ds-1 design process management: performed through...
TRANSCRIPT
MARK A. GONZALEZ
DS-1 Design Process Management: Performed Through Supply Chain Simulation Technology & The Lean Six
Sigma DMAIC Model
Presentation Overview Page
2
Introduction Overview
Lean Six Sigma DS-1 Outside Plant
Project Overview Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Conclusion Q&A
Introduction Page
3
•Mark A. Gonzalez
•Joliet, Illinois
•8 years with XYZ Communications
•Large company approx 309,000 employees
•DS-1 Design Outside Plant Engineer
•Outstate Illinois Region
Lean Six Sigma Overview Page
4
• Business-driven multi-faceted approach to process improvement, cost reduction & increased profits
• Reduce defects – non-value added processes to improve customer satisfaction
Utilizes statistical thinking
Lean Six Sigma is a structured, data driven approach to process improvement, aimed at doing things BETTER, FASTER and at
LOWER COST.
Organizations contains processes
All processes have inherent variability
Use data to understand variability & drive process improvement decisions
The scope of the project is focused on the best opportunity for process improvement
What Makes Six Sigma Different? Page
5
Critical input X1
Critical input X2
Critical input X3
Critical input Xn
Manage
Project Output (Y)
“Correct”
(In-Specification)
Critical to
Quality
Voice of the
Customer
(VOC) –
Defect-Free!!!!
Critical to Satisfaction
1. Statistically Proven Relationships
Between Inputs (Xs) & Outputs (Ys)
Manage the INPUTS and good OUTPUTS will follow
Y = f(X1, X2, X3, … Xn)
2. Systematic
Control
Control
Control
Comparison 1 Sigma vs. 6 Sigma Page
6
Source: www.onesixsigma.com/node/7664
Lean Six Sigma Overview Page
7
DMAIC
Define the problem
Measure defects of the current process
Analyze data to discover causes of the problem
Improve the process to remove problem causes
Control the process so defects do not recur
Digital Service Grade – 1 (DS1) Overview
A North American Standard for the transmission of digital service at a transport speed of 1.544 Mbps.
Digital service can be any combination of voice, data, or video
Provided full-duplex transmission of serial, asynchronous digital signal
Provided over a physical link such as copper or fiber optic cable.
Page 8
Source: www.data-telinc.com/pub/local_data_ds1ds3.asp
Outside Plant Overview
• Central Office (CO)
• F1 main feed of cable leaving CO
• F2 distribution cable to serving terminal
• Cross Connect Box: connects F1 & F2 cable for continuity
• Serving Terminal feeds customers in geographical area
Page 9
Local Central Office
Customers!!
Source: www.ctekk.com/tele.htm
Project Overview – Business Case Page 10
Through August 2008: 21,669 DS-1 service orders received for the Illinois Outstate Region.
15,640 (72.18%) were Automated Designs (Flow-Through).
21.2% were P-status due to some field issues that arose.
6,028 (27.82%) E-Status orders created a RMA (requesting manual assistance) request.
Close to 49% of total orders require manual intervention.
From State Project Tracking Database (PTD): 1209 DS-1 projects issued to condition loop plant facilities for DS1 usage.
217 of these projects have at least one revision (36%).
Potential delay in providing on-time service to our customers.
Lost time – rework for Construction, Hicap Provisioning Center (HPC), Provisioning
Support Center (PSC), Special Services Installation & Maintenance (SSIM), and
Business Availability Unit (BAU).
Define Phase– Problem/Goal Statement D
Problem Statement: Year-to-date PTD results as of August 2008 indicate that 36% of all DS-1 projects required at least one revision.
Revisions add additional capital costs, rework, and delays in on-time provisioning for customer service orders.
Goal Statement: Reduce the number of DS-1 projects with at least one revision by 20%
A 20% reduction in revisions will yield a financial benefit of approximately $526,242
annually!
