Transcript No Slide Title

Lean Six Sigma
Water Main Replacement Cost Reduction
Greg Meszaros, Director of Public Works and City Utilities
Define Phase
Project Description
Project Description
Problem
Water main replacement costs are higher
Statement: than last rate plan estimate
Decrease water main replacement
Objective:
construction bid costs from $60/ft to $50/ft
Time Line
Define
Measure
Analyze
Improve
Control
Feb 2002
Mar 2002
Apr 2002
May 2002
May - Dec 2002
Project Team
Champion:
Ted Rhinehart
Black Belt:
Greg Meszaros
Team Members:
Matthew Wirtz
Mark Gensic
Paul Powers
Dan Smith
Ken Stempien
Bob Hinga
Outside Members:
Contractors, Engineering Firm
Big “Y”
Y= Water main replacement
construction bid cost per foot
Every $1/ft reduction = $32K per year in savings
Y = f(x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ,..., x k )
Benefits
• External (Customer) Focused
–
–
–
–
–
Decrease in Service Interruptions
Improved Water Quality
Improved Fire Protection
Improved Control of Utility Rates
Provided customers with a reliable, sufficient
water distribution system
– Replaced 6 miles of water main per year
(150/year replacement cycle)
Measurement Phase
Inputs and Outputs
50,000 ft. Water Main Design Process Map Inputs and Outputs
Inputs
Design Firm
PDS Internal Staff Time
Type of Pipe Material for New Main (DI, HDPE, etc)
Construction Method (Open Cut, Boring, Bursting, etc)
Trees (type, number, location)
Soil Conditions
Site Conditions
Project Location (residential, commerical, big street, etc)
Water main(s) to be replaced
Professional Service Agreement (PSA)
Permits
Design Criteria/Standards Manual
Time of the Bid (what season)
City Bidding Requirements
Restoration Requirements
Number and condition of existing services
Depth of construction
Capital Funding
Board Improvement Resolution
Location of Other Utilities
Route of new water line
Special Conditions
Backfill Requirements
Level of design detail
Bid alternates and award decision
Bid preparation time (between advertisement and opening)
Construction Contractors
Hydrant & Value (Locations, Types, Numbers)
Traffic Control Requirements
Routings for other utility reviews
Pre-bid meeting
Coordination with other improvement projects (street work)
Wage Rates
Process
Start: Scope
Design a
Water
Main
Replacement
Stop: Open Bids
Outputs
Constructable water main replacement design solution
No conflict design solution
Effective water main replacement design solution
Lowest cost water main replacement design solution
Reasonable construction schedule
Accurate engineer's estimate of probable cost
Well defined bid quantities for measurement & payment
Completed work request
Complete project file
Acceptable bids
Clear, Accurate Bid Documents
Clear, Accurate Plans & Specifications
Inputs and Outputs
5 ,0 0 0 ft. L e v e l 1 W a te r M a in D e s ig n P r o c e s s M a p In p u ts a n d O u tp u ts
In p u ts
R F Q list o f e n g in e e rin g f irm s
P D S sta f f tim e
M a in s th a t n e e d to b e re p la c e d (siz e o f p ro je c t)
C o n f lic t m a p
C a p ita l im p ro v e m e n t p la n (C U & T E S )
B udget
D e sig n e r (in te rn a l o r e x te rn a l f irm )
S u rv e y f irm (o n c a ll o r e n g in e e rin g f irm )
O p T e c h s (f lo w te stin g )
D IP R A (c o rro sio n te stin g )
T E S T e c h s (c o o rd in a tio n w ith stre e t w o rk )
C u b is (ta p lo c a tio n in f o rm a tio n )
H o le y M o le y (u n d e rg ro u n d lo c a te s)
S u rv e y R e su lts
C o rro sio n C o n tro l R e c o m m e n d a tio n
F lo w T e st R e su lts
P a v e m e n t C o re R e su lts
R o u tin g L ist (w h o to ro u te p la n s f o r re v ie w )
S ta te (ID E M ) p e rm ittin g re q u ire m e n ts
C ity sta n d a rd s
P D S sta f f tim e
D e sig n e r (in d iv id u a l o r f irm )
K n o w le d g e o f S o il C o n d itio n s
C o n f irm a tio n o f lo c a tio n o f e x istin g u tilitie s
L o c a tio n /n u m b e r/ty p e o f e x istin g w a te r se rv ic e s
P r o c e s s S te p
P r o je c t
S c o p in g
D a ta
