPMO = 400,000

KPOV = Incorrect Document

Process Elements
Element OK A Highlights the areas of
Investigating B focus
Element Not Capable
Element Removed
C
D
MSA Y = f(x)

Stable Unstable

Page 7
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
P-Chart of Wrong Docs.
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
Investigation showed that this was from a
new employee that had not been trained. Unstable Process
The team implemented a training program
and issue was resolved.

Page 8
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

Clues/Evidence
KPOV = Incorrect Document
Strategic Split

Gauge or • Walked the process

MSA Y = f(x)
Process
• Control Chart (P-chart)
Stability issue of lack of
Stability Stable Unstable training was addressed with
new training program

Date Dependent on Date Independent of Date • Scatter Diagram

Page 9
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

No Correlation

Page 10
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

Clues/Evidence
KPOV = Incorrect Document
Strategic Split

Gauge or • Walked the process

MSA Y = f(x)
Process

Stability Stable Unstable • Control Chart (P-chart)

Dependent of Date • Scatter plot shows wrong

Date Independent of Date
doc percentage is random.

UK East UK South • Tukey Analysis shows

Region Other Regions
significant difference
between South and East.

Page 11
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER

Tukey endcount = 24
Complete separation
Significant effect

Page 12
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

Useful Contrast

UK South UK East

Page 13
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

Clues/Evidence
KPOV = Incorrect Document
Strategic Split

Gauge or • Walked the process

MSA Y = f(x)
Process

Stability Stable Unstable • Control Chart (P-chart)

Dependent of Date • Scatter plot shows wrong

Date Independent of Date
doc percentage is random.

• Tukey Analysis shows

Region UK East UK South Other Regions significant difference
between South and East.

Dealer 1 2 3 4 5 6 Random • The Pareto chart

identifies that 80% of
the wrong documents
come from Dealers 1
and 2.

Page 14
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company ANALYZE y=f(x)

80% of the wrong

documents come from
Dealers 1 and 2.

Page 15
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company

Clues/Evidence
KPOV = Incorrect Document
Strategic Split

Gauge or • Walked the process

MSA Y = f(x)
Process

Stability Stable Unstable • Control Chart (P-chart)

Dependent of Date • Scatter plot shows wrong

Date Independent of Date
doc percentage is random.

• Data Shows 60% wrong*doc

Region UK East UK South Other Regions
percent for UK East vs. 12%
for UK South.

Dealer 1 2 3 4 5 6 Random • The Pareto chart identifies

that 80% of the wrong
documents come from
Dealers 1 and 2.
Stage
Customer Dealer Print Send Sign • The Boxplot shows that
the ‘Customer Supplied
Documents’ stage has the
most wrong docs.
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
Analysis By Stage In The Process

‘Customer
Supplies
Number of Wrong Docs Per Week vs. Stage Documents’ is
the worst in
Wrong Docs Per Week

terms of number
of wrong docs.

Dealership Check
Documents’ stage
has the greatest
amount of variation
and is also the
second worst stage
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company IMPROVE y=f(x)
Clues/Evidence
KPOV = Incorrect Document
Strategic Split • Walked the process

Gauge or
MSA Y = f(x) • Control Chart (P-chart)
Process

Stability Stable Unstable

• Scatter plot shows wrong
doc percentage is random.
Date Dependent of Date Independent of Date • Tukey Analysis shows
significant difference
between South and East.
Region UK East UK South Other Regions
• The Pareto chart identifies
that 80% of the wrong
Dealer 1 2 3 4 5 6 Random documents come from
Dealers 1 and 2.
• The Boxplot shows that
Stage
Customer Dealer Print Send Sign the ‘Customer Supplied
Documents’ stage has the
most wrong docs.
 Investigation showed that UK South had a partial checklist
that helped dealerships avoid mistakes. UK East had no
checklist or training.
 Potential solutions: See payoff matrix on next slide.
Page 18
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company IMPROVE y=f(x)

Payoff Matrix- (Brainstorming 1-2-1 training

Electronic Electronic ID
session completed by project team on July Contract with Proof Check
sessions provided by * fields and (AIMS)
17th 2015) account managers to drop down
dealership selections e-signatures
High Checklist
Phase I- The implementation of new Self Service
Dealer Training and the use of a Contracts
check sheet (see appendix 4) when

Benefit
completing documentation has been
introduced. Pilots have taken place
the 5 South East dealerships.
Online self
Full Implementation took place in service training
August 2015, measurements have for dealers
highlighted a decrease in Wrong Doc
volumes by 55%. Low Employ more
specialised
business/finance
managers at
Phase DPMO Zst dealerships

Define Effort
400,000 1.75 Low High
(bassline)
Improve
150,000 2.54
(post pilot)
Improve Phase II- Long term electronic changes will be considered as
(Full 180,000 2.42 part of a larger location based project as this will require large
implementation) amount of resource and IT development. For that reason this
part of the project will be part of a phase 2 approach. (See
Sustain TBD* TBD* Appendix 3 for ‘should be’ process map)
*Post pilot is lower than full implementation as we tend to have full
focus in a ‘training’ environment compared to actual true flow in a
realistic situation

Page 19
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company IMPROVE y=f(x)

Tukey Analysis
Tukey endcount = 17
25
Significant effect
Proportion of Wrong Docs (%)

