Page 1 of 23

1

• 6-PANEL
• Problem Resolution Process
• TRAINING MANUAL

2
Corporate NEED

• Global 6-Panel Reporting standard
• 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level
  problem resolution document to capture the key
  requirements and data to drive decisions through
  the problem solving phases Define, Measure,
  Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.
• Assist problem solving teams with a template to
  guide the problem solving process using minimum
  required DMAICR steps to ensure robustness of
  the resolution.
• Individual summary panels of each DMAICR phase
  that is simplified and standardized, while
  allowing for additional information or slides to
  be inserted as backup information for any of the
  problem resolution phases. In a high level
  management report out, communicate with the six
  summary panels. For a team or quarterback deep
  dive, unhide information on additional slides.
• Standardization of problem resolution procedures
  combining best practices and 6-Sigma methodology
  on a format that is flexible enough to be used by
  all business units.
• Simplified and consistent communication to
  management in a concise way without having to
  rewrite what you have done.
• Encourages management to ask questions in line
  with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.

3
Process Layout
6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level
problem resolution document to capture the key
requirements used to drive data decision through
the problem solving phases Define, Measure,
Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate.
Panel 2
Panel 1
Panel 3

• Define Phase
• Who is my customer, and what isthe current cost
  of poor quality?
• Voice of the Customer
• Defect Definition
• Cost of Poor Quality (includeswarranty
  spending, as necessary)
• Project Scope Goal

Measure Phase Which inputs affect ouputs?What is
my current processperformance (capability)?Are
defects contained?

• Analyze Phase
• By how much do Xs affect Y?What confidence do
  you have?
• Graphical Analysis
• Hypothesis Testing
• Regression Analysis
• Additional tools

• Fish Bone
• Gage RR, Baseline Capability
• Containment Plan

Panel 4
Panel 5
Panel 6

• Improve Phase
• How can we permanently fix
• the current product/process?
• DOE ANOVA
• Verification data
• Durability/CAE/VSA
• Work plan

• Control Phase
• How can we make the
• process stay fixed?
• Control Plans
• SPC Control Charting
• Audit Plans

• Replicate Phase
• Who else at Ford can benefit?Update corporate
  knowledge?Is the gain be sustained?
• Replication / Best Practices
• Core Books SDS/VDS/FMEAs
• Validate sustain w/ data

4
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
D
M
A
I
C
R

• 6-PANEL Header
• Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the
  header. The following generic fields are listed
  to identify project ownership (business unit),
  the customer, affected vehicle, process, and/or
  part number.

Manufacturing / Technical Example
Transactional Example
5
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
D
M
A
I
C
R

• DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• Identify the Project Classification (Safety,
  Quality, Deliver, Cost) objectives. Typical
  quality classifications will be based upon the
  Single Agenda for Quality data (both low time in
  service, 3 MIS, and high time in service, 3 YIS)
  from GQRS and Warranty. Include total annual
  warranty spending and JD Power data if available.
  In addition, use internal data indicators to help
  identify the concern including Best In Class
  (BIC) and Best In Ford (BIF) data to address
  customer concerns.
• Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or
  External trends, and graphical quantification and
  pareto formulates a means of prioritizing and
  help reflect the teams understanding of the major
  components making up the concern.) Data trend
  charts over time help define the severity of
  customer concerns. Data trend charts over time
  should include annotative updates. If needed, add
  backup slides.
• Yf(x) Cascade (High level Yf(x) cascade should
  communicate the scope of the project).
• CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies
  customer requirements / expectations.
• Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable
  (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric.
• Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem
  includes all external and internal cost, TGW,
  Total Warranty Spending and Unexpended Warranty,
  labor overhead, etc.)
• Problem Statement (include scope and goal)
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Define material)
• Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not
  Analysis
• Unexpended Warranty Calculations
• TGW Verbatim Analysis
• QFD

