We live in a volatile
world
Vice President & COO
ChuckG@fescorp.com
Aircraft Production 1999-2018
Rough Times After The First Civil/Military Upturn In 25 Years
160
(Market Value in 2009 $ Bns)
120
80
40
0
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18
Fighters
MilitaryT ransports/T rainers/Other
Bizjets
Rotorcraft
Jetliners/Regional AC
691
621
DoD Operating & Support Costs vs.
Investment
100%
% of DoD BA (Includes OCO)
90%
O&S (MILPERS plus O&M)
80%
70%
Lowest investment share
since the Korean War
60%
1950 – 2010
Average: 36%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Investment (RDT&E plus Procurement)
10%
0%
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Tension between O&S and investment will reach historic proportions
BALANCING QUALITY, SAFETY, RISK AND COST IN
Volatile SPACE AND DEFENSE MARKETS
Program risks
associated with an
“up & down”
business scenario
Hurry up, you are behind schedule
• DESIGN PROGRAMS
• Shortcut requirements analysis: DESIGN RE-SPINS
• Compromise reliability / maintainability / availability analysis:
REDUCED SUPPORTABILITY
• Reduce scope & content of Systems / Hardware / Software Peer
Reviews: MORE RE-SPINS
• Shortest lead time becomes principal parts selection criteria:
INCREASED OBSOLESCENCE & COUNTERFEIT PARTS RISKS
• Hardware – Software trade-off studies scope reduced: PRODUCT DESIGN
COMPROMISED
• Reduced emphasis on Design for Manufacturing & Test: PRODUCTION/TEST
REWORK
• PRODUCTION PROGRAMS
•
•
•
•
Shortcut work instruction preparation time: INCREASED “DO OVERS”
Compromise production training: INCREASED SCRAP & REWORK
Reduce rigor of first article / first build reviews: JEOPARDIZE PRODUCT
INTEGRITY/SCRAP/REWORK
Focus on delivery VS first time quality: MISSION FAILURE, INCREASED CUSTOMER
REJECTIONS
ACROSS THE BOARD RISK TO SYNERGY
SLOW DOWN
--THE PROGRAM IS SLIPPING
• Design a ROLEX VS the TIMEX that the customer ordered:
costs, lead times, producibility impacted
• Utilize science experiments to solve a problem requiring
simple analysis
• Retain people on the program where ROI is low
• Introduce production changes that actually reduce producibility
& testability
ANOTHER DAY ON
THE PROGRAM IS
ANOTHER DAY OF
COST!
Subcontractors caught in the middle
• Subcontract reduction/terminations/extension
• Delayed customer awards = Compressed
Subcontractor Cycle Time
“SUBCONTRACTOR”
• Extended material/parts lead time
• Increased parts materials/cost: Building to
ORDER VS Building to STOCK
A SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
Stillwater
86,500 Sq FT Facility
A Native American,
Woman-Owned Small Business
President & CEO
High Reliability Manufacturing
CUSTOMER, PEOPLE &
performance
Our Customers
Northrop
Grumman
3.0%
L3
0.5%
Our People
Others
1.5%
Support
17%
PROFS
17%
NSWC
9.0%
ENG
43%
Ball
12.0%
FY10 Revenue:
$27.8M
Lockheed
Martin
22.0%
Boeing
52.0%
D&B Rating:
4A1
Total Team
Strength:
154
MFG
23%
REVENUE
employees
$30,000,000.00
200
$25,000,000.00
138
150
$20,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
150
119
99
95
2006
2007
100
$10,000,000.00
50
$5,000,000.00
0
$-
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
Business Programs
Space and Missile Programs
Aircraft Programs
UAS Programs
Maritime Programs
Radar Switchboards
SB-4229
SB-4229A(V)/SP
Certifications
Awards & Recognition
• Lean Manufacturing
•Boeing
• MIL-I-45208
•Northrop Grumman
Supplier With 3
World Class Team
Awards
• MIL-Q-9858
• ISO 9001-2000
• AS9100
• JSTD-001
• NASA 8739.1 - .4
Supplier
•Boeing Supplier of the
Year 2001, 2005, 2009
•Lockheed Martin Star
Supplier
Enabling infrastructure
-AS9100FES Corporate Quality Plan
FES-QP-1
FES Quality Systems Manual
FES-QSM-1
Quality
Management
Systems
Section 4.0
Control of
Documents
FES-QSP
4.2-2