Significant Improvement
20

15

10

Analyze the last 14 data points

5
before the improvement and the
last 14 data points after the
0 improvement.
East (Before) East (After)

Page 20
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company CONTROL X’s

Wrong Docs is in control and Stable

Xbar-R Chart of Wrong Doc proc. time in seconds
UCL=207,3
200

175
Sample Mean

_
_
150 X=146,7

125

100
LCL=86,0

1 2 3 4 5
Sample

UCL=349,5

300
Sample Range

_
200 R=196,7

100

LCL=43,9
0
1 2 3 4 5
Sample

Subgroups by date of measurements: 01.-05.05.2015

Page 21
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company CONTROL X’s

Control Plan
• Training plan created and training delivered to dealerships within • There is an agreed two way response plan
the pilot • The Sales Manager contacts the dealer to discuss
• On-going training for all new staff and also the dealers outside the most common error leading to wrong docs in
Training the pilots. Response system.
plan Plan

• Process Maps and Flow Charts of new process • Purchasing procedure has the addition of the
• Check list for dealers to support purchasing process check list.
Documentat • Training manual/User Guides for the Wrong Doc checks Aligning
• Introduction of dealer performance goals to reduce
ion wrong doc rate.
Systems &
Structures
• Statistical process at Sales Manager level. Weekly checks on
Wrong doc rates for the region, if the Wrong Doc volume rises
above the control limit then this will be investigated by the Sales
Monitoring Manager.
Plan

Monitoring Plan Extract: SPC on Wrong Doc Volume

month August-November
Overall proportion of wrong docs is about 14%, so we
can draw a conclusion that our process is in control.
Looking at the data we know that we fail to pay-out for
this dealer between 0% and 56% per measured week
The data point for week 5 is out of the control limits.
Investigation regarding the reasons for this unusual
proportion of failed purchasing packages, we find out,
that the responsible person in the dealership for
reviewing the correct document packages was on
vacation within this period with negative impact on the
quality.
Page 22
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company REPLICATE

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

Key Actions Is this Replicable? If Yes, Where? Responsibility
Checklist Yes Warranty Process John Doe
Training Yes Warranty Process John Doe

Note: Recommend initiating Global Corporate Learning E Tracker and complete Prevent Action Health Chart to assure replication AND corporate memory is
updated and critical x’s are replicated in current and future models. http://www.etracker.ford.com/apps/AddIssues/AddIssue.asp?ProjectID=GCORPLRN
UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (what core documents or processes require update?):
Core Book Change Made Owner Agree? Document/ E Tracker # Completed
 Updated Global FCSD Procedure and added checklist
 Global FCSD training process updated to include training requirement for anyone using the system.
List available at web link: http://www.quality.ford.com/warranty/html/gcl_pr.htm

PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: Project Leader & Commodity / Process Owner (LL5) Sign-off:
By signing this document, I agree that the project has been completed and that the
design requirements / process standards have been implemented as declared above.
Project Leader Name……………………………..Signed…..……….…..…..Date…………

Commodity Manager (LL5)………………………Signed…………..……..…Date….……..

Process Owner (LL5)………………..……………Signed…………..……..…Date….……..

Page 23
6-PANEL © 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company
Sustaining the Gains D M A I C R

YES NO
Checklist for Warranty Savings Opportunities:
X
1. Are warranty costs associated with the issue?
If no, do not continue w/checklist
2. Has causal part driving the issue been identified?
If no, return to checklist when causal part identified
3. Does the QB/Function responsible for the part have the
causal part on their top spend list and/or IFR list?
(For contacts, see Quarterback Functional Matrix link on 6-Panel website)
If causal part not on QB’s lists, do not continue w/checklist
Name of Quality QB rep contacted:
4. Has the QB/Function reviewed the warranty spend reduction
tools for additional warranty reduction opportunities?
5. Has the QB/Function identified potential warranty reduction
opportunities through the warranty spend reduction tools?
6. Has the QB/Function engaged FCSD to support delivery of the
identified warranty reduction opportunities?
7. Has the QB/Function identified savings and developed action plans
for implementation of the opportunities?
8. Have the opportunities been implemented and can warranty spend
savings be booked in project’s 6-panel?
9. If the causal part is supplied by outside resource, has the QB/Function
engaged the supplier in the spike recovery process?
NOTE: When causal part is determined to be on QB top spend pareto, problem solver is required to
ensure follow up with QB/Function for closure on the identified warranty savings opportunities.
Page 24
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company APPENDIX 1

Appendix

Page 25
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company APPENDIX 1

List input variables List output variables

(from Process Map) (CTQs)
Process Input Variable Process Output Variable
Customer details and financial Wrong doc rate to be reduced
information to national average or better.

Data Entry By Dealers Checking and wrong doc

process should not take more
In Dealership System that 5 minutes per contract.

Manual copies of documents Paperwork and faxing to be

Marketing Programs reduced

Page 26
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company APPENDIX 2

Operational Definition of a Wrong Doc

First time received retail purchasing package,
incorrect in some way according to FC
Purchasing Procedure 200 preventing
completion of the transaction and causing
rework to correct the errors.

Page 27
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company APPENDIX 3

Page 28
 D M A I C R
6-PANEL
© 2002-2005, Ford Motor Company APPENDIX 4

Page 29