6
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
D
M
A
I
C
R
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler
TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION SAQ 26 L66 - Exhaust
System Troubles 01 MY 99 MY 3 MIS 3
YIS TGW 4 6 CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61 CPU 0.27 2.1
1 R/1000 1.04 3.54 JD Power 0.4 Consumer
Reports n/a for L66
2002 L66 Warranty by part
L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable
3 MISR/1000
TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING 315K (2002 CY)
VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER From AWS Verbatims
thevehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging
on side of vehicle. CTQ STATEMENT (Customer
Requirement)  Customers expect no ground out
noises from the exhaust system. DEFECT DEFINITION
for Y (Engineering Metric)  Muffler to body
clearance less than 17mm at fascia COST OF POOR
QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty,
etc.)  350,000 annually in internal repairs and
external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from
3MIS GQRS surveys. PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND
GOAL Owners of 2001 MY Taurus/Sable vehicles
indicate that exhaust pipes and muffler to body
side ground outs are a significant issue. These
ground outs conditions, particularly around the
rear fascia lower control arm, cause noises
such as rattles, knocks, bangs, clunks, dings,
and rubs. Reduce ground outs by 90.
Yf(x) CASCADE Y L66 f (Muffler, Pipe,
etc.) Muffler f ( Ground outs, etc.) Ground
Outs f (clearance to fascia) Project Y
7
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
Extra Slide (if required)
D
M
A
I
C
R
Trend Charts ofExplorer BrakeNoise-N17
8
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY

• MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• Fishbone (Cause Effect Diagram). Identify the
  key process input variables (KPIV or Xs) that
  affect your KPOV (Y) most (display ranking).
  (This is the first stage of root cause analysis,
  in the analyze phase you will validate the root
  cause with data).
• MSA Measurement System Analysis. Validate the
  Measurement System for your KPOV (Y), Gage RR
  stated as Study. (May be needed for both Ys
  and Xs performed in other stages of the project.)
• Determine the Baseline Process Capability of your
  KPOV (Y)
• Containment Plan - state actions taken to protect
  the customer, including statistical evidence
  validating action (before and after data). If
  containment is not needed, state why.While the
  team is working on permanent solution,
  containment actions are required to protect the
  customer 100. Example of actions include
  Stop-ship, 100 inspection, Quarantine stock,
  QRs supplier. Use additional slides with visual
  aids to this panel to drive home your containment
  resolutions. Effectiveness of containment actions
  must be shown with Before and After indicator.
  Containment Plans should include 1.
  Metric/Indicator that is used to find the issue
  at (a) Supplier facility, before shipping to
  Ford facility, (b) Assembly plant, before
  shipping to customers.2. Before and after
  statistical data evidence showing the issue is
  contained (Cpk, defect rate, etc)
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Measure material)
• Cause Effect Matrix
• P-Diagram
• PFMEA and/or DFMEA
• SPC
• Rolled Throughput Yield

9
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler

• MSA Process Capability
• Engineering Test RequirementMuffler to Body
  Clearance (17-30 mm)
• Gage RR 15 Study
• Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001)
• Z 0.72
• DPMO 255,141
• Cpk 0.24 (note short term)

B
A
B
B
B
Data Collection plan includes all circled, highly
ranked Xs
B
B
A
Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElem
ent Not Capable CElement Removed D
A

• CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required)
  Process Owner Date Before Data After Data
• 100 audit (clearances at fascia / lower control
  arm. John Smith 10/17/01 0.24 Cpk 1.23 Cpk
• When necessary, reposition muffler assembly to
  obtain adequate clearance.
• If muffler does not shift to desired position,
  loosen joint attachment reposition assembly.

10
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
Extra Slide (if required)
FISHBONE Cause and Effect diagram is a problem
solving tool used to identify and graphically
display all possible causes of a problem or
effect. It helps a team to discover root
cause(s). Additional tools can and should be used
to deep dive in the measure phase to help
prioritize the KPIV Key Process Input
Variables causeand effect priority matrix,
fault tree / contribution analysis, process /
design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process
mapping, etc.

• Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used
  tools in quality management.
• Example Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram

Important Look for Internal Indicator at
Supplier facility and Assembly plant
11
MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY
Extra Slide (if required)
Example of Additional Tool U152 Brake Cold
Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis
NOTE ONE THING WE SHOULD MAKE CERTAIN IS THAT WE
SHOULD NOT LET THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROOT
CAUSE (ANALYZE PHASE) BE A DETRIMENT TO THE
TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE CONTAINMENT PLAN. AN
INSPECTION, SORTING, STOP SHIP, ETC. MAY BE
REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE CUSTOMER WITHOUT KNOWING
THE "ROOT CAUSE".
12
ANALYZE yf(x)

• ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with
  data)?
• How many samples do you need to draw conclusions?
• What level of confidence do you have in your
  conclusions?
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Analyze material)
• Graphical Analysis Hypothesis Testing
• Regression Analysis
• Correlation Analysis
• Process FMEA
• P-Diagram
• Contribution Analysis
• Multi-vari studies
• Shainin Analysis

13
ANALYZE yf(x)
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler
yf(x) The current design muffler assembly aid
positions the pipe to the center of tunnel, which
is 4.2 mm from design position. This translates
13 mm muffler body movement toward the fascia
area.
CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID 4.2 mm offset from design
allows pipe position to vary when installed
yf(x) Muffler assembly aids used during
installation require detailed 4.2 mm offset
positioning feature to meet design intent.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source DF SS
MS F P Factor 1 0.0038
0.0038 0.05 0.826 Error 48 3.7236
0.0776 Total 49 3.7274
FASCIA LOCATING HOLE MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING
HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT X
REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID incorporated the 4.2
mm design
14
IMPROVE yf(x)

• IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• What is the optimal Yf(x) solution?
• How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical
  proof that the solution works.)
• Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work
  plan must include
• Permanent/Interim actions,
• Sample size,
• Next steps if trial is successful,
• Next steps if trial is NOT successful,
• Part availability if trial is successful,
• Additional actions pending.
• Validation of fix after implementation. Before
  and after process capability of Y, showing
  variable data histograms, attribute data, etc.
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Improve material)
• Design of Experiments (Main Effect Interaction
  Plots, ANOVA Tables)
• Regression Analysis
• Correlation Analysis
• Hypothesis Testing
• Cost / Benefit Analysis
• Process Mapping (should be)

15
IMPROVE yf(x)
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler
Improved yf(x) A. Incorporate trimmed fascia and
sheet metal for clearance. B. Muffler hanger
bracket design modified, along with fascia and
sheet metal change improved clearance 15 mm.
BEFORE Oct. 15, 2001
AFTER March 1, 2002
Implementation Workplan Permanent
/ Before/AfterInterim Actions Who/When Indicator
s Concern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk
(B) Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk
(A)and sheet metal for In production additional
clearance. Jan., 2002 Concern C11272097 Steve
Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B) Redesigned muffler (PTSE
DR) 2.0 Cpk (A)assy aid to meet design March,
2002y and z specification. All trails
successful, see sample size above. All actions
and parts in house and implemented, March 5th,
2002.
Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms
Improvement of Y One-way ANOVA FASCI-END
(IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE) Analysis of
Variance Source DF SS MS
F P Factor 1 8781.3 8781.3
822.74 0.000 Error 155 1654.4
10.7 Total 156 10435.6
Individual 95 CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled
StDev Level N Mean StDev
---------------------------------- FASCI-EN
120 36.838 3.244
() FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343
(--)
---------------------------------- Pooled
StDev 3.267 24.0 30.0
36.0
16
IMPROVE yf(x)
Extra Slide (if required)
Additional Improve Phase Examples Verification
Data requires solid statistical evidence using
adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent.
Example of Weibull Plotting B10 Life Improvement
Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind
noise level is significantly improved.
Noise Level (Base vs Modification)
3
8
3
7
e
Modification
3
6
u
l
a
3
5
V
3
4