Management
Responsibilities
Section 5.0
Management
Review Input
FES-QSP
5.6-1
Resource
Management
Section 6.0
Training
Assessment
Delivery and
Evaluation
FES-QSP
6.2
•3rd Party Certified by NQA
•Last Audit March 2011
•Score 1000 out of 1000
Measurement, Analysis and
Improvement
Section 8.0
Product Realization
Section 7.0
Product
Quality
Planning
FES-QSP
7.1-1
Purchasing
FES-QSP
7.4
First Article Product
Validation & Verification
Return
Authorization
Procedure
FES-QSP
5-2-1
Measurement,
Analysis and
Improvement
FES-QSP
8.1-1
Non-conforming
Material/Service
Reporting
FES-QSP
8.3-3
Proof of
the
Pudding
Integrated Enterprise Processes
Corporate Vision
ISO Management
Responsibilities
Process 5.6-1
Goals
Quality Policy
Pre Bid Risk
Assessment &
Bid/No-Bid
Decision
Proposal
Preparation
Process
7.2-1-2
,
Program
Management
Guidelines
Customer
Contract
Requirements
•Program Plan
Technical
Documentation
Hardware
Development
Sub-Tier
Supplier
Management
Software
Development
GFE/CFE
Control
Quality
Plan
Repair/Support
Plan
Product Realization
-Manufacturing
-Test
Configuration
Mgt Plan
Budget /
Schedule
In-Depth Performance Reviews
• Monthly Program Performance reviews with Executive Management
– Earned Value and Risk Assessment
– Technical, Delivery, Schedule, and Cost Performance
Program Team Performance
Measurement
Continuous
Customer Interface
Daily Program Task Status
Weekly
Program Team Meetings
/ Performance Review
Program
Performance/Risk
Weekly Customer
Telecons
Monthly
PM Updates Program Schedule,
Estimates to Complete, &
Earned Value
Quality
Performance
Program Performance Review with
Executive Management
Supplier
Performance
Financial
Performance
Business Area Performance
Assessment & Resource
Analysis
Contracts
Performance
Product Assurance Network
GUIDELINES
REQUIREMENTS
•FES-QSM-1
•FES Quality Manual
•FES-QP-1
•FES Quality Plan
Corporate
Quality Goals
ISO
Documents
•FES-QSP- 7.2-1
Contractual
Requirements
7.1-1
MIL-SPECS
7.2-2
Departmental
Goals
•FES-QSM-1
•FES Quality
Manual
Customer
Specifications
7.1-1
Process
Specifications
TOOLS
APPLICATIONS
•FES-QSP-
PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT/
FEEDBACK
Process Training
SPC
8.1-2
CAB
8.5-2-1
MRB
8.3-2
TQM's
8.1-5
Prog Review
5.6-1
BA Reviews
5.6-1
Vendor Rating
7.4-1
Semi-annual Mgt
Review
5.6-1
Pivot Table
5.6-7
Program Mgt
System
7.1-1
Contract Mgt
System
7.2-1
Supplier Mgt
Internal Process
Audits and
Validation
Pareto
Charts
Customer
Feedback
•FES-QSP -7.2-2
•FES-QSP- 8.5-2-1
Process
Improvement
Benchmarking
5.6-1
8.5-1
Metrics
Process
Analysis
8.5-2-1
8.5-2-1
Audits
7.4-1
Q-Codes
8.2-1
8.2-1
7.4-3
CORE PROCESSES
• Design
• Material Acquisition
• Manufacturing
• Product Support
design
Subsystems/Product/Systems Engineering
Yesterday
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems analysis
Design Rigor
Peer Reviews
Systems testing, Validation, Verification
Configuration Management and Documentation
Technology innovation and product enhancement
Preliminary
Hardware
Design
Kickoff
Meeting
System
Requirements
Review
Drawing
Release
Prototype/
Hardware
MFG
MFG
Readiness
Review
Tomorrow
Producibility
Integration
Contract
Award
Transition to
Production
Planning
Today
Software
Code and
Test
Test
Readiness
Review
H/W & S/W
Requirement
Analysis
Analysis:
Reliability,
Producability,
Maintainability,
Availability
Parts and
Equipment
Selection
Peer
Reviews
Preliminary
Design
Review
Preliminary
Software
Design
Part Procurement
(Production)
Hardware
and
Software
Integration
First Article
Build/
Qualification
Informal
Functional
Verification
Testing
Integrate
Lessons
Learned into
MFG
Processes
Design
Qualification
Testing
Equipment
MFG
(Production)
Lessons
Learned
Capture/
Application
Acceptance
Testing
Peer
Reviews
Physical
Config.