DEFINE
• CSTC
• TIRKS
• ARES
• DS1 Design Engineers
• BAU Design Engineers
• Drafter
• Construction
• Service Order
• RMA
• Project design
• ARES, LFACS, TIRKS
• SHOTS response
• Designed project
• SHOTS response
• RMA
• Time/Cost forecast
• Service order design
• Completed field work
• BAU Engineer
• DS1 Design Engineer
• Drafter
• Construction
• External Customer
• HPC
• SSTC/SSIM
• CPC
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs
Customers
High-level Process Flow for Hi-cap Service Order
Projects Process
Step 1 Customer requests Hi-Cap service. Order is generated but cannot be auto assigned in TIRKS.
Step 2 RMA is generated to DS1 Design. Facilities are reviewed and determined unavailable.
Step 3 What is required to provide service? Simple project vs. Complex project.
Step 4 Simple Project: DS1 Design engineer creates & designs project and issues to drafting
Step 5 Drafting draws up the job & the project is issued. Work is scheduled for Construction.
Step 6 Construction completes work in the field & submits for turn up.
Step 7 Hi-Cap service order turn up completed by HPC, SSTC/SSIM.
SIPOC As-Is Process Description
Step 4 Complex Project: BAU Engineer creates & designs projects and issues to drafting
Measure Phase M
Key Process Input Variables (KPIVs) DS1 Process Variables
Volume
Flow-Through orders
Request Manual Assistance (P & E-Status) orders
Construction PTD-1
Undertakings
Designed Verified & Assigned (DVA)
Revisions
Draft Times
Key Process Output Variables (KPOVs) On-Time delivery (Due Date-DD)
MEASURE
DS1 ORDER LIFECYCLEIN
ST
AL
LA
TIO
N
/RE
PA
IRP
SC
BA
UE
NG
INE
ER
ING
AS
SIS
TA
NT
SC
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
HP
C
Order received
from Business
Office with
standard interval
of critical dates
Can order be
assigned in
TIRKS?
RMA
generated
via Hicap
Out; sent to
RMA
mailbox
Log RMA
(DS1
screener
website)
Screeners analyze
RMA – check
TIRKS,LFACS for
facilities (E/P)
status
Are good spare
facilities avail?
Does facility
meet specs?
Build Hicap out
with spans in
TIRKS. Send back
to HPC via Hicap
out
Order flows
to HPC to
finish
design
Order gets issued
to field for
installation
no
yes
no
Are defective
facilities avail?
Submit to
DE via
SHOTS for
complex UT
no
yes
no
Is there a job in
progress?
Send response
back in SHOTSyes
Analyze ARES &
TIRKS to
determine work
required
no
Is job required?
no
Is cable
placement
required?
yes
UT logged
into project
tracker-date
received
forecasted
ECD and
assigned to
drafters
Job
drawn in
work
print.
Takes
job into
ARES/
AoTL
Input
steps
into
JAM.
Updates
project
requirem
ents
Sent back
to
engineering
for final
review
Shots
changed to
CS
(constructio
n)
Project
received
scheduler
assigns
standard
intervals
Techs dispatched
to follow work
prints provided by
engineering
Any changes to
design?
Order
received
from HPC
to be
installed
Determine
problem, defective
pairs, manhole,
plant issues &
contact engineer
for revision
yes
no
yes
Complete field
work & test. Move
SHOTS to
appropriate
engineer
Any changes to
design?
Complete test &
turn-up and refer
service to
customer
Notify HPC for
design resolution
by TFAS ticket
Was resolution
obtained?
yes
no
yes
Obtain TFAS ticket
and Jeop order to
appropriate work
group
no
Wait for
status
from
HPC
TFAS
ticket
received
from
field
tech
yes
BAU/PSC? BAU
BAU/PSC?
BAU
PSC
PSC
MEASURE
DS1 ORDER LIFECYCLE – CONTINUED PAGE 2IN
ST
AL
LA
TIO
N
/RE
PA
IRC
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
EN
GIN
EE
RIN
G
AS
SIS
TA
NT
SB
AU
PS
CH
PC
Open SHOTS
ticket & issue
DPRO. Send to
CR/DR
Are facilities
recoverable?
joint decision
by I/M & PSC
Can simple UT
provide
service?
