- 案例研究的背景
- Define Phase
- Measure Phase
- Analyze Phase
- Improve Phase
- Control Phase
- References
This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
16.2 Define Phase
The Define phase has three components: business case with a project objective,SIPOCanalysis, and Voice of the Customer (VoC) analysis.
Prepare a Business Case with a Project Objective
Preparing a business case requires team members to answer the following eight partially redundant questions. Some of the answers can be obtained from the draft project objective completed by the champion and process owner. The redundancy in the questions helps team members distill the critical elements of the business case.
Question:What is the name of the process?
Answer:MSDPurchasing Process.The first step in the supply chain for theMSDprocess is the process for purchasing MSDs. Hence, the first operation to be investigated byMSDquality project team members is the process for purchasing MSDs. Team members may study other factors that affect the quality of MSDs, such as the method of use or shelf-life at a later time.
Question:What is the aim of the process?
Answer: The aim of the purchasing process as it relates to this project is to purchase MSDs that improve the productivity and morale of the employees in thePSDand decrease production costs.
Question:What is the business case (economic rationale) for the project? This is answered by addressing the following subquestions:
Question:Why do theMSDproject at all?
Answer: According to a judgment sample of three employees and two managers from thePSD, team members determined that MSDs that cannot withstand four or more bends are unacceptable because they are unlikely to remain intact throughout the paper shuffling processes and will not hold papers tightly.This is calleddurability.Defective MSDs create costs forPOI; for example: (a) papers from different clients may get mixed together if not properly bound, requiring additional processing time, (b) employees may have to use multiple MSDs for one project, creating additional material costs, and (c) employees get frustrated and do not perform their jobs efficiently and productively, consequently increasing labor costs. Additionally, team members discovered that a large proportion of the boxes containing MSDs arrive to thePSDwith five or more broken MSDs. This is calledfunctionality.This creates additional processing costs forPOI; for example, (a) increased unit costs and (b) frustrated and nonproductive employees and managers. Team members used the same judgment sample as above and determined that approximately 60% of individual MSDs do not meet durability criteria, and 60% ofMSDboxes do not meet functionality criteria (see the survey questionnaire in Table 16.3 and the data matrix in Table 16.4).
Table 16.3. Survey Questionnaire
Survey
Name: __________________________
1. Please estimate the percentage of MSDs that cannot withstand four or more bends. _______2. Please estimate the percentage ofMSDboxes that contain greater than five broken MSDs. _______
Table 16.4. Survey Data
Survey Number
Response Q1
Response Q2
1
55%
70%
2
50%
55%
3
60%
65%
4
65%
60%
5
70%
50%
Average
60%
60%
Question:Why do theMSDproject now?
Answer: Because thePSDis experiencing very high monthly production costs (seeFigures 16.1and16.2) and because internal customers, including managers and hourly employees, are submitting an increased number of complaints:14 in the first quarter, 18 in the second quarter, and 32 in the third quarter, as recorded in the Purchasing Department's complaint log for the fiscal year 2003. There are 100 hourly workers in thePSD.
Question:What business objectives are supported by theMSDquality project?
Answer: TheMSDproject is most strongly related to the "minimize production costs" and "eliminate employee complaints" business objectives (see Table 16.2).
Question:What are the consequences of not doing the project?
Answer: The consequences of not doing the project are decreased profit margins due to higher production costs and increased employee complaints due to frustration with materials.
Question:What projects have higher or equal priority?
Answer: At this time, theMSDquality project has the highest priority (4.95) (see the bottom row of Table 16.2).
Question:What is the problem statement? What is the pain?
Answer: Low-quality MSDs create additional production costs and employee frustration.
Question:What is the goal (desired state) for this project?