Audit
Critical
Design
Review
Functional
Config.
Audit
Production
Release
Drawings/
ATP
Packaging
and
Shipment
Turn-key material acquisition
process
YES
NO
Identify
Alternate Parts
Customer
Approval
Parts
Obsolete
NO
YES
CONFIG MGR
MATERIALS ENGINEER
PROJ ENGR
QUALITY ENGINEER
CUSTOMER
REQUIREMENTS
Start
• Requirements
Analysis
PURCHASING
TEAM
Vendor Selection
• Approved Vendor
List
• Past Performance
• Process capability
• Customer directed
•Traceability /
•Sources
•GIDEP
•Screen/Test
• Develop
Bill of
Materials
PURCHASING
TEAM
Request
for Quotes
PGM/PURCHASING
TEAM
YES Best
Value
Award
NO Acceptable quotes
Generate
Purchase
Request
NO
Supplier
Performance
• Certified
• Qual-Deliv
• Special Certs
• Source Inspec
PGM/PURCHASING
TEAM
•Issue
Purchase
Order
•Monitor
Vendor
Performance
PROGRAM MGR
MATERIAL
MGT
• Receive
• Inspect/Test
• Prohibited
Materials
• Counterfeit
parts
• Stock
PR
YES
PROGRAM
TEAM
Product
Integration /
Documentation
Manufacturing process
flow
Process 1:
Stencil Print
Process 2:
Automated Placement
Process 5:
AOI
Process 9:
Solder Connectors
(and Thru-hole Components)
Process 6:
Touch-Up
Process 10:
Cleaning
Process 3:
Reflow
Process 7:
Lead Forming
(as required)
Process 12:
Break Panel, &
inspect individual boards
Process 4:
Cleaning
Process 8:
Install ThruHole Components
Developing a corporate culture of
commitment & process optimization
•
Leadership Integrity and Organizational / Employee Commitment
Beyond Reproach
•
Foster Transparent Communication & Mutual Respect in Both Directions
Throughout the Company
•
Welcome New Ideas
•
Specific Goals and Accountability Established Annually
•
Resources Allocated to Achieve Quality Goals in Company Operating
Plan
•
Clear, Timely and Accurate Performance Feedback
•
Lessons Learned are Captured & Re-deployed
Customer Focused
Program management
 Integrated Product Team Approach
– Team includes CUSTOMER, Program Engineering, Quality Test, Manufacturing,
Configuration Mgt, Sub-tier suppliers
– Open Communication, Proven Process Deployment, Risk Mitigation, Metrics Based
Performance Assessments
• Nimble and Responsive to changing customer requirements
 Monthly Program Performance reviews with Executive Management
– Delivery, schedule, and cost performance &
Lessons Learned
• CUSTOMER BENEFITS
–
Performance to Plan
Reduced customer oversight costs
Key Quality Metrics
• Line of Balance
• Customer Satisfaction
• On-Time Customer Deliveries
• Customer Quality Acceptance Rate
• Warranty Returns
• Nonconformance Requests by Area
• Customer Complaints
• Supplier Corrective Actions
• Scrap
• Rework and Repair Labor
• Supplier Performance
• Risk
CLIN7 Production
PCU Line of Balance
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-SP
7-SP
7-SP
% SN 200 SN 201 SN 202 SN 203 SN 204 SN 205 SN 206 SN 207 SN 208 SN 209 SN 210 SN 211 SN 212 SN 213 SN 214 SN 215 SN 216 SN 217
PCU 86706-507-11
On Dock Date/ Huntsville
100
%
CSI
99%
Final Test
95%
Environmental Test
90%
Conformal Coat
85%
Confidence Test
Hand Solder
Components
65%
Solder Reflow
25%
Kit Inspection
10%
Kitting
5%
8/27
9/3
9/23
9/23
10/24
11/20
10/24
11/20
10/24
2/9
11/20
12/12
2/9
12/12
1/12
3/9
3/9
3/9
8/28
10/1
11/6
11/6
C
C
C
C
11/25
9/23
11/6
60%
PWO Complete
D
Other Issues
