1 missile defense agency, industry stakeholder team quality initiative at eaglepicher conference on...

1

Missile Defense Agency,

Industry Stakeholder Team

Quality Initiative at EaglePicher

Conference on Quality in the

Space and Defense Industry

March 26-27, 2007

2

EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Thermal Batteries DOD Weapon Systems

Lithium Ion with Electronics

Energetic Devices

Design and Manufacture Specialty Batteriesfor Defense and Space applications.

Nickel Hydrogen Multi-Cell Battery

4 feet

3 feet

Multi-function charge,Discharge & testing.

www.eaglepicher.com

3

EAGLEPICHER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

World’s Smallest Medical Implantable Battery

4

Space Test Lab

Silver-Zinc

Defense Test Lab

Thermal Batterie

s

Product Developme

nt

Quality Mgmt. System

Supplier Quality

Calibration

Energetic

Devices

Space Power

Director, Quality Assurance


President, EaglePicher Technologies


EPT Quality Organization

Aug 2006

Manufacturing Manufacturing

Space ProgramsSpace Programs

Defense ProgramsDefense Programs

Challenge for a consistent & healthy Quality System Challenge for a consistent & healthy Quality System is the is the diversitydiversity and and complexity complexity of EaglePicher productsof EaglePicher products. .

5

Overview

Quality Initiative at EaglePicherTeam 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

Outcomes: Metric Suite & Reviews• Internal Quality Metrics – Phase 1• Cost Related to Quality – Phase 2

Lessons Learned – Customer Perspective

Next Challenage: Next Challenage: The The diversitydiversity and and complexity complexity of the of the Industry TeamIndustry Team

6


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

7


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.

8


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

• Process Discipline • Technical Data Package• Training • Root Cause/Corrective Action

“Big 4”

Industry Team Challenge:

Differences of companies, products and programs were put aside.



9

Space

Test Lab

Silver-Zinc

Defense Test

Lab

Thermal Batterie

s

Product Developme

nt

Quality Mgmt. System

Supplier

Quality

Calibration

Energetic

Devices

Space Power





EPT Quality Organization

Aug 2006

Manufacturing VPManufacturing VP

Space VPSpace VP

Defense VPDefense VP

10 Units per month 5000 units per mo. 10,000 units per mo. 1 unit each 10 mo.

Price range $ 45 K - - - - - - $1.2 M

Testing 30 days 20 – 1200 sec. 100 – 750 msec 60 days/ 20 cycles

Challenage is the Challenage is the diversitydiversity and and complexitycomplexity

One shot devices Rechargeables

10


Methodology for Addressing Systemic IssuesFirst 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

11


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”

Missile Defense Agency

Lockheed-Martin -Orbital SciencesBoeingRaytheon

EaglePicher

The The integrity integrity and and common focus common focus of the Industry Teamof the Industry Team

12


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.

13

132254Oct 07 – PVA

10451412Jan 06 –PVA

6397147July 05 – PVA

0328814Nov 04 & Feb 05 QMS

Positive Observations

Observations

C/A PlansFindingsAudit

Summary of Audits


Same level of effort for each audit

14


1214Root Cause / Corrective Actions

0148Training

253521Technical Data Package

142313Process Discipline

Oct 06PVA Flow Down

Jan 06PVA Select

July 05 PVA

Nov 04 QMS“BIG 4”

Summary of Audits

15


0122No RC/CA required

0002Human Resources

0103Contracts

1443Supply Chain

00165Engineering

222211Operations

141920Quality Mgt. System

Oct 06PVA

Jan 06PVA Select

July 05 PVA

Nov 04 QMS

Summary of Audits

16


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.

17

• 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


Highlights of next session

18


Metric Review

(NOTEStarting new dataFor Day 2 session)

19


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

• Process Discipline • Technical Data Package• Training • Root Cause/Corrective Action

“Big 4”





20


Common or Systemic Areas in “BIG 4”

Process DisciplineProcess Discipline

• Many tasks were completed per individual preference:

• Lacked attention to detail in some key areas:

• Every function affected.

21


Technical Data PackageTechnical Data Package

• Instructions & procedures were inconsistent, based on program and/or technology variations:

• Incomplete and inconsistent data distribution.