C o lle c tio n
D e s ig n
O u tp u ts
D e sig n e r S e le c te d (in te rn a l o r f irm )
D e te rm in a tio n o f ty p e o f re p la c e m e n t (p ro g ra m m e d , T E S p ro je c t)
L o c a tio n (s) o f m a in s to re p la c e
P ro f e ssio n a l se rv ic e a g re e m e n t (P S A ) & f e e n e g o tia te d
P ro je c t # 's e sta b lish e d (w o rk o rd e r, b o a rd o rd e r, e tc )
S c h e d u le e sta b lish e d
E x te n t o f re p la c e m e n t (n u m b e r o f m a in s, siz e , e tc )
F lo w te st re su lts
C o n f irm e d p ro p e rty a n d rig h t o f w a y lin e s
S ite to p o e sta b lish e d
C o n f irm a tio n o f lo c a tio n o f e x istin g u tilitie s
C o n f irm e d lo c a tio n (su rv e y ) o f p h y sic a l f e a tu re s a t site
K n o w le d g e o f c o rro siv e c o n d itio n s (n e e d f o r p o ly -w ra p p e d p ip e )
E x te n t o f p a v e m e n t re p la c e m e n t re q u ire m e n ts (c o re re su lts)
K n o w le d g e o f so il c o n d itio n s (ty p e , stre n g th )
L o c a tio n /n u m b e r/ty p e o f e x istin g w a te r se rv ic e s
P & S : P ip e m a te ria l f o r re p la c e m e n t m a in (D I, H D P E )
P & S : P ip e siz e
P & S : C o n stru c tio n m e th o d (o p e n c u t, b o re , b u rstin g )
P & S : T re e c o n f lic t re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : D riv e w a y re sto ra tio n re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : S tre e t re sto ra tio n re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : B a c k f ill re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : C o n f irm e d ro u tin g
P & S : F ire h y d ra n t a n d v a lv e ty p e & lo c a tio n s e sta b lish e d
P & S : S e rv ic e re p la c e m e n t re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : T ra f f ic c o n tro l re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : E a se m e n t re q u ire m e n ts
C o n stru c tio n sc h e d u le e sta b lish e d
E n g in e e rs c o st e stim a te e sta b lish e d
B id a lte rn a te s a n d m e th o d o f a w a rd e sta b lish e d
P e rm its (rig h t-o f -w a y , ID N R , e tc )
Inputs and Outputs
Inputs
P & S : P ip e m a te ria l (D I, H D P E )
P & S : P ip e siz e
P & S : C o n stru c tio n m e th o d (o p e n c u t, b o re )
P & S : T re e c o n flic t re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : D riv e w a y re sto ra tio n re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : S tre e t re sto ra tio n re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : B a c k fill re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : C o n firm e d ro u tin g
P & S : F ire h y d ra n t a n d v a lv e ty p e & lo c a tio n s
P & S : S e rv ic e re p la c e m e n t re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : T ra ffic c o n tro l re q u ire m e n ts
P & S : E a se m e n t re q u ire m e n ts
C o n stru c tio n sc h e d u le e sta b lish e d
E n g in e e rs c o st e stim a te e sta b lish e d
Process Step
Outputs
F in a l b id p a c k e t (p la n s & sp e c s, c ity b o ile rp la te )
B o a rd im p ro v e m e n t re so lu tio n
B id a d v e rtise m e n t & b id o p e n in g d a te s
P re v a ilin g (u n io n ) if $ 1 5 0 K + (h e a v y h ig h w a y ra te , u tility ra te )
N o n -p re v a ilin g w a g e ra te if p ro je c t le ss th a n $ 1 5 0 K
B id
P re p a ra tio n
B id a lte rn a te s a n d m e th o d o f a w a rd e sta b lish e d
P e rm its (rig h t-o f-w a y , ID N R , e tc )
C ity b o ile rp la te c o n tra c t la n g u a g e
C o n tra c t c o m p lia n c e
B o a rd o f W o rk s
P D S sta ff T im e
Q u a n tity ta k e o ffs
F in a l b id p a c k e t (p la n s & sp e c s, c ity b o ile rp la te )
B o a rd im p ro v e m e n t re so lu tio n
B id a d v e rtise m e n t & o p e n in g d a te s (tim e o f y e a r)
P re v a ilin g (u n io n ) if $ 1 5 0 K + (h e a v y h ig h w a y , u tility )
N o n -p re v a ilin g w a g e ra te if p ro je c t le ss th a n $ 1 5 0 K
C o n tra c to rs
B o a rd o f W o rk s