PCU Shortages
Flag
E
1) JANTXV1N5806US Diode qty 38
Impact
Issue
Action Plan
A
B
C
D
E
OVD on hold until
resolved
Confidence test during continuity
Alternate part needs wider limit
in test software
Ten per CCA, parts will
PCU #1 Insufficient parts provided by Boeing Customer to provide Exp. 12/10
have to be hand soldered
Must go through review
board
Pending
Nickel Plating lifted with conformal coat mask
Confidence test failure
NCR to Boeing MRB
Troubleshooting
FY 2010 Customer Satisfaction Score
(Company Wide)
Customer Satisfaction Weighted Formula
Proposal Win Rate + Delivery Rate
2
.810 + .988
- .002 x 100
Warranty Returns X 100
Units Shipped
=
= Satisfaction Score
89.90 %
2
Proposals Won = 86
Proposals Lost = 20
Total Proposals = 106
Wins ÷ Total Proposals Submitted
= Proposal Win Rate
Warranty Returns = 4
Units Shipped = 2035
Proposal Win Rate: 81.0 %
Delivery Rate: 98.8 %
Warranty Returns ÷ Units Shipped
X 100
4 ÷ 2035 X 100 = 0.002%
Boeing updated the B.E.S.T. for
02/15/2011
Huntington Beach:
Quality: 15 each received with no rejects
Delivery: 15 each delivered on time
Quality: Gold
Delivery: Gold
Huntsville:
Quality: 122 each received with no rejects
Delivery: 122 each delivered on time
Quality: Gold
Delivery: Gold
St. Louis:
Quality: With Complexity Factor: 99.99%
Delivery: 1013 each delivered on time
Quality: Silver
Delivery: Gold
Wichita:
Quality: With Complexity Factor: 100%
Delivery: 86 each delivered on time
Quality: Gold
Delivery: Gold
Composite & BDS Rating
Quality Rating: Alternate Quality Rating 100%
Delivery: 1236 each delivered on time
Quality: Gold
Delivery: Gold
Northrop Grumman Oasis Rating
Quality: Gold
Delivery: Gold
DLA Ratings Updated on 2/22/11
Delivery
Quality
# Of DLA CLINs
Vendor DLA Score
Average DLA Score
100
100
15
100
91.7
FIRST PASS YIELD
100%
97%
95%
97%
98%
95%
94%
95%
97%
99%
96%
95%
93%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
PCB First Pass Yield
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
PCB First Pass Yield Target=98%
Dec-10
Jan-11
Burdened Rework Percentage vs. Burdened Mfg Labor
Percentage
0.20%
0.19%
0.18%
0.16%
0.16%
0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.08%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Series1
Aug-10
Sep-10
Linear (Series1)
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Burdened Scrap Percentage vs. Burdened Material
Percentage
2.00%
1.80%
1.72%
1.60%
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.59%
0.60%
0.40%
0.32%
0.20%
0.20%
0.16%
0.12%
0.07%
0.11%
0.19%
0.05%
0.02%
0.00%
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Series1
Aug-10
Linear (Series1)
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
0.06%
Dec-10
Jan-11
Supplier performance
100.00%
99.00%
Acceptance %
98.00%
97.00%
96.00%
95.00%
94.00%
Quality
Total
Group 1
93.00%
Group 2
92.00%
Goal
91.00%
90.00%
100.00%
95.00%
90.00%
On-Time %
85.00%
80.00%
75.00%
70.00%
65.00%
60.00%
55.00%
On-Time Delivery
Total
Group 1
Group 2
Goal
Enclosure Delivery Quality
12 Month Avg = 15%
No Failures
Supplier Ratings
Frontier's Supplier Quality Rating System is based on a 9 point system. It is divided into three categories,
which will be the basis for a supplier remaining on the Approved Suppliers List.