Answer: The Champion and Process Owner of theMSDprocess initially determined that a 100-fold improvement inMSDquality (durability and functionality) should be the goal for the Six Sigma project.They derived the concept of a 100-fold improvement from Motorola's 1986 stated improvement rate of tenfold every 2 years, or a 100-fold every 4 years during the kickoff of the Six Sigma effort. Because 100-fold improvement means the defects per million opportunities (DPMO) would decrease from 600,000 to 6,000, and aDPMOof 6,210 represents a Four Sigma process, team members decided to use Four Sigma as the goal for theMSDproject.
Question:What is the project scope? This is answered by answering the following subquestions:
Question:What are the process boundaries?
Answer: The starting point for the project is when the Purchasing Department receives purchase orders from thePSD. The stopping point for the project is when thePSDplaces MSDs into inventory.
Question:What, if anything, is out of bounds?
Answer: The project team cannot change the way employees handle or use MSDs.
Question:What resources are available for the project?
Answer: The budget for theMSDproject is $30,000.00.This includes estimated hourly salaries of project participants. Team members Brian Mercurio and Jeremy Pressman are the only project participants who will incur additional job responsibilities as a result of the project. Budget estimates show "opportunity cost" and "hard costs" (see Table 16.5). The estimated hard costs ($10,500) and expected opportunity costs ($15,540) are less than the budget of $30,000.
Table 16.5. Estimated Labor Costs for the Project
Name
Position
Estimated salary/hour
Expected number of hours per week
Expected opportunity costs for 21 weeks
Expected hard costs for 21 weeks (direct labor costs)
Adam Johnson
Champion
$100
2
$4,200
Dana Rasis
Process Owner
$50
2
$2,100
Bettina Arguelles
Green Belt
$50
5
$5,250
Brian Mercurio
Team member
$25
10
$0
$5,250
Jeremy Pressman
Team member
$25
10
$0
$5,250
Lindsey Barton
Finance rep.
$45
2
$1,890
Mary Montano
ITrep.
$50
2
$2,100
Total
$15,540
$10,500
Question:Who can approve expenditures?
Answer: Only the Process Owner, Dana Rasis, can approve expenditures.
Question:How much can the team spend beyond $30,000.00 without seeking additional authority?
Answer: Nothing.
Question:What are the obstacles and constraints of the project?
Answer: The team must work within a $30,000 budget and a 21-week time constraint.
Question:What time commitment is expected of team members?
Answer: Team members are expected to be present at weekly Friday morning meetings from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. Team members are also expected to provide progress of project tasks at each meeting. Completion of project tasks will require additional hours of work per week.
Question:What will happen to each team member's regular job while working on the project?
Answer: If any, overtime hours will be compensated for team members and support staff.The estimated rate for overtime labor is 1.5 times normal labor. Overtime labor is not included in the budget in Table 16.5.
Question:Is there a Gantt chart for the project?
Answer: A Gantt chart is shown in Table 16.6.
Table 16.6. Gantt Chart for the MSD Project
Steps
Resp.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Define
BA
X
X
X
X
X
X
Measure
BA
X
X
Analyze
BA
X
X
X
Improve
BA
X
X
X
X
X
X
Control
BA
X
X
X
X
X
Question:What are the benefits of the project?
Answer: The soft benefits of the project include eliminating complaints from thePSDand increasing employee morale. The hard (financial) benefits of the project are minimizing labor costs and material costs.困难的估计成本的好处在page 498.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
The labor costs of the current and proposed systems are presented in Table 16.7.
Table 16.7. Labor Costs
100 employees in the Paper Shuffling Department (PSD) |
|---|
× 40 hours/week/paper shuffling employee × 10% of time devoted to clipping @ 400 hours/week devoted to clipping inPSD × $25/hour/paper-shuffling employee $10,000/week devoted to clipping × 50 weeks/year $500,000/year devoted to clipping × 0.60 defective clips (judgment sample estimate of durability of the current system) Broken clips are not selected for use on jobs. This makes 0.6 a conservative estimate of the percentage of defective clips in the current system.[*] $300,000/year on defective clipping for current system × 0.0062 defective clips (durability of the proposed system)[**] $3,100/year on defective clipping for proposed system |
Hence, a lower bound on the estimated annual savings on labor costs from improving theMSDpurchasing process is $296,900 ($300,000 – $3,100). ThePSD增加10%的年度员工流动率。对capitalize on savings in labor costs, the department will now hire 4 new employees instead of 10 new employees, for a savings of 6 full-time employees ($296,900/$25 = 11,876 hours; 11,876/40 hours per week/50 weeks per year = 5.938 = ~ 6 employees saved). Alternatively, thePSDmay now serve more customers with its current employee base.