P D S sta ff tim e
E S S sta ff tim e
B id d in g
P re b id c o n fe re n c e
C la rify in g a d d e n d u m s to b id p a c k e t
C o n tra c to r b id s
B id ta b u la tio n
C o m p le te d p ro je c t file
C o m p le te d w o rk re q u e st
C o st sh a re a g re e m e n t (w ith tra n sp o rta tio n p ro je c ts)
Cause and Effect Matrix
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
Acceptable Bids
Process Inputs
RFQ list of engineer ing fir ms
PDS staff time
Pr ior itized list of mains that need to be replac ed
Conf lict map
Capital impr ovement plans ( Utility & Transpor tation)
Budget
Designer ( internal or exter nal firm)
Survey f irm ( on call or thr ough engineeri ng firm)
Op Techs ( flow testing)
DIPRA (corr osi on testing)
TES Techs (c oordi nation with str eet wor k)
Cubis (tap locati on information)
Holey Moley ( under gr ound locates)
6
Reasonable Schedule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Process Step
Project Scoping
Project Scoping
Project Scoping
Project Scoping
Project Scoping
Project Scoping
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
Data Collec tion
10
Constructable Solution
Process
Design a W ater Main Replacement
8
Lowest Cost Solution
Rating of Impor tance to Cust omer
Effective Solution
Cause & Effect Matrix
Total
9
3
1
1
9
3
9
9
3
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
9
0
1
9
9
9
9
3
0
3
3
3
9
9
0
0
3
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
0
0
9
0
3
9
3
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
288
96
110
68
192
120
288
252
24
82
216
216
180
Cause and Effect Expert Opinion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time of Year Project is Bid
Construction Method Specified
Size of Project (Footage of main replaced)
Wage Rates
Mixture of Work
Quality of Underground Facility Data
Engineering Firm
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)
W ater M ain R eplacem ent FM E A W orksheet
F ailure M o d es - W h at can g o
P ro cess S tep /Inp ut
w ro n g ?
E ffects
C auses
C urrent C o ntro ls
W age R ate
requested prev ailing wage rate for
bids less than 150k
higher cost
E ng E stim ate ov er 150k
N one
did not request prev ailing wage rate
all bids com e in ov er 150k
rebid
E ng E stim ate under 150k
N one
B id projects when contractors are
too busy to subm it cost effectiv e
bids
H igher costs & late
schedules
B idding projects too late in the construction
season
N one
H igher C ost
1) N ot enough flex ibility for construction m ethods
2) B id award m ethod does not encourage best
pricing
N one
R eplacem ent m ain fails
1) U nprov en m ethods
2) B id specs now well written
U tility only allows D IP
or H D P E m ethods
H igher costs
1) N ot grouping together enough related m ain
replacem ent work
N one
1) G rouping together of too m uch m ain
replacem ent work in one job.
C urrent practice is to
not bid pipeline work
that ex ceeds $1M per
job
T im e of Y ear P roject is B id
B id structure does not giv e
C onstruction M ethod S pecified
contracts ability to bid m ost cost
effectiv e solution
C onstruction m ethods allow
replacem ent technologies that don't
work
S ize of P roject (F ootage of
replaced pipe)
P roject footage is so sm all that few
contractors are interested in
bidding
P roject footage is so large that few
contractors are interested in
bidding
H igher costs
FMEA
FMEA &
and
Process
Process
Hardening
Hardening
• Wage Rates
– Require review of all engineer’s estimates
between $150K and $200K before requesting
prevailing wage rates
– Applies to all construction bidding, not just
main replacement work
• Construction Method
– Allow ductile iron (open trench construction) or
HDPE (bored construction) option on all main
replacement work
FMEA-Wage Rate Example
• Colony Drive - Estimate: $192,685
*Requested prevailing (higher) wage rates because initial
estimate > $150K
• Actual Bids
–
–
–
–
–
–
$109,785
$118,622
$149,200
$159,388
$175,272
$183,029
*Three bids under $150K
Prevailing wage rate structure is
not required for this work.