22



TrainingTraining

• On Job Training was ad hoc & undocumented:

• No clear definition of “Correct Level of Training”

23


Root Cause / Corrective Action *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:


24

Quality Initiative at EaglePicherReviews at EaglePicher Joint Industry Team Audits

Joint Industry Team / SOWIdentified 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 AnswersApril ‘05

Senior Team Review Metrics Development @ EPT,

December 2004

Process Validation Audit,July 2005 (Boeing)

Senior Team Metrics ReviewMarch 2005 ; October 2005

February 2006

Process Validation Audit –Select, January 2006 (Orbital)

Senior Team Metrics Review July 2006

Process Validation AuditFlow Down,

October 06 (Lockheed Martin)

Senior Team Metrics Review March 2007

Scheduled April 2007 (QMS Pre-AS9100)

25

Quality Initiative at EaglePicherEP 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

26

"Critical to Function Suppliers"Delivery Performance Ratings

60

70

80

90

100

Mar06 Apr06 May06 Jun06 Jul06 Aug06 Sep06 Oct06 Nov06 Dec06 Jan07 Feb07

Rat

ing

%

12 Month Average

Delivery = 88.2End of Year Goal: 92%Minimum Monthly Goals move incrementally each month for FY 07

Monthly Goal

Added new CTF Suppliers and

modified delivery rating

in Plexus.

Proactive response to SCM

Training.

GOOD


27

"Critical to Function Suppliers"Quality Performance Ratings

85

90

95

100


Rat

ing

%

12 Month Average

Quality = 99.1

Goal: 98%

MCL

GOOD


28

Problem Reports Aging

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rts

<30 Days 66 71 82 59 59 71 63 46 33 50 54 65

31-60 Days 35 26 30 45 27 37 33 27 22 13 19 25

61-90 Days 33 10 7 16 19 12 17 14 12 8 2 10

>90 Days 51 63 30 20 21 13 16 12 9 11 13 10


Goal for 2007: Close 90% of Reports within 60 Days

MCL for Reports over 60 Days = 40


Action Plan established

29

Problem Reports Over 60 Days Old by Department

30

3

15

0

3

7

4

16

3

5

9

1 10

1

3

1

5

0

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Thermal PDV Space SOZ ED


Problem ReportsReports over 60 Days Old by Responsible Area

14

7 7

13

5

21

3

9

0

23

12

12

0 0

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Engineering Quality Operations QRR Supply Chain Contracts

Nu

mb

er o

f R

epo

rts



PR’s sorted by Battery Group

PR’s sorted by Functional Group

Non-Conformance and Non-Compliance analysis

GOOD

GOOD

30


Root Cause Analysis in Problem ReportsEvaluation for Adequacy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan0

5

Feb05

Mar

05

Apr05

May

05

Jun0

5Ju

l05

Aug05

Sep05

Oct05

Nov05

Dec05

Jan0

6

Feb06

Mar

06

Apr06

May

06

Jun0

6Ju

l06

Aug06

Sep06

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

po

rts

Re

vie

wed

as

Ac

ce

pta

ble

Objective Evidence (5Why, etc.) True RC MCL CA

G

Adequate RC statementObjective Evidence of Analysis

31


Corrective Action Plans in Problem ReportsEvaluation for Adequacy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan0