The material costs of the current system are shown in Table 16.8.
Table 16.8. Material Costs
100 employees in the Paper Shuffling Department |
|---|
× 60 projects/week/paper-shuffling employee × 50 weeks/year @ 300,000 projects/year requiring 3,000,000 MSDs (10 clips per project on average) × 0.60 defective clips (judgment sample estimate of current system). 7,500,000[*]clips must be used to complete 300,000 projects × 0.01/clip @ $75,000/year on clips in current system × 0.0062 defective clips (proposed system) 3,018,000[**]clips must be used to complete 300,000 projects × .01/clip @ $30,180/year on clips in proposed system |
Hence, the annual savings on material costs from improvingMSDpurchasing process is $44,820 ($75,000 – $30,180). This yields a lower bound on the estimated annual total hard benefit savings of $341,720.00.
Question:What are the roles and responsibilities of team members?
Answer: The roles and responsibilities of team members are shown in Table 16.9.
Table 16.9. Roles and Responsibilities
Project Name:MSDPurchasing Process
Role
Responsibility
Stakeholder
Supervisor's signature
Signature
Date
Champion
Adam Johnson
AJ
9/1/2003
Process Owner
Dana Rasis
DR
9/1/2003
Green Belt
Bettina Arguelles
BA
9/2/2003
Team member 1
Bryan Mercurio
BM
9/3/2003
Team member 2
Jeremy Pressmen
JP
9/3/2003
Finance rep
Lindsey Barton
LB
9/4/2003
ITrep
Michelle Montano
MM
9/4/2003
Do ASIPOCAnalysis
The second part of the define phase requires that team members perform aSIPOCanalysis. ASIPOCanalysis is a simple tool for identifying the suppliers and their inputs into a process, the high-level steps of a process, the outputs of the process, and the customer segments interested in the outputs. ASIPOCanalysis of POI's Purchasing Department is shown inFigure 16.3在page500.
)
Figure 16.3SIPOC Analysis
Conduct a "Voice of the Customer" Analysis
The third part of the define phase involves team members collecting and analyzing VoC data. VoC data is verbal or written information collected from a sample of users in a selected market segment. The questionnaire used to collect data from users of MSDs in thePSDis shown in Table 16.10 on page 501.
Table 16.10. Voice of the Customer Questionnaire
Questions[*] |
|---|
What emotions come to mind when you think about MSDs? What needs and wants come to mind when you think about MSDs? What complaints or problems would you like to mention about MSDs? |
Team members analyze the "Voice of the Customer" (VoC) data by market segment (see column 1 of Table 16.11 on page 502). Next, they use all the raw VoC data points (see column 2 of Table 16.11) to create affinity diagram themes [see References 3 and 5 and Chapter 15], calledfocus points(see boldface numbers linking columns 2 and 3 in column 3 in Table 16.11). Next, team members identify the engineering issue underlying each focus point, calledcognitive issues(see column 4 in Table 16.11). Then team members convert each cognitive issue into one or more quantitative engineering variable, calledcritical-to-quality(CTQ) variables (see column 5 in Table 16.11). Finally, team members develop technical specifications for eachCTQ(see column 6 of Table 16.11).