MSA Study-Verification
Construction bid tabulations were
verified with original bid documents
from Board of Works records.
Analyze & Improve
Phases
Distribution
Normal Distribution, Mean=$61.01/ft; StDev=11.05
Descriptive Statistics
Variable: Total_Projec
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared:
P-Value:
40
50
60
70
Mean
StDev
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
N
80
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
95% Confidence Interval for Mu
0.132
0.975
61.0148
11.0512
122.130
0.240046
-5.5E-02
16
41.0162
51.2263
60.7737
67.9586
83.8958
95% Confidence Interval for Mu
55.1260
54
59
64
69
66.9036
95% Confidence Interval for Sigma
8.1636
17.1039
95% Confidence Interval for Median
95% Confidence Interval for Median
52.6396
67.5843
Control Chart-In Control
I and MR Chart for Total_Projec
Individual Value
90
UCL=85.89
80
70
Mean=61.01
60
50
40
LCL=36.14
30
Subgroup
Moving Range
30
0
5
10
1
15
UCL=30.56
20
10
0
R=9.352
LCL=0
Initial Capability Study
Cpk = 0.49 with LSL=$1.00/ft and USL=$75/ft
Process Capability Analysis for T otal_Projec
LSL
Proc es s Data
USL
USL
75.0000
Target
LSL
Within
*
Overall
1.0000
Mean
61.0148
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Ov erall)
16
9.4772
11.2368
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp
1.30
CPU
0.49
CPL
2.11
Cpk
0.49
Cpm
*
Ov erall Capability
0
20
40
Obs erv ed Performanc e
60
80
Ex p. "Within" Performanc e
100
Ex p. "Ov erall" Performanc e
Pp
1.10
PPM < LSL
0.00
PPM < LSL
0.00
PPM < LSL
0.05
PPU
0.41
PPM > USL
62500.00
PPM > USL
70017.77
PPM > USL
106642.68
PPL
1.78
PPM Total
62500.00
PPM Total
70017.77
PPM Total
106642.73
Ppk
0.41
85
85
80
80
Total_Project_CPF
Total_Project_CPF
Interesting Box Plots
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
40
Cold Weather
Warm Weather
Season
Big
Small
Size
Time of Year (Season)
Project Size
85
Total_Project_CPF
80
75
70
65
60
55
Mixture of Work
50
45
40
Combined
CU
CU_Street2
ANOVA Work
Interesting Interaction
Size & Season
Interaction Plot - Data Means for Total_Projec
Size
67
Big
Small
Mean
Time
of Year (Season)
62
57
52
Fall-Winter
Spring-Summer
Season2
Interesting Interactions
Size & Mixture of Work
Interaction Plot - Data Means for Total_Projec
Size
Big
Small
Mean
65
60
55
50
Combined
CU
CU_Street2
Improvement Conclusion
Large (footage>3000 feet), stand
alone main replacement work
bid in the cold weather
Process Change Summary
• Do not request prevailing wage rates until cost estimates
exceed $200K
• Bid all projects with construction method choice (open
cut or bored) and award on lowest cost solution
• Bid larger (total footage) main replacement projects by
replacing all under performing water main in an entire
neighborhood (as opposed to individual streets) Bid the
larger neighborhood replacement projects in the cold
weather months (December - March)
• Bid the larger neighborhood replacement projects with a
minimal amount of additional construction work not
directly associated with the water main replacement
work (don’t add lots of surface paving work into the
replacement project)
Control Phase
Control Plan
P ro c e s s
P ro c e s s S te p
O u tp u t
M a in
R e p la c e m e n t
D e sig n
B id
P re p a ra tio n
W a g e R a te
In p u t
E n g in e e r's
P re v a ilin g w a g e ra te sh o u ld n o t b e re q u e ste d u n le ss
C o st E stim a te e n g in e e r's e stim a te g re a te r th a n $ 2 0 0 K
M a in
R e p la c e m e n t
D e sig n
B id
P re p a ra tio n