GOLD LEVEL
expectations.
9 points
Supplier Partner - Exceptional supplier performance, exceeding
SILVER LEVEL
8-6 points
Preferred Supplier - Very good supplier performance, meeting or
exceeding expectations.
BRONZE LEVEL 5-3 points
Qualified Supplier - Satisfactory supplier performance, meeting
expectations.
YELLOW LEVEL 2 points
meeting expectations.
Marginal Supplier - Marginal Supplier performance, supplier is not
RED LEVEL
1 - 0 point Unsatisfactory Supplier - Unsatisfactory supplier performance, clearly
fails to meet expectations. Supplier is placed on Probation and has 60 days to implement corrective
action. Unacceptable performance requires mandatory performance review.
Program Risk Assessment
ITEMIZED
Risk
Item
Phase
Score
Estimated Value
Risk
Eng
TOTALS
Mat
Mfg
Total
$ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ 25,000 $195,000
1
Design
6
New Electrical Design
2
Design
4
$ 25,000 $ 10,000 $
3
Design
4
New Test Set Design
4
Mfg/Test
2
New Work Instructions
5
Mfg
9
Part Procurement to Meet
$ 10,000 $ 50,000 $
Schedule
6
Mfg/Test
2
New Assy / Test Fixtures $
7
Test
6
8
Mfg/Test
6
New Mechanical Design $
Eng
Mat
Mfg
Total
$ 27,500 $35,500 $ 8,500 $ 71,500
5,000 $ 40,000 30% $
7,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 12,000
5,000 $
1,000 $ 11,000 30% $
1,500 $ 1,500 $
300 $
3,300
$ 10,000 $
2,500 $
1,000 $ 13,500 30% $
3,000 $
750 $
300 $
4,050
- $
750 $
1,500
2,500 $
2,500 $
- $
2,500 $
2,500 $
5,000 30% $
5,000 $ 65,000 50% $
500 $
5,500 30% $
750
$
5,000 $25,000 $ 2,500 $ 32,500
750 $
750 $
150 $
1,650
$ 25,000 $ 10,000 $
5,000 $ 40,000 30% $
7,500 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 12,000
$
5,000 $ 15,000 30% $
1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $
5,000 $
5,000 $
Risk Level
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
5
4
5
3
2
Prob
5,000 $
$
Unit Failure to Meet
Requirements
Assy/Test Error During
Production
Likelihood
Likely Value
4, 6
2,3
1,7,8
1
2
3
1
4
Impact/Consequence
5
4,500
A journey of continuous
improvement
Northrop Grumman
World Class Team
Awards
DoD
Nunn-Perry Awards
Lean Journey
Begins
MILQ
9858
MILI
45208
ISO
9001-1994
1989
1994
2000
NGST
Gold
USN BMP
Audit
AS
9100
ISO
9001-2000
1999
Boeing Supplier of Year
Awards
2001
ERP
Supply Chain
Mgt System
2005
2006
2008
2009
challenge
• Forced re-design of the F-18 E/F Engine Fuel Display
due to LCD supplier Bankruptcy
o Hardware / Software
• No break in production
o Required 75% reduction in re-design time
• Focus on 1st Time Quality to Reduce Production Cost
approach
• Formed integrated FES – Subcontractor – Customer
Re-design team
• Opportunity to Integrate Lessons Learned
o Design
o Producibility
• Integrate EFD production team into Design for
Manufacturability (DFM) and Design for Test (DFT)
• Formed a Joint FES – Customer – Subcontractor
accelerated improvement team
o First Time Quality
o Reduce Contract Award
Delivery Cycle Time
Supply Chain LEAN Deployment
Reduce
Boeing
PO Award
Order to First Delivery Cycle Time
All
All
material material
received received
FES
Sub
25 wks
30 wks
PO
Award to
Sub
8 wks
Sub
1st Delivery
56 wks
Initial
State
18
wks
4 wks
20
wks
Current
State
2 wks
Future
State
FES Critical Path
Sub Critical Path
FES & Sub Critical Path
12 18
wks wks
34
wks
38
wks
41
wks
48
wks
FES 1st
Delivery
76 wks
Result
F/A-18E/F Engine Fuel Display