Generate a simple
UT for work
required and
submit to drafting
no
yes
Conduct field visit,
collect notes
required.
Build job in
TELCO, input mod
codes and
projected dollars
Review job from
drafting/assistants
Is project
accurate and
ready for
issue?
Submit to drafting
for final sendyes
yes
no
no
MEASURE
DS1 ORDER LIFECYCLE – CONTINUED PAGE 3IN
ST
AL
LA
TIO
N
/RE
PA
IRC
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
EN
GIN
EE
RIN
G
AS
SIS
TA
NT
SB
AU
PS
CH
PC
Revision request
received from
construction, ,
update Telco with
rebaseline $$.
Generate
revision
and
submit to
drafting
Build Hicap out
with spans in
TIRKS. Send back
to HPC. Move
SHOTS to SS for
installation.
yesSubmit to drafting
for final send
Review job from
drafting/assistants
Is project
accurate and
ready for
issue?
no
Legend
: Electronic Communication
: Delay in Process
Colored Shape to
Reference off Page
Continuation
Measured Data Analysis of Ds1 Orders Received (Fallout)
State 2008
YTD Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
DS1 Volume
ILOS 21669 2735 2604 2710 2899 2663 2731 2588 2739
DS1 Due Date Misses
ILOS 322 39 34 34 75 42 31 32 35
RID Misses
ILOS 58 10 7 8 9 5 7 5 7
Flow-through
ILOS 15640 1999 1943 1941 2103 1917 1935 1738 2064
"E" Status to Total RMA
ILOS 6753 828 778 829 916 827 855 954 766
"P" Status to Total RMA
ILOS 1818 290 201 213 240 267 185 216 206 UT Issued Late - DVA
ILOS 55 4 12 7 7 3 3 2 17
Construction PTD - 1
ILOS 203 28 33 55 29 14 12 16 16
A
Measure – Analyze Phase
Analysis of Percentage of Orders
Flow Through 72.18
P-Status 21.21
E-Status 27.85
Pe
rc
en
tag
e
ANALYSIS
XYZ Communications
Cost Analysis of DS1 Lost Hours YTD August 2008
HPC PSC BAU Construction SSIM
Engineering
Assistants Total
Operations Analysis:
Number of Employees 40 13 61 154 100 18 386
Loaded Labor Rate $34.00 $117.14 $117.14 $61.06 $61.06 $34.00 424
Cost of Labor per Day at
Capacity $10,880.00 $12,182.56 $57,164.32 $75,225.92 $48,848.00 $4,896.00 $163,818.40
DS1 Order Analysis:
Number of DS1 Orders
received 21,669 8,571 601 1,209 21,669 1,209 54,928
Number of DS1 Fallout
(rework) 121,986 1,920 163 217 1,818 217 126,321
Total Amount of DS1 Work 143,655 10,491 764 1,426 23,487 1,426 181,249
Cost of DS1 Order Analysis:
Average Hours Spent on tasks 0.030 2 5.88 49.96 2.66 39.24 99.77
Total Hours Spent on DS1
Orders 650 17,142 3,534 60,402 57,640 47,441 186,808.29
Cost per Total DS1 orders received $22,102.38 $2,008,013.88 $413,958.70 $3,688,124.14 $3,519,470.31 $1,612,999.44 $11,264,668.85
Cost of Rework Analysis:
Average Hours Spent on tasks 0.030 2 5.88 49.96 2.66 14.96 75.49
Total Hours Spent on Rework 3,660 3,840 958 10,841 4,836 3,246 27,381.54
Cost of Total items Reworked $124,425.72 $449,817.60 $112,271.66 $661,971.00 $295,278.83 $110,374.88 $1,754,140
Total Ending Cost of DS1 Orders $146,528 $2,457,831 $526,230 $4,350,095 $3,814,749 $1,723,374 $13,018,809
Project Savings Analysis:
20% Reduction in Rework $24,885 $89,964 $22,454 $132,394 $59,056 $22,075 $350,828
Revenue per DS1 Order (not including Maintenance Costs)
Average Rate for DS1 Order Price Yearly Revenue
Average Cost of DS1 per
month $250.00 $3,000.00
Average Cost of DS1 per 1
year contract $190.00 $2,280.00
Average Cost of DS1 per 3
year contract $102.00 $1,224.00
Average Cost of DS1 per 5
year contract $90.00 $1,080.00
Revenue Received with No