F in a l B id
P acket
C o n stru c tio n
M e th o d &
M e th o d o f
A w a rd
M a in
R e p la c e m e n t
D e sig n
P ro je c t
S c o p in g
E x te n t o f
R e p la c e m e n t
M a in s th a t
n e e d to b e
re p la c e d
M a in
R e p la c e m e n t
D e sig n
B id
P re p a ra tio n
B id O p e n in g
D a te
C o n stru c tio n
S c h e d u le
P ro je c t
S c o p in g
T ype of
R e p la c e m e n t
(T E S o r
P ro g ra m m e d )
C a p ita l
Im p ro v e m e n t
P la n (T E S )
M a in
R e p la c e m e n t
D e sig n
P ro c e s s S p e c ific a tio n (L S L , U S L , T a rg e t)
T w o c o n stru c tio n m e th o d s (o p e n c u t a n d b o re d ) sh o u ld b e
sp e c if ie d f o r e a c h m a in re p la c e m e n t p ro je c t w ith se le c tio n
(a w a rd ) o f m e th o d b a se d o n lo w e st c o st b id . C o n tra c to rs n e e d
to o n ly b id o n e m e th o d b a se d o n th e ir lo w e st c o st.
M a x im iz e re p la c e m e n t o f u n d e r p e rf o rm in g w a te r m a in s in a
n e ig h b o rh o o d to in c re a se to ta l a m o u n t o f f o o ta g e o f
re p la c e m e n t w o rk
B id la rg e st w a te r m a in re p la c e m e n t p ro je c ts (5 ,0 0 0 f e e t o r
g re a te r) in th e c o ld w e a th e r m o n th s (N o v e m b e r th ro u g h
F e b ru a ry ). M a k e a llo w a n c e s f o r f le x ib ility o f n o tic e to
p ro c e e d s f o r w in te r w e a th e r c o n d itio n s.
R e v ie w T ra n sp o rta tio n E n g in e e rin g S e rv ic e s (T E S ) c a p ita l
im p ro v e m e n t p la n (C IP ) to d e te rm in e if a n y su rf a c e p ro je c ts
a re p la n n e d f o r la rg e m a in re p la c e m e n t p ro je c t a re a s. If so ,
c o o rd in a te w ith T E S to b id a n d c o m p le te m a in w o rk
se p a ra te ly .
Control Plan
M easu rem en t T ech n iq u e
S am p le S ize
S am p le
F req u en cy
A fter each
m ain
replacem ent
project bid
opening
Low bid for
U pdate wage rate colum n in bid tab database with type
each m ain
of wage rate requested. U se "N one" for projects that did replacem ent
not use prev ailing wage rate structure.
project
R ev iew bid tabluations from B oard of W orks bid
openings to determ ine how project was bid. U pdate bid
tab database with a Y (Y es) in "H D P E A lt" field to
indicate the project was bid with a bored construction
alternativ e. U pdate bid tab database with a Y in "H D P E
A fter each
A lt H to H " field to indicate that the construction m ethod A ll bids taken
m ain
selection was based on lowest cost solution between
for m ain
replacem ent
bored and open cut m ethods. A N (N o) in either of these replacem ent
project bid
fields should trigger a rev iew
project
opening
M ain
replacem ent
A t least 20,000 of water m ain replacem ent work bid in
work planned
units of work 5,000 feet or higher on an annual basis
for the year
Q uarterly
M ain
replacem ent
A t least 20,000 of annual m ain replacem ent work bid in work planned
the N ov em ber through F ebruary tim e fram e
for the year
Q uarterly
N o large (3000 feet or greater) m ain replacem ent
projects bid with T E S add in work
M ain
replacem ent
work planned
for the year
Q uarterly
C o n tro l M eth o d
R eactio n P lan
R ev iew wage rate colum n in bid tab
database to determ ine if any bids
receiv ed were less than $150K with a
wage rate designation other than "N one"
P erform rev iew audit of low bid and
original engineer's estim ate to
determ ine why prev ailing wage rate was
requested.