l
a
3
3
u
3
2
d
i
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
3
1
v
i
d
3
0
n
2
9
I
2
8
0
S
u
b
g
r
o
u
p
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
17
IMPROVE yf(x)
Extra Slide (if required)
Additional Improve Phase Examples Verification
with Durability Data
DYNO SAE J2521 Simulated LACT operating
conditions
Example of APG Durability Reliability
Analysis Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative
Mileage
APG or CAE/Lab test can be used for this Slot)
Less is better
18
IMPROVE yf(x)
Extra Slide (if required)
Additional Improve Phase Example Workplan
detail timeline chart
WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART An overall plan
showing improvement timelines for implementing
containment, interim and permanent corrective
actions.

• Develop a work plan is to include detailed course
  of actions to fix the problem, including
  permanent/ engineering/process/quality actions,
  Plant trial schedule and sample size, next step
  after the trail, etc
• Example - Work Plan

19
CONTROL Xs

• CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof
  showing that the process is in control over time,
  using internal indicators.
• What actions are taken to sustain the gains?
  (Example Standard Operating Procedure changes
  (including control plan), permanent design or
  tooling change, etc.)
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Control material)
• Process or Design FMEAs
• Control Plans for Process and Gage
• Statistical Process Control
• Standard Operating Procedures
• Visual Factory
• Preventative Maintenance
• Prevent Recurrence
• Poka Yoke / Mistake Proofing
• Document special cause actions (Global 8-D), as
  necessary.

20
CONTROL Xs
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler
August 27, 2002
L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart
for 2002 Sable
Containment 10/17/02
Fascia Change 1/2/02
Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02
21
DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER
Extra Slide (if required)
D
M
A
I
C
R
Total Warranty Spending andUnexpended Warranty
Savings

• Unexpended roadmap opportunities for all
  affected model year coverage periods
• Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions
• Top spending parts for this CCC (for each
  part, please explain)
• Problem fixed in production
• Optimized solution availability
• Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program

• What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities
  for 00, 01, 02, and 03 MY?
• What is your warranty-spend savings with road
  map?
• What are your top spending parts for this CCC?
  For each part
• Is the problem fixed in production?
• Is there an optimal solution?
• Labor time More efficient repair process,
  special service tool
• Part pricing Does it meet 70 guideline?
• Other Efficient repair procedure (part vs.
  subassembly) Improved diagnostics-reduced TNI,
  Policy changes, Customer education to prevent
  failure
• Does the supplier participate in Warranty
  Reduction Program (WRP)?

Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
22
REPLICATE

• REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements)
• Who else at Ford could be affected or could
  benefit? (Replication at another Plant or on
  another vehicle line?)
• Are there any larger business unit or even global
  intellectual capital effects? (SDS, FMEAs, VDS,
  etc. in need of updates?)
• After 6 months, is the process still in control
  and the improvement in Y and X sustained?
  (Control Charts, Proof from Warranty or GQRS,
  etc.)
• Additional Tools (add slide(s) to capture backup
  Replicate/End material)
• SPC, Control Charting

23
REPLICATE
CCC L66 - Exhaust System Troubles
VFG V44 - Mechanical Malfunction
VRT Powertrain / Fuel
VEHICLE 2001 Taurus/Sable
PART 5230 Muffler

• REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company
  could benefit?) Key Actions Is this
  Replicable? If Yes, Where? Responsibility
• Design Change to Assembly Aid Yes, at sister
  Plant (CAP) Chicago, ILL Orlando Ventura
• Design Change to Fascia No, specific to
  Taurus/Sable design

• UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else
  across Ford Motor Company could benefit?) Core
  Book Change Made Owner Document Completed
• Attribute FMEA
• Design FMEA
• Process FMEA
• SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039
  ver 11 8/2/2002
• VDS
• FDVS
• ltother specify heregt

• PROJECT END PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT
• Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner
  (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant)
• Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02
  Capability 0 DPMO, Cpk2.82)
• AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained (
  Warranty Savings 152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )