Missile Defense Agency,
Industry Stakeholder Team
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Conference on Quality in the
Space and Defense Industry
March 26-27, 2007
1
EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Design and Manufacture Specialty Batteries
Thermal Batteries
for Defense and Space applications.
DOD Weapon Systems
Multi-function charge,
Discharge & testing.
Lithium Ion
with Electronics
Nickel Hydrogen
Multi-Cell Battery
Energetic
Devices
www.eaglepicher.com
2
EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
World’s Smallest Medical Implantable Battery
3
EPT Quality Organization
President, EaglePicher
Technologies
Manufacturing
Defense Programs
Space Programs
Director,
Quality Assurance
SilverZinc
Thermal
Batteries
Defense
Test Lab
Calibration
Energetic
Devices
Supplier
Quality
Space
Power
Quality
Mgmt. System
Product
Development
Space
Test Lab
Challenge for a consistent & healthy Quality System
is the diversity and complexity of EaglePicher products.
Aug 2006
4
Overview
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Team Participants
• Missile Defense Agency
MDA
• Industry Team Stakeholders:
• Boeing,
Raytheon,
• Lockheed Martin,
Orbital Sciences,
• DCMA
Processes at EaglePicher
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish Mutual Statement of Work
Collective Assessment & History Review
Identify Areas for Improvement “Big 4”
Methodology for Addressing Systemic Issues
Action Plan Completion & Validation by the Team
Specific Actions Taken
Next Challenage:
The diversity and
complexity of the
Industry Team
Outcomes: Metric Suite & Reviews
•
•
Internal Quality Metrics – Phase 1
Cost Related to Quality – Phase 2
Lessons Learned – Customer Perspective
5
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
BACKGROUND
Initial Notice Received at EP
• July 2003:
• MDA & DCMA Notice sent to EPT of Level 3 CAR:
Systemic Quality Issues.
Introductory Planning Meeting
• October 2003:
• Joint Industry Team developed the Quality Initiative and Statement
of Work
• November 2003:
• SOW Presentation to EaglePicher Technologies
• December 2003:
• EPT Commitment to the MDA / DCMA Team
6
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
INDUSTRY TEAM MISSION
• Review EP data from 2-3 Yrs of previous audit activities.
• Included all non-conformance, non-compliance and hardware
defect reports.
• Company, product or program was irrelevant.
• Identify common or systemic deficiencies.
• Develop a method to address systemic issues.
• Implement and document corrective actions.
• Develop a methodology to evaluate changes.
• Validate improvements.
• Generate metrics to demonstrate effective RC/CA efforts and
sustained continuous improvement.
7
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Collective Outcomes: Industry Team Assessment
• Reviewed data from 21 system level audits conducted during the past two years.
• Analyzed approximately 200 findings.
• Grouped data into main contributors.
• Developed the main areas of focus
Industry Team Challenge:
Differences of companies,
products and programs were
put aside.
• Process Discipline
• Technical Data Package
• Training
• Root Cause/Corrective Action
“Big 4”
8
EPT Quality Organization
President, EaglePicher
Technologies
Manufacturing VP
Defense VP
Space VP
Director,
Quality Assurance
SilverZinc
Defense
Test Lab
Thermal
Batteries
Calibration
Energetic
Devices
Supplier
Quality
Space
Power
Quality
Mgmt.
System
Product
Development
Space
Test
Lab
10 Units per month 5000 units per mo. 10,000 units per mo. 1 unit each 10 mo.
Price range
$ 45 K
Testing
30 days
--20 – 1200 sec.
One shot devices
--100 – 750 msec
$1.2 M
Challenage is the
diversity and
complexity
60 days/ 20 cycles
Rechargeables
Aug 2006
9
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Methodology for Addressing Systemic Issues
First Attempt
•
Identified multiple root causes for specific processes in each of
“Big 4” areas.
•
Developed a comprehensive CA Plan at the Enterprise level
that captured each of the Big 4 areas
•
•
Detailed milestone schedule to be maintained at EPT.
•
Action assignments identified from the Industry Team.
Reality Check: Goals were not getting accomplished because of
change of focus:
In-Effective RC/CA from Audit Findings
•
Success Will Require A Cultural Shift
10
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Enlightenment Actions
EPT established a “One Company” metric package to manage the
business.
Adopted philosophy:
Knowledge -> Responsibility -> Accountability
Across all functional areas and top to bottom.
Stakeholder Industry Team: Multiple visits to EPT to work the
issues/actions.
•
Industry Team meetings evolved into “healthy discord”
Raytheon
Boeing
Orbital Sciences
Missile Defense
Lockheed-Martin -
Agency
EaglePicher
The integrity and common focus
of the Industry Team
11
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Next Level
Joint Industry Audits at EaglePicher
QMS Audits –
•
All EaglePicher Facilities : ISO 9001 & AS9100B
Process Validation Audits –
•
All EP Facilities
•
Audit Team Lead rotates between Members of Industry Team.
Level of effort (15/4) includes employees from all of the Joint
Industry companies.
Root Cause/Corrective Action Responses
•
All audit items addressed with RC/CA by EaglePicher.
•
Findings
•
Observations
All completed actions validated by the Industry Team
•
Cooperative process checks on-site at EaglePicher by Industry Team
representatives.
12
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Summary of Audits
Audit
Findings
C/A Plans
Observations
Positive
Observations
Nov 04 &
Feb 05 QMS
14
88
32
0
July 05 –
PVA
47
71
39
6
Jan 06 –
PVA
12
14
45
10
Oct 07 –
PVA
4
5
22
13
Same level of effort for each audit
13
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Summary of Audits
Nov 04
QMS
July
05
PVA
Jan 06
PVA
Select
Process Discipline
13
23
4
1
Technical Data Package
21
35
5
2
Training
8
4
1
0
Root Cause / Corrective
Actions
4
1
2
1
“BIG 4”
Oct 06
PVA
Flow Down
14
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Summary of Audits
Nov 04
QMS
July 05
PVA
Jan 06
PVA
Select
Oct 06
PVA
Quality Mgt.
System
20
19
4
1
Operations
11
22
2
2
Engineering
5
16
0
0
Supply
Chain
3
4
4
1
Contracts
3
0
1
0
Human
Resources
2
0
0
0
No RC/CA
required
2
2
1
0
15
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Action Plan Completion Validation
Quality Metrics - Periodic Senior Industry Team Review
• Identification of key enterprise areas for metrics.
• Metrics focus on “Big 4” and customer expectations.
• Metrics developed based on areas needed for
EaglePicher improvement.
• Matured and improved the metric package over time.
• Metric package now used to manage the business.
16
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Highlights of next session
• How did EaglePicher go from 88 C/A to 4 C/A in
two years?
• Examples of metrics that lead to enterprise level
Correction Action.
• Summary of quantitative detail related to audits.
• Keystone outcome:
• Root Cause / Corrective Action *
• Industry Team cooperation
17
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Metric Review
(NOTE
Starting new data
For Day 2 session)
18
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Collective Outcomes: Industry Team Assessment
• Reviewed data from 21 system level audits conducted during the past two years.
• Analyzed approximately 200 findings.
• Grouped data into main contributors.
• Developed the main areas of focus
Industry Team Challenge:
Differences of companies,
products and programs were
put aside.
• Process Discipline
• Technical Data Package
• Training
• Root Cause/Corrective Action
“Big 4”
19
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Common or Systemic Areas in “BIG 4”
Process Discipline
• Many tasks were completed per individual
preference:
• Lacked attention to detail in some key
areas:
• Every function affected.
20
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Common or Systemic Areas in “BIG 4”
Technical Data Package
• Instructions & procedures were inconsistent,
based on program and/or technology
variations:
• Incomplete and inconsistent data
distribution.
21
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Common or Systemic Areas in “BIG 4”
Training
• On Job Training was ad hoc & undocumented:
• No clear definition of “Correct Level of Training”
22
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Common or Systemic Areas in “BIG 4”
Root Cause / Corrective Action *
• Little or no documented process of RC being
connected to CA:
• Actions more disposition rather than RC & CA:
• Little / No Objective Evidence for RC analysis
or CA in place:
23
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Reviews at EaglePicher
Joint Industry Team Audits
Joint Industry Team / SOW
Identified November 2003
Define Continuous Improvement Plan,
March 2004
Quality Management System,
November 2004 (Raytheon)
Identify Metrics Support Big 4 –
June 2004
Rework Nov ’04 Audit Answers
April ‘05
Senior Team Review Metrics
Development @ EPT,
December 2004
Process Validation Audit,
July 2005 (Boeing)
Senior Team Metrics Review
March 2005 ; October 2005
February 2006
Process Validation Audit –Select,
January 2006 (Orbital)
Senior Team Metrics Review
July 2006
Process Validation Audit
Flow Down,
October 06 (Lockheed Martin)
Senior Team Metrics Review
March 2007
Scheduled
April 2007 (QMS Pre-AS9100)
24
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
EP Enterprise Quality Metrics
• Metrics Suite Scorecard
•Supplier Quality and Delivery
•
•Problem Reports – Aging
•Closure Rate within 60 days
•Root Cause Accuracy *
•Corrective Action Completeness *
•Traveler / Build Paper Audits
•Final Data Package Review
•Acceptance Test Metrics
25
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
"Critical to Function Suppliers"
Delivery Performance Ratings
Proactive
response to SCM
Training.
100
Monthly Goal
90
Rating %
GOOD
Added new CTF
Suppliers and
modified
delivery rating
in Plexus.
80
70
12 Month Average
Delivery = 88.2
End of Year Goal: 92%
Minimum Monthly Goals move incrementally
each month for FY 07
60
Mar06 Apr06 May06
Jun06
Jul06
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06 Dec06
Jan07
Feb07
26
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
"Critical to Function Suppliers"
Quality Performance Ratings
100
MCL
95
Rating %
GOOD
90
Goal: 98%
12 Month Average
Quality = 99.1
85
Mar06 Apr06 May06
Jun06
Jul06
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06 Dec06
Jan07
Feb07
27
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Action Plan established
28
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Problem Reports Over 60 Days Old by Department
PR’s sorted by Battery Group
45
40
35
30
30
25
Non-Conformance and
Non-Compliance analysis
GOOD
20
15
16
15
10
9
7
5
3
3
5
5
4
1
11
0
00
Mar06
Apr06
May06
Jun06
Jul06
Aug06
Sep06
45
SOZ
Space
PDV
Oct06
Nov06
Dec06
Problem Reports
1
0
Thermal
4
3
3
40
Reports over 60 Days Old by Responsible Area
ED
Jan07
Feb07
PR’s sorted by Functional Group
Number of Reports
35
GOOD
30
25
21
20
15
14
12
9
10
7
7
5
5
3
2
1
3
1
0
0
5
3
2
0
0
Engineering
Mar06
Apr06
Quality
May06
Jun06
Operations
Jul06
Aug06
QRR
Sep06
Oct06
Supply Chain
Nov06
Dec06
Contracts
Jan07
Feb07
29
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
G
Adequate RC statement
Objective Evidence of Analysis
30
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
G
CA connected to RC
Objective Evidence of Action
31
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Percentage of Opportunities
Traveler Audit Findings
Summary of All Errors
20%
20%
18%
18%
16%
16%
14%
14%
12%
12%
12%
11%
10%
10%
8%
8%
6%
4%
GOOD
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2.2%
2%
1.9%
0.7%
0%
2%
0%
1st Qtr 05 2nd Qtr 05 3rd Qtr 05 4th Qtr 05 1st Qtr 06 2nd Qtr 06 3rd Qtr 06 4th Qtr 06 1st Qtr 07
All Errors
MCL
32
Ja
n
Fe -06
b
M -0 6
ar
Ap -06
M r-0
ay 6
Ju -06
nJu 06
Au l-06
g
Se -06
p
O -0 6
c
N t-06
ov
D -06
ec
-0
6
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
LAT
Percent passed
11 Month
99.1%
12 Month
98.3%
Percent passed
Silver Zinc
100.0%
LAT units Tested
Total LAT Tested
Nov-06
Oct-06
Sep-06
Aug-06
Jul-06
Jun-06
May-06
Apr-06
85.0%
Mar-06
2000
1500
1000
99.5%
500
0
100
80
60
97.0%
40
20
94.0%
0
Percent Passed
100.0%
Feb-06
Jan-06
Quantity Tested
Range Line
Percent Passed
Qty Tested
Quantity Tested
90.0%
Percent Passed
95.0%
Percent Passed
Ja
n
Fe -06
b
M -06
ar
Ap 06
r
M -06
ay
Ju 06
nJu 06
l
Au -06
gSe 06
pO 06
ct
N -06
ov
D -06
ec
-0
6
Quantity Tested
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Ja
n
Fe -06
b
M -06
ar
Ap 06
r
M -06
ay
Ju 06
nJu 06
l
Au -06
g
Se -06
pO 06
ct
N -06
ov
D -06
ec
-0
6
Quantity Tested
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Energetic Devices
100.0%
99.0%
12 Month
99.8%
Percent passed
Thermal
100.0%
91.0%
12 Month
98.6%
Percent passed
33
GOOD
Y
Supplier Delivery Actions
"Critical to Function Suppliers"
Delivery Performance Ratings
100
Current Status:
Rating %
90
•12 Month Average Rating of 78.8%
80
70
60
Goal:
12 Month Average
Delivery = 78.8
Goal: 85%
•Improve by 1.5% per month (Sept to Dec) to
achieve 85% SDR by the end of 2006
50
Aug05
Sep05
Oct05
Nov05
Dec05
Jan06
Feb06
Mar06
Apr06
May06
Jun06
Jul06
Close by Date: December 2006
Assigned to: Mike Beck
Description: Action to improve on-time
deliveries
Evidence of Completion:
Next Actions:
•Metrics indicating Delivery Ratings above
the MCL
•Communicate to suppliers the importance of
being in compliance with SD requirements.