Contract - YTD $43,338,000.00
Less Cost of Rework $30,319,191.45
A
Analyze
Regression Analysis The regression equation is
08 ILOS DD MISS = ( - 319 + 0.312 08 ILOS "E" STAT - 0.159 08 ILOS VOLUME
+ 0.269 08 ILOS Flow through)
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant -319.42 75.89 -4.21 0.014
08 ILOS "E" STAT 0.3120 0.1125 2.77 0.050
08 ILOS VOLUME -0.1587 0.1170 -1.36 0.246
08 ILOS Flow through 0.2691 0.1129 2.38 0.076
S = 6.79140 R-Sq = 87.5% R-Sq(adj) = 78.1%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F p
Regression 3 1287.01 429.00 9.30 0.028
Residual Error 4 184.49 46.12
Total 7 1471.50
Source DF Seq SS
08 ILOS "E" STAT 1 201.08
08 ILOS VOLUME 1 824.09
08 ILOS Flow through 1 261.83
Multiple Regression Analysis:
Purpose is to represent a relationship between the variables X (Volume, E-Status, Flow-through) and Y (DD misses).
• Multiple coefficient of determination (R-Sq) = 87.5% indicate the variation in Y is determined by Xs in model.
•ANOVA, used to test for significance at 95% confidence level. P-value = .028 < .05 therefore model is significant.
A
Analyze
Matrix Plot
Linear relationships:
DD Misses vs Flow-through
DD Misses vs DS-1 Volume
DD Misses vs E-status
10.0
7.5
5.0
2100
1950
1800
300
250
200
2900
2700
2500960
880
800
806040
60
40
20
10.07.55.0 210019501800 300250200 285027502650 960880800
DD MISS
RID
Flowthrough
"P" ST A T
DS1 VOLUME
"E" ST A T
CONST PT D-1
Matrix Plot of 08 ILOS Metrics
ANALYZE
Fishbone C&E Diagram
Project Y: DS-1
Project Revision
Rate
Field Conditions
Defective pairs, DPRO required
Load coils – dead count
System
Manpower Methods
Measurements Materials
Accountability
Revisions not accurately tracked
Revision Type and Cause not defined
Productivity
Accuracy
JAM
Hicap Out
Resources vs. Workload
Drafting Design Engineer (BAU & DS1)
Resources vs. Workload
Construction Tech
Span does not run after turn up
Do not match records
Design M&P’s
Planning handoff
Design Output
Drafting/JAM M&P’s
Lack of Standards Data/Records Validation
Field/Site Visit
Missing information from field visit
Work steps (splices, tasks)
Rework
SHOTS
Simple Project – not always done
Are Hicaps required? (New build)
Incorrect address
Loaded/non loaded pairs
Communication – I&M & Engineering
Analyze
A Prioritization Matrix of KPIVs (X) and associated KPOVs (Y) was created with weighted values placed on factors having relative importance of critical-to-quality
1. System Accuracy (software systems used)
2. Field Discrepancies
3. Facilities Defective
A
Ch
ar
ac
ter
isti
c I
mp
or
tan
ce
(%
) Input Characteristic
Characteristic Selection Matrix Results
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
A. Defective pairs required B. Span doesn’t run after installed C. Field conditions vs. records D. Data records validation E. Site visit conducted F. New building – needs unknown G. Different local practices H. Work steps quantity and accuracy I. Engineer
training/headcount/experience J. Engineer
Assistant/headcount/experience K. Construction/headcount/experience L. Design methods and procedures
(M&P) M. Drafting/JAM M&P N. Design/Planning referral –
clarity/info O. Revision need process flow & tracking P. Revision Work accountability Q. Productivity-departments R. Incorrect information –
order/address S. System Accuracy – TIRKS, ARES,
JAM, LFACS
A
Analyze
Project Tracking Database (PTD)