Redesign (Tech Refresh)
New Up-Front
Control/Display
Customer
Recognition:
Achievements:
Boeing’s Avionics
Supplier of the Year
2001
Design Time Cut -75%
MTBF Improved +33%
Price Reduced
-48%
New Engine
Fuel Display
New Multi-Purpose
Color Display
• Price established during
negotiation of MYP-2
pricing
• Reduced
ESS Req’t
• Eliminated
PRAT
• FES took
Over glass
Ruggedization
from GE
• STE Upgrade
• Improved sub
Test process
Final MYP-3
Negotiated Price
(With CRI)
MYP-3 Reprice,
10% Incentive
(No CRI)
Initial
Negotiated
MYP-3 Price
Previous CRI
Actions
(Unfunded)
FY09 (FRP-10)
PRICE
(MYP-2, 5th Yr)
Follow-on EFD cost optimization
• LEAN Quality Initiative
13.8%
• FES internal process enhancement initiatives
drove additional cost reductions
20%
• Boeing committed to participation in
the FES CRI resulting in reduced
testing & inspection
27.3%
challenge
• Transition of Production for SM-3
guidance unit circuit cards from
Boeing to FES without a break in
production
• Subsequent to Production / Test
Readiness Certification, transfer of
High-Reliability material
responsibility to FES
approach
• Full FES process verification with
both Production & Test Readiness
Reviews requiring Government
Prime and Boeing approval prior
to FES start
• Integrated FES / Boeing Customer &
Subcontractor Product Team
formed to optimize production
transitions
ABMD Production Transition To
FES
GP Components
Kit Inspected
Guidance Processor
(GP) Components
Kitting
PAL Programming
Assemble per Drawing:
Clean & Vacuum
Bake PWB
Stencil Print
Automated
Placement
Thermal Bond
GP Assembly
Assembly Inspection
AOI
Mass Reflow
Solder & Clean
Automated
Optical
Inspection
Install Connectors & Spacers
Using Fasteners &
Kapton Tape under J1
Install & Solder Individual
Components to Board
GP CCA
Functional Testing
Install Press Fit
Connector
Mechanical Bond
Components
Final Cleaning
Cleanliness Test
Vacuum Bake
Component Lead
Form & Tin
Solder
J7 Connector
GP Module
Conformal Coating
Color Coding:
Customer Production Line
Certification
FES Value Added
GP Module
Inspection
GP Module ESS
Thermal Stress
Screening
GP Module
Functional
Testing
GP Module Ready
for CSI / Shipping
FES Production Facility Upgrade Program
Solder Separation Fishbone
People
Processes
Equipment Setup
Assembly
Technician
s
Machine
Operators
Solder Pattern
Equipment
Soldering
Pre-tinning
Solder wave height
Application
Speed
Selective Solder
Machine
Solder Temperature
Temp Sensors
Flux Application
Pre heating
Mechanical Clearance
Solder touch-up
Heating Rate
Batch Cleaner
Cleaning
Cooling Rate
Solder purity in nozzle
Cross sectioning
PWB
X-ray
Inspection
Functional
Test
Solder
Solder
Separation
Humidity
Calibration
Lighting
Connector
Flux
Specification
Requirements
Indicates that this has
been eliminated as a
cause of the problem
Material
Air quality
Temperature
Work Instructions
Safety Precautions
Indicates that is under
current scrutiny
Measurements
Environment
Methods/Procedures
Counterfeit Parts Mitigation Process
Flow
Roadblocks to watch
for
Poor
Communication
Diverging
goals and
objectives
Inadequate
Training
Backsliding
Dirty
fingernail gang
looses clout
Tackling Too
Much too
early
Leadership
Buy-In
No Link to
Company
Objectives
No
Incentive
A Closing Thought
Customer Price Target
Profit
Profitability
P
R
I
C
E
Profit
Cost
Pre Lean
Cost
Post Lean