Table 16.11. Analysis Table for Voice of the Customer Data
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selected market segment |
Raw VoC data |
Affinity diagram theme(focus point) |
Driving issue(cognitive Issue) |
CTQ |
Tech specs |
Paper organizing managers |
Variation in durability 1 |
Durability |
Ability to withstand bending |
≥ 4 bends without breaking |
|
"My employees are frustrated about the MSDs. They complain that they break too fast." 1 & 2 |
Variation in color 2 |
Color |
Number of differentMSDcolors |
= 1 color of MSDs |
|
"My employees are complaining that the MSDs are not holding up during the organizing process." 1 |
Variation in functionality 3 |
Functionality |
Number of broken MSDs in a box |
≤ 5 broken MSDs in a box |
|
"The employees are also complaining that the color of the MSDs change from one day to the next. It seems to be confusing them." 2 |
|||||
"My employees are very unhappy with the purple and blue MSDs. They would prefer only one color of MSDs be used consistently." 2 |
|||||
"My employees say that more than five MSDs per box arrive broken." 3 |
|||||
"I've heard from numerous employees that the MSDs coming straight from inventory are already broken." 3 |
|||||
. |
|||||
. |
|||||
. |
|||||
Hourly employees |
|||||
"The MSDs are falling apart before we are ready to file the papers into binders. AnMSDshould be able to take at least four bends." 1 |
|||||
"The MSDs aren't helping us to do our work efficiently." 1 & 2 |
|||||
"I would prefer if we used only one color of MSDs." 2 |
|||||
"I don't understand why we use different colors of MSDs." 2 |
|||||
“这份只是打破在弯曲时他们the paper stacks. They should take at least four bends." 1 |
|||||
"It is very frustrating when you open a brand new box of MSDs and find that more than five of the clips are already broken." 3 |
|||||
"It is very time-consuming to sift out the broken MSDs from a brand new box coming straight from inventory." 3 |
A Kano questionnaire (see Table 16.12 on page 504) is a tool used by team members to classify a set of CTQs (see column 1 in Table 16.12) into an appropriate Kano quality category (see columns 2 and 3 in Table 16.12) from a large sample of regular users of a product, service, or process (see Chapter 4). There are six common Kano categories:
One-way (O)— User satisfaction is proportional to the performance of the feature; the lower the performance, the lower the user satisfaction; the higher the performance, the higher the user satisfaction.
Must-be (M)— User satisfaction is not proportional to the performance of the feature; the lower the performance, the lower the user satisfaction, but high performance creates feelings of indifference to the feature.
Attractive (A)— Again, user satisfaction is not proportional to the performance of the feature; low levels of performance create feelings of indifference to the feature, but high levels of performance create feelings of delight to the feature.
Indifferent (I)— User does not care about the feature.
Questionable (Q)— User response does not make sense (e.g., delighted if feature is present and delighted if feature is absent).
Reverse (R)— User offers responses opposite the responses expected by individuals conducting the Kano survey (e.g., "do not like it" if feature is present and "delighted" if feature is absent).
Table 16.12. Kano Questionnaire for MSDs
CTQs |
How would you feel if the followingCTQwere present in the product? |
How would you feel if theCTQwere not present in the product? |
What percentage of cost increase, over current costs, would you be willing to pay for thisCTQ? |
|---|---|---|---|
Ability to withstand ≥ 4 bends |
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 30% [ ] 40% or more [ ] |
= One color of MSDs |
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 30% [ ] 40% or more [ ] |
≤ 5 Broken MSDs in a box |
|||
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
Delighted [ ] Expect it and like it [ ] No feeling [ ] Live with it [ ] Do not like it [ ] Other [ ] |
0% [ ] 10% [ ] 20% [ ] 30% [ ] 40% or more [ ] |
Additionally, team members use a Kano questionnaire to classify CTQs into their appropriate Kano cost category (see column 4 in Table 16.12). There are three common Kano cost categories:
Approximately, 80% of users are willing to pay at least a 10% cost increase for a new feature or a new product or service, above current offerings of products or services.
Approximately, 60% of users are willing pay at least a 10% cost increase for a new feature or a new product or service, above current offerings of products or services.
Approximately, 10% of users are willing to pay a 10% cost increase for a new feature or a new product or service, above current offerings of products or services.
