Team 1 Short Form
Industrial Technologists’ Toolkit For Technical
Management (ITTTM) Courseware
Bowling Green State University
QS 327 Team 1
Fall of 2004
Content
Individuals Involved
 Project Outline
 Project Goals
 Purpose
 Problems/Solutions
 Theories/Methods

Roles

Team 1 is made up of 9 individuals,
Justin Stokes, Rachel McCully, Jason
Grubb, Spencer Krupp, Aaron
Larmore, James Steger, Sam Wiley,
Brook Wilson & Kyle Zimmerman
Project Outline



The goal of this project is the fine tuning of a
manufacturing process using kaizen as well as
other methods to fine tune a manufacturing
process.
To guide in this process is a Toolkit created by Dr.
John Sinn.
This toolkit allows information to be documented
correctly throughout each step as well as tracking
value added or lost by the changes made.
Project Outline (cont.)

Documentation must be correct and
consistent throughout the project
Project Goals



The creation and fine tuning of a packet that can
be used by a company (small-large) to aid in
decision making and improvements.
To help a company remain competitive in today’s
manufacturing environment.
The toolkit should be user friendly and show each
necessary step and what is required of each step.
Purpose
The fine tuning of a process which,
when used, will improve the value of
any manufacturing environment
 The toolkit should be user friendly
and show each necessary step and
what is required of each step.

Problems & Solutions


There have been issues with communication of desired
goals
• This has occurred several times, what is required from
each individual as well as what the final results should
be
Issues of non-value adding information as well as
redundant tables have also created some problems
• In early stages of Tool development, tables have been copied
and this has led to of repetition.
• This may have to do with confusion of what it is we are doing

As the project progresses the team is grasping what is
needed and what can be left out.
• Several different views of what we are doing are now being
used
• These are leading to a more robust document
Theories/Methods



Using Blackboard as the centralized meeting area
as well as information sharing center, we as a
team have made great improvements to reach
the point we are at here at the end of Phase I
Un-required meetings have been attended by
much of the team to further guide each other to
the end of each tool
Thread organization has lead to improved
efficiency in document compiling
Toolkits 19-24
Industrial Technologists’ Toolkit For Technical
Management (ITTTM) Courseware
Bowling Green State University
QS 327 Team 1
Fall of 2004
Content



Problems and
Solutions
Pros/Cons
Phase 1
• Roles
• Content and Issues




Tool 19
Tool 20
Tool 21
Phase 1

Phase 2
• Goals
• Roles
• Content and Issues




Tool 22
Tool 23
Tool 24
Phase 2
Problems & Solutions


Many of the same problems are present in Phase
2, but not as much.
There have been issues with communication of
desired goals
• There has been a good improvement from Phase 1 to
Phase 2, but even a better improvement form Tool 22 to
Tool 23.
• The team has become more strict on deadlines and
things are getting done.

Issues of non-value adding information as well as
redundant tables have also created some
problems
• There is still the issue of people coping others work.
The only solution is to watch closely and evaluate
according on the TPPMA.
Final Overview/Phase II
Pros and Cons of the Class
 Individual tool review
 Progression from start to finish
 Value added
 Technology Assessment
 Summation of Content

Pros
Weaknesses in team work were
brought to attention quickly, allowing
for necessary adjustments.
 Showed the importance of
communication as a group and
amongst individuals.
 Realization of the importance of
correct and consistent
documentation in today’s industry

Cons




Instruction was not always clear and
concise
Vagueness of direction led to great
confusion throughout most of the class,
also led to half-hearted effort.
Specific and standard cases could have led
to a more value adding final document
Too much repetition in many of the tables,
there are only so many ways to boil water
no matter how many people try.
Phase 1 Roles
Team Leaders are Justin Stokes and
Rachel McCully
 Researchers consist of Jason Grubb,
Spencer Krupp, Aaron Larmore,
James Steger, Sam Wiley, Brook
Wilson & Kyle Zimmerman .