1. Reviewed all projects issued.
2. Reviewed reason for revision
1. Defective facilities (defective pair recovery order (DPRO)
2. System Discrepancies
3. Invalid Prints
4. Change in task & steps
3. Pareto Chart created to determine critical variables.
Revisions 180 116 26 16
Percent 53.3 34.3 7.7 4.7
Cum % 53.3 87.6 95.3 100.0
Reason
DPR
O
Inva
lid Prin
t
System Discrep
ancies
Chan
ge Tas
k St
ep (CT
S)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Re
vis
ion
s
Pe
rce
nt
Pareto Chart of Reasons for Revisions
Simulation Data Simulation View
Work group
Hours per task
# of Emp.
# of Hours per Shift
Max # of Task per shift
# of Orders in YTD Aug 08
# of Rewrk YTD Aug 08
HPC 0.03 40 8 10666.67 21669 121986
PSC 2 13 8 52.00 8571 1920
BAU 5.88 61 8 82.99 601 163
Const. 49.96 154 8 24.66 1209 217
SSIM 2.66 100 8 300.75 21669 1818
Eng Assist. 14.96 18 8 9.63 1209 217
I
Analyze – Improve Phase
Simulation Model I
Base, Increased Staff, & Minimized Revisions Scenario Results
I
Name
Total
Changes
Avg Time
Per Change
(HR)
Maximum
Value
Current
Value Avg Value
vCompleted 20902.2 0.28 20902.2 20902.2 10500.26223
vReworked
HPC 4999.2 1.16 4999.2 4999.2 2525.148123
vWIP 42617.2 0.14 886 812.8 357.4337634
vDesign Inbox 21715 0.27 21715 21715 10857.69599
Name
Total
Changes
Avg Time
Per Change
(HR)
Maximum
Value
Current
Value Avg Value
vCompleted 21465 0.27 21465 21465 10724.71912
vReworked
HPC 5113.4 1.13 5113.4 5113.4 2560.204707
vWIP 43180 0.14 327.6 250 132.976869
vDesign Inbox 21715 0.27 21715 21715 10857.69599
Name
Total
Changes
Avg Time
Per Change
(HR)
Maximum
Value
Current
Value Avg Value
vCompleted 21491.4 0.27 21491.4 21491.4 10754.88969
vReworked
HPC 5168.2 1.12 5168.2 5168.2 2587.714768
vWIP 43206.4 0.14 300 223.6 102.806297
vDesign Inbox 21715 0.27 21715 21715 10857.69599
Base Scenario Results:
Inc Staff Scenario Results: Revisions Scenario Results:
Control
Revision Survey created:
Track revision rate
Accountability
Information for training and re-evaluation
Track changes made – electronically for minimized discrepancies
C
Conclusion Page 28
Lean Six Sigma Concepts (DMAIC) model
Supply Chain Simulation Technology (Pro Model)
Demonstrated that utilizing a structured, data driven approach to process improvement, aimed at doing things BETTER, FASTER and at a LOWER COST is a resourceful method for deploying a variety of process improvements prior to implementation to minimize the impact to all customers in the supply chain.
Acknowledgement Page 29
1. Patricia Saunders – Former Area Manager – DS-1 Design 2. Mark Gonzalez – DS-1 Design Outside Plant Engineer 3. Lash Mapa – Committee Chair 4. Susan Scachitti – Committee member 5. Mohammad Zahraee – Committee member 6. Juan Salinas – Pro Model Assistance
Questions???