R ev iew bid tabulation sheet to v erify that
open cut and bored (H D P E ) construction
m ethod alternativ es were specified for
each m ain replacem ent project. A lso
v erify that final selection was based on
lowest cost solution. F ailure in either of
these categories should trigger a rev iew
R ev iew m ain replacem ent projects to
determ ine neighborhood groupings and
am ount of bids planned for 5000 feet or
larger
Q uarterly rev iew of m ain replacem ent bid
scheduling to determ ine am ount of m ain
replacem ent work planned to be bid in
the optim um tim e window
R ev iew any replacem ent project bid
without construction m ethod choice to
determ ine why single source selection
was m ade.
R ev iew project scoping step to
determ ine why larger m ain replacem ent
projects are not being generated
A cclerate m ain replacem ent design
work if quarterly rev iews determ ine that
optim um bid windows will not be m et
If significant am ounts of T E S add in for
large replacem ent projects. R ev iew
Q uarterly rev iew of m ain replacem ent
project tim ing to separate m ain
projects to determ ine am ount of T E S add replacem ent work from T E S surface
in planned for each project.
work.
Control Plan- Close Up Example
• Process Step: Bid Preparation
– Input: Construction Method
– Output: Final Bid Packet
• Process Spec: Allow for two construction methods
(open cut or bored) on all main replacement projects
and select based on lowest cost
• Control Method: Review bid tabulation sheet to
verify that base (open cut) and alternate (bored)
methods are specified for each bid
Process Improvement
Results
Project Bid After Improvements
Normal Distribution, Mean=$49.92/ft; StDev=4.95
Descriptive Statistics
Variable: Total_Projec
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared:
P-Value:
45
47
49
51
53
55
Mean
StDev
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
N
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
95% Confidence Interval for Mu
0.386
0.236
49.9243
4.9547
24.5489
-1.2E-01
-2.96320
5
44.7762
44.8532
50.4528
54.7312
55.0912
95% Confidence Interval for Mu
43.7723
45
50
55
56.0764
95% Confidence Interval for Sigma
2.9685
14.2376
95% Confidence Interval for Median
95% Confidence Interval for Median
44.7762
55.0912
Control Chart
Control Chart - Before & After Improvements
I and MR Chart for CPF
Individual Value
90
1
UCL=82.01
80
70
2
60
Mean=58.37
50
40
LCL=34.74
30
Subgroup
Moving Range
30
S10
w e e t S p o t!
1 3 ,0 0 0 ' @ $ 4 4 .9 3
0
1
20
UCL=29.03
20
10
0
R=8.886
LCL=0
Final Capability-Bids After Improvements
Cpk = 1.28 with LSL=$1.00/ft and USL=$75/ft
Process Capability Analysis for Total_Projec
LSL
Proc es s Data
USL
USL
75.0000
Target
LSL
Within
*
Overall
1.0000
Mean
49.9243
Sample N
5
StDev (Within)
6.50512
StDev (Ov erall)
5.27102
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp
1.90
CPU
1.28
CPL
2.51
Cpk
1.28
Cpm
*
Ov erall Capability
0
10
20
30
Obs erv ed Performanc e
40
50
60
Ex p. "Within" Performanc e
70
80
Ex p. "Ov erall" Performanc e
Pp
2.34
PPM < LSL
0.00
PPM < LSL
0.00
PPM < LSL
0.00
PPU
1.59
PPM > USL
0.00
PPM > USL
57.92
PPM > USL
0.98
PPL
3.09
PPM Total
0.00
PPM Total
57.92
PPM Total
0.98
Ppk
1.59
Financial Results
Costs Savings
• Direct Savings
–
–
–
–
Before: $2,824,861/46,498 feet = $60.75/ft
After: $1,325,283/27,041 feet = $49.01/ft
Marginal Difference: $60.75-$49.01 = $11.74/ft
Savings: $11.74*27,041 = $317,461
• Indirect Savings
– Savings do not include “spill over benefit” of
process hardening activities such as wage rate
optimization on other types of project bidding
Project Tracking
Project
Description
Process
Map
C&E
Matrix
Preliminary
FMEA
MSA
Owner
Sign-Off
Final Project
Report
Measure
Initial
Capability Study
Multi-Vari
Analyze
DOE (or other improvement)
Improve
Control
Plan
Control
Hand Off
Training
Final
Capability
Study