The questionnaire in Table 16.12 was given to the 100 paper shufflers in thePSD. Table 16.13 is used to classify the survey responses from each of the 100 paper shufflers for each of the CTQs into their Kano categories.
Table 16.13. Classification Table for Responses to a Kano Questionnaire
Not present question response (see column 3 in Table 16.12) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Present Question Response (see column 2 in Table 16.12) |
Delighted |
Expect it and like it |
No feeling |
Live with it |
Do not like it |
|
Delighted |
Q |
A |
A |
A |
O |
|
Expect it and like it |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
No feeling |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
Live with it |
R |
I |
I |
I |
M |
|
Do not like it |
R |
R |
R |
R |
Q |
For example, if one of the paper shufflers answered the Kano survey about durability as is shown in Table 16.14, theCTQwould be classified as "attractive" for that paper shuffler (see Table 16.13 for classification table).
Table 16.14. One Paper Shuffler's Kano Questionnaire for MSDs
CTQs |
How would you feel if the followingCTQwere present in the product? |
How would you feel if theCTQwere not present in the product? |
|---|---|---|
Durability: Ability to withstand ≥ 4 bends |
Delighted [X ] |
Delighted [ ] |
Expect it and like it [ ] |
Expect it and like it [ ] |
|
No feeling [ ] |
No feeling [X ] |
|
Live with it [ ] |
Live with it [ ] |
|
Do not like it [ ] |
Do not like it [ ] |
|
Other [ ] |
Other [ ] |
The responses for the 100 paper shufflers are tabulated in Table 16.15.
Table 16.15. Tabulated Responses to Kano Questionnaire
CTQs |
Kano quality category |
Kano cost category |
|---|---|---|
Durability: Ability to withstand four or more bends |
M = 80 |
|
O = 20 |
0% = 100 |
|
M = 35 |
||
Color: Only 1 color per box |
O = 15 |
|
I = 50 |
0% = 100 |
|
Functionality: Less than or equal to five broken MSDs in a box |
M = 10 |
|
O = 90 |
0% = 100 |
Durability is a must-be quality characteristic, and its presence is required to achieve employee indifference. Its absence creates employee dissatisfaction. ThePSDis not willing to pay more for durable MSDs. Functionality is a one-way quality characteristic. Its absence is related to employee dissatisfaction, and its presence is related to employee satisfaction. ThePSDis not willing to pay more for functional MSDs. Color is an indifferent quality characteristic.PSDemployees do not care about it and are not willing to pay more for MSDs that are uniform in color.
The final step of a VoC analysis is to define eachCTQ(see Table 16.16).
Table 16.16. Definition of CTQs
CTQ |
Definition of unit |
Definition of opportunity for defect |
Definition of defect |
Kano Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Durability:能够承受弯曲 |
MSD |
MSD |
Break < 4 bends |
Must-be: Fundamental to the delivery of the most basic level of customer satisfaction. |
Color: Number of differentMSDcolors |
1 box of MSDs |
MSD |
MSDcolors in one box > 1 |
Indifferent: Far less critical than durability to paper shufflers. |
Functionality: Number of broken MSDs in a box |
1 box of MSDs |
MSD |
Broken MSDs in one box > 5 |
One-way: Improving the number of functional MSDs in a box will improve employee satisfaction in a linear fashion. |
Returning to the first part of the Define phase, team members can now define the project's objectives.
Project Objective 1
Decrease (direction) the percentage of MSDs that cannot withstand four or more bends without breaking (measure) bought by the Purchasing Department (process) to 0.62% (goal) by January 1, 2004 (deadline). Go for Four Sigma!
Project Objective 2
Decrease (direction) the percentage of boxes of MSDs with more than five broken clips (measure) bought by the Purchasing Department (process) to 0.62% (goal) by January 1, 2004 (deadline). Go for Four Sigma!
A correlation exists between the project objectives. A brokenMSDcannot withstand four or more bends because it is already broken. Improving the percentage of functional MSDs per box will increase the percentage of MSDs that can withstand four or more bends.