5

Feb05

Mar

05

Apr05

May

05

Jun0

5Ju

l05

Aug05

Sep05

Oct05

Nov05

Dec05

Jan0

6

Feb06

Mar

06

Apr06

May

06

Jun0

6Ju

l06

Aug06

Sep06

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

po

rts

Re

vie

wed

as

Ac

ce

pta

ble

Objective Evidence CA Addresses RC MCL CA

G

CA connected to RCObjective Evidence of Action

32

Traveler Audit FindingsSummary of All Errors

12%

4%

11%

2%

4%

3%

2.2% 1.9%

0.7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

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

Per

cen

tag

e o

f O

pp

ort

un

itie

s

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

All Errors MCL


GOOD

33

Range Line Energetic Devices

Silver Zinc Thermal

0200400600800

1000120014001600

Jan-

06

Feb-0

6

Mar

-06

Apr-0

6

May

-06

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug-0

6

Sep-0

6

Oct-06

Nov-0

6

Dec-0

6

Qu

anti

ty T

este

d

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Per

cen

t P

asse

d

Qty Tested Percent passed

12 Month 98.3%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Jan-

06

Feb

-06

Mar

-06

Apr

-06

May

-06

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug

-06

Sep

-06

Oct

-06

Nov

-06

Qu

anti

ty T

este

d

99.0%

99.5%

100.0%

Per

cen

t P

asse

d

LAT units Tested Percent passed

12 Month 99.8%

010203040506070

Jan-

06

Feb-0

6

Mar

-06

Apr-0

6

May

-06

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug-0

6

Sep-0

6

Oct-06

Nov-0

6

Dec-0

6

Qu

an

tity

Te

ste

d

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Pe

rce

nt

Pa

ss

ed

LAT Percent passed

11 Month 99.1%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan-

06

Feb-0

6

Mar

-06

Apr-0

6

May

-06

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug-0

6

Sep-0

6

Oct-06

Nov-0

6

Dec-0

6

Qu

anti

ty T

este

d

91.0%

94.0%

97.0%

100.0%

Per

cen

t P

asse

d

Total LAT Tested Percent passed

12 Month 98.6%


GOOD

34

Supplier Delivery Actions

B Closed G Have Plan, It's On Track Y Have Plan, Not On Track R No Plan Established

Close by Date: December 2006Assigned to: Mike BeckDescription: Action to improve on-time deliveries

Evidence of Completion: •Metrics indicating Delivery Ratings above the MCL

Y

Next Actions:•Communicate to suppliers the importance of being in compliance with SD requirements.

•Planners pro-actively contacting suppliers to ensure on-time deliveries.

•Provide semi-annual Report Card on SDR performance plus Suppliers in Red required to complete C/A.

Current Status:•12 Month Average Rating of 78.8%

Goal:•Improve by 1.5% per month (Sept to Dec) to achieve 85% SDR by the end of 2006

Help Needed / Challenges:•Low order volume with suppliers make it difficult to force changes.

•Bankruptcy emergence is requiring extension of terms.

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aug05 Sep05 Oct05 Nov05 Dec05 Jan06 Feb06 Mar06 Apr06 May06 Jun06 Jul06

Ra

tin

g %

12 Month Average

Delivery = 78.8Goal: 85%

35


GOOD

36

Errors in Final Data Package

Evidence of Completion:

Positive trend to < 10% by March ‘07 Help Needed / Challenges:

Accountability of supervisors for complete and accurate data.

Next Actions: Continue to post Visual Tally Display tracking errors on the floor with Production Supervisors responsible for corrections.

Close by Date: 04/01/07

Assigned to: Forrest Reed

Description: Errors or incomplete documentation in Final Data Package causes delay in shipping process.

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.

ACTION PLANSACTION PLANS RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY

METRIC EVALUATIONMETRIC EVALUATIONMETRIC DATAMETRIC DATA

▼

Y

37


SUMMARY - EP Enterprise Quality Metrics

• Supplier Quality Management - BCSCritical Suppliers (50 – 60)

March ’05 – August ‘06• Supplier Quality Rating Increased from 72% to 96% • Supplier On-time Delivery 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%

38



• Lot Acceptance Testing - BCS

Complete data on four Business UnitsJanuary ’05 to August ’06• First pass testing Remain > 98%• Test failures due to Operator error Decreased from 6% to 4%.

• Final Data Package Contracts, Operations, Quality, Test LabJanuary ’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.

39



• Problem Reports (PRs) - BCSRecorded 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%.

40



Analysis of Root Cause and Corrective Actions*Review of RC/CA’s submitted on PRs (50 – 65%) - BCSJanuary ’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%.

41


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.

42


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 !

43


Questions &

Answers

1 missile defense agency, industry stakeholder team quality initiative at eaglepicher conference on...

Documents

quality assurancepresident

quality phase

systemic quality issues

industry team challenge

joint industry team

overviewquality initiative

defense industrymarch

grouped data