html5-img
1 / 42

DEFINE

Six Sigma Project Title: Maximize “on time” delivery and reduce delays in delivery of Goods Project No.: OAS-06-007 (2W) (Revision 7, 7 September 2006).

paloma-hall
Télécharger la présentation

DEFINE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Six Sigma Project Title:Maximize “on time” delivery and reduce delays in delivery of GoodsProject No.: OAS-06-007 (2W)(Revision 7, 7 September 2006)

  2. Champion: Paulino P. SantiagoTeam Leader: Bryan C. CookAsst. Team Leaders: Ma. Corazon Panganiban and Manolo D. MacariolaMembers:Lorna Santillan, Eric De Leon, Janet E. PaternoHernand De Chavez and Rey Belza

  3. DEFINE Project Title: Maximize on time delivery and reduce delays in delivery of goods • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • OAIS-PC receives a number of complaints for the delayed delivery of goods which causes inconvenience to end user, delay implementation of projects and results in lost opportunity. • PROBLEM STATEMENT: • Delay in delivery of goods has a negative impact on customer (user section) satisfaction and results in lost of opportunity on the use of goods, or holds back the implementation of project.

  4. DEFINE Project Title: Maximize on time delivery and reduce delays in delivery of goods • GOAL STATEMENT: • Reduce the number of delayed deliveries of goods and increase the "on time" delivery and customer satisfaction - KRA

  5. High Level Process Map DEFINE

  6. Detailed Process Map for Goods DEFINE

  7. Output characteristics/ Project Y Relationship Matrix DEFINE

  8. DEFINE Critical to Quality

  9. S P O I C Customer Input Output Supplier Process CTQs DEFINE S I P O C CTQs OAIS-PC Purchase Order (PO) • Issues PO to • Supplier • 2. Receives, • acknowledges & • signs PO • 3. Process PO • 4. Issues delivery • receipt & invoice • 5. Delivers Goods • 6. Received Goods • & issue RR • 7. Check, Inspects, • accepts Goods & • signs RR Delivery of Goods Users • On time • delivery • 2. Correct Specs. • 3. Correct qty.

  10. Time Line DEFINE Time Line Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 49 days 26 Jan.06 to 15 Mar.06 45 days 16 Mar.06 to 30 Apr.06 70 days 1 Jul.06 to 8 Sep.06 40 days 15 Dec.05 to 25 Jan.06 59 days 2 May06 to 30Jun.06

  11. MEASURE SAMPLE Data Collection Please see attached excel worksheets for the data collected

  12. MEASURE Process Capability for Project Y Local Deliveries

  13. MEASURE Process Capability for Project Y Local Deliveries Distributioncurve

  14. Process Capability for Project Y Local Deliveries MEASURE

  15. Process Capability for Project Y Indent Deliveries MEASURE

  16. Process Capability for Project Y Indent Deliveries MEASURE Distributioncurve

  17. Process Capability for Project Y Indent Deliveries MEASURE

  18. Pareto Chart for no. of delayed Delivery per Supplier MEASURE

  19. Pareto Chart for cumulative no. of days of delayed Delivery per Supplier MEASURE

  20. Pareto Chart for no. of delayed Delivery per Supplier MEASURE

  21. Pareto Chart for cumulative no. of days of delayed Delivery per Supplier MEASURE

  22. MEASURE

  23. MEASURE

  24. MEASURE

  25. Cause-and-Effect Diagram ANALYZE Type of Supplier Procedure / Policy Local AO & AC Origin of goods Indent Penalty Clauses manufacturer Lack of supplier’s management policy distributor retailer Timely delivery of goods Commitment of the supplier to delivery within the terms of PO Lack of follow-up or monitoring Off-the-shelves Miscommunication Custom made Fax Machine Changes in specs after delivery Computer Lack or not clear specs. Softwarei.e. Oracle System Specs. & type of goods Technology & Communication

  26. Cause-and-Effect Diagram N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C C C ANALYZE Type of Supplier Procedure / Policy Local AO & AC Origin of goods Indent Penalty Clauses manufacturer Lack of supplier’s management policy distributor retailer Timely delivery of goods Commitment of the supplier to delivery within the terms of PO Lack of follow-up or monitoring Late submission of shipping docs Changes in specs after delivery Miscommunication Custom made Fax Machine Off-the-shelves Computer Lack or not clear specs. Softwarei.e. Oracle System Specs. & type of goods Technology & Communication

  27. Cause-and-Effect Diagram Prioritize list of Cs ANALYZE Type of Supplier Procedure / Policy Commitment of the supplier to delivery within the terms of PO Penalty Clauses Timely delivery of goods Lack of follow-up or monitoring Late submission of shipping docs Lack or not clear specs. Miscommunication Fax Machine Specs. & type of goods Technology & Communication

  28. IMPROVE Proposed Solution Proposed Solutions • Short Term: • Strict Monitoring of supplier activities from receipt of PO to delivery of goods; • Call Supplier to confirm if they received the fax copy of PO • Call Supplier three days before the delivery deadline to remind them of their pending delivery for local and air shipment or as appropriate for sea shipment; and • To add in the notes to supplier of PO the following: “Please sign the lower right portion to acknowledge PO and fax it back to us. This will expedite payment after complete delivery” • B. Medium Term Solution: • Alert Supplier thru Oracle System every time PO is approved; • Alert Supplier thru Oracle System of their pending delivery prior to delivery deadline; • Development of Supplier Management System

  29. IMPROVE Proposed Solution

  30. Piloted Solution “To be process map” IMPROVE

  31. IMPROVE FAILURE MODE and EFFECT ANALYSIS (FMEA)

  32. Hypothesis Test IMPROVE Ho: mu1 = mu2 Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the “as is” process and the “improved” process. Ha: mu1 is not = mu2 Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference. Since P < 0.05 (0.000), we will reject Ho and accept Ha. Therefore, there is a difference between the “as is” and the “improved” sample data. Two-sample T for Days Orig. vs. Improved N Mean StDev SE Mean Days Orig. 247 11.1 22.7 1.4 Improved 93 2.43 4.78 0.50 Difference = mu (Days Orig.) - mu (Improved) Estimate for difference: 8.65491 95% CI for difference: (5.64415, 11.66568) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs. not =): T-Value = 5.66 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 296

  33. Report for improved process IMPROVE

  34. IMPROVE Report for improved process Previous Process Sigma is 1.38. Therefore an improvement of 1.28 was realized.

  35. = current  X = desired = direct influence = indirect influence = End-user * Control Stakeholder Analysis    

  36. Control Risk Assessment Matrix

  37. Control Mistake Proofing & Control Sheet

  38. Financial Benefits • SOFT SAVINGS • Avoidance of Capacity Enhancement • Increase Customer Satisfaction • Increase Employee Satisfaction

  39. Financial Benefits Please see attached worksheet

  40. Financial Benefits

  41. Risk Analysis of Goods & Equipment

  42. Thank you... The End!

More Related