•Planners pro-actively contacting suppliers
to ensure on-time deliveries.
Help Needed / Challenges:
•Low order volume with suppliers make it
difficult to force changes.
•Provide semi-annual Report Card on SDR
performance plus Suppliers in Red required to
complete C/A.
•Bankruptcy emergence is requiring
extension of terms.
B
Closed
G
Have Plan, It's On Track
Y
Have Plan, Not On Track
R
No Plan Established
34
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
GOOD
35
Y
METRIC DATA
Errors in Final Data Package
METRIC EVALUATION
History: FDP steady improvement;
implementation of electronic
Assignment and common traveler
format.
Current Status: Downward trend,
need 3 more months below MCL to go
green.
RESPONSIBILITY
Close by Date: 04/01/07
Assigned to: Forrest Reed
Description: Errors or incomplete
documentation in Final Data Package
causes delay in shipping process.
Help Needed / Challenges:
Accountability of supervisors for
complete and accurate data.
ACTION PLANS
Next Actions: Continue to post Visual Tally
Display tracking errors on the floor with
Production Supervisors responsible for
corrections.
Evidence of Completion:
Positive trend to < 10% by March ‘07
▼
36
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
SUMMARY - EP Enterprise Quality Metrics
• Supplier Quality Management - BCS
Critical Suppliers (50 – 60)
March ’05 – August ‘06
• Supplier Quality Rating
• Supplier On-time Delivery
Increased from 72% to 96%
Increased from 74% to 92%
• Internal Traveler Audits
Weekly review of in-process build paper to ensure all items
are complete and accurate.
January ’05 – August ‘06
• Errors per opportunity (6000/mo)
Decreased from 12% to 2%
37
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
SUMMARY - EP Enterprise Quality Metrics
• Lot Acceptance Testing - BCS
Complete data on four Business Units
January ’05 to August ’06
• First pass testing
• Test failures due to Operator error
Remain > 98%
Decreased from 6% to 4%.
• Final Data Package
Contracts, Operations, Quality, Test Lab
January ’05 to January ‘06
• Errors per opportunity
Decreased from 50% to 18%
Remained steady in 2006
• Problem Report generated to document RC/CA for this situation.
• Action plan has been developed and currently implemented.
38
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
SUMMARY - EP Enterprise Quality Metrics
• Problem Reports (PRs) - BCS
Recorded documentation of non-conformance, non-compliance and
performance failure.
September ’05 – August ’06
• PR Closure Rate (< 60 days)
Increased from <40% to 90%
• PR Resolution activity tracked by
- Business Unit
- Functional Group
- Repeat Problem by Type
• Total Number of open PRs
Reduced by 54%.
39
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
SUMMARY - EP Enterprise Quality Metrics
Analysis of Root Cause and Corrective Actions*
Review of RC/CA’s submitted on PRs (50 – 65%) - BCS
January ’05 – August ‘06
• PRs: Documented true RC
Increased from 40% to 92%
• Contain Objective Evidence
Increased from 19% to 93%
• Corrective Action Adequacy
Increased from 70% to 91%.
40
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Lessons Learned – MDA Perspective
•
Need absolute buy in from Supplier.
•
Constantly take the pulse of the project – It’s easy to take the wrong
road.
•
Keep a grip on the Industry Team members –
•
Audit follow up is difficult.
•
Reduced audit activity is difficult.
•
Be aware that you don’t always know the “Inside Story”.
•
Don’t ever give up – Prepare for the long haul.
•
Make sure you follow through with your end of the bargain.
•
Make sure there is something in it for the Supplier.
41
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Lessons Learned – MDA Perspective
•
Maintain consistency of the team, but bring in diversity in doses
•
Too consistent, start drinking your own bath water
•
Too diverse, keep reinventing the wheel and/or plowing old
ground
•
Don’t sell the metrics short: Potential to be great tools.
•
In the beginning, focus on CA Plan completion.
•
It’s an improvement effort !
42
Quality Initiative at EaglePicher
Questions
&
Answers
43