Tool 19
This was a lot of guess work from all
involved
 Many had no idea what was required
from them
 Some definitions of terms that were
to be later used were defined
 Gave an idea of what it was the
would be later required for time
input

Tool 19 Content



ISOQSAOPP: Distinguished the level of
importance for certain priorities for each
team member, set the beginning focus for
improvement
DSDC: established the parameters for
communication throughout the course
GOTA: Gave definitions for terms that
would be used for the remainder of the
course
Tool 20 Issues
Formatting was greatly improved
 Still issues of the what direction was
to be taken
 Work load was still unevenly
distributed
 Biggest confusion for most was still
what the project was on and where
to get information from

Tool 20 Content



GCA: Information on part cost, investment
into the production, overhead costs, and
the Return on Investment. Also
established what was needed to break
even and make a profit
KCA: Current process time was calculated
as well as the time goal and other factors
that would maximize profit
MAACE: Each individual section of
production was looked at and the amount
of cost for each section
Tool 21 Issues
Better understanding of where to go
with the tables
 Repetition an increasing concern,
due perhaps to unknown goals and
process
 Formatting greatly improved from
previous tools

Tool 21 Content



GCA: Update from the previous tool,
consisted of the overall profit gain by
switching to the new process
TAMA: Calculated the TAKT time which
could be later used to show weak points or
bottle necks during the process
SOPATA: Indicated whether there was
room for improvement and just how much
time would be gained by changing that
step
Phase I Issues
Overall strong improvement in the
short amount of time from Tool 19 to
the completion of Phase I
 Work load for the majority of Phase I
uneven
 Clarity on what is expected for a final
result still a concern

Phase I Content
Established the overall time and
investments into the process and
what can be gained or lost by
changing it
 Information was gathered for later
use, such as time and money input
at each juncture

Phase 2 Goals
To Work More Interpedently as a
Group
 Push Team Members to Become
Better Focused
 Continue to Improve

Phase 2 Roles
Team Leaders are Kyle Zimmerman
and Rachel McCully
 Researchers consist of Jason Grubb,
Spencer Krupp, Aaron Larmore,
James Steger, Sam Wiley, Brook
Wilson & Justin Stokes

Tool 22 Content



GBAPS: Compared the current process to
another very similar process, showed
weak and strong
OCA: Breaks down the process into each
individual step, the time involved, distance
need to travel and many other details. Can
be used to show weak points and bottle
necking
SOPATA: Graphical representation of any
weak points during the manufacturing
process
Tool 23 Issues
By far the best tool to date
 Formatting was much more in sync
from team member to member
 Individual work and information
provided much better
 Communication at this juncture was
by far its best
 Participation a remaining concern
however

Tool 23 Content



CEAS: Using tolerances and control limits this
calculates the reliability and consistency of the
process as well as how urgent changes need to
be made
FMEA: Potential failures are recorded as well as
the potential number of failures, this can be used
to indicate what issues needs to be addressed
QFD: Ranks the importance of certain factors
such as receipt of part on time and in spec for
both the supplier and the customer and then
takes averages of the table to indicate what
should be addressed as the most important and
so on
Tool 24 Issues
Best tool overall
 Formatting was the biggest issue
 Majority of those involved were
understanding what was required
 Assignments were being turned in
sooner

Tool 24 Content



GFAPS: Description of any necessary failsafing
improvements, the purpose and hopeful result as
well as who will be conducting them
GSICPC: Auditing of the cleanliness and
orderliness of the working environment and the
frequency of the occurrence. Also a graphical
representation of these items, will indicate who
unorganized and unkempt an area is
MTA: Sets and tracks a Preventative Maintenance
program as well as the cost, time and frequency
involved for each PM
Phase II/Final Issue




Group progression was very strong in the final
three tools, participation steadily increased, work
was being finished on time more often
Contributions were much more value adding with
information provided supporting any findings and
ideas occurring more frequently
Overall group improvement was great from the
beginning of the semester to the end
Perhaps a more specific project goal from the
beginning rather than guessing for a majority of
the semester for raw data and information could
have led to a better experience for all involved
Phase II/Final Content
A start to finish document creation
for an effective kaizen and general
improvement process that can be
used in almost any production facility
in today’s manufacturing
environment to remain competitive
 Useful for streamlining of a line for
maximum profit, minimum cost and
waste
