1 / 23

Lean Repair Workshop Brief TRIPER Value Stream Mapping

Lean Repair Workshop Brief TRIPER Value Stream Mapping. Presenter: [TRIPER Team] Lean Coordinator: [Sarah Funderburk] 24 Mar 2005. FY05 TRIPER VSM TEAM. Team: Gary McMillan James McDonnell Larry Call Bruce Smith Rodney Watson Marcus Lee Bill Sprague John Goff Charlotte Hitz

aminia
Download Presentation

Lean Repair Workshop Brief TRIPER Value Stream Mapping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lean RepairWorkshop BriefTRIPER Value Stream Mapping Presenter: [TRIPER Team] Lean Coordinator: [Sarah Funderburk] 24 Mar 2005

  2. FY05 TRIPER VSMTEAM • Team: • Gary McMillan • James McDonnell • Larry Call • Bruce Smith • Rodney Watson • Marcus Lee • Bill Sprague • John Goff • Charlotte Hitz • Mel Garman • Tom Lackner • Willie Madden • Terry Poirier • Bill Brooks GT Facilitator: • Derek Woodham Brief

  3. Lean Project Goals: • Establish a current state map of the Triper process • Through analysis of Current State, identify “Waste” & Problem areas in the process • Establish a Future State (Vision) of the TRIPER process • Identify Improvements and establish an Implementation Plan to achieve the Future State Expected Measurable Outcomes: • Reduced Wait Times • Reduced Lead Time • Improved Productivity Brief

  4. TRIPER Process • The TRIPER process was designed to be able to take assets off a boat that needed refurbishing or scheduled maintenance and replace them with an “A asset” on the shelf. Thus reduce RTAT for refit. • A TRIPER Asset incudes: • Assets deemed to have long lead times for repair • Assets that require Sub-safe certification • The TRIPER process was also designed to assist with leveling work load Brief

  5. Current State Map Brief

  6. TAKT Time (Demand) • Annual Demand = 266 Assets • Available Time = 3,552 Hrs / yr TAKT Time = 3,552 / 266 = 13.4 hrs / Asset Brief

  7. Waste Identified • Excessive Waiting: • Waiting on other codes (QA, QAI, NDT, Eng, etc) • Waiting once asset leaves shop 31T (priorities of other shops:71, 26, 31A, etc.) • Waiting on parts • Excessive transportation & Mat’l Handling • Rework • A-Assets sitting for >90 days • Failed tests Brief

  8. Key Observations & Opportunities • No “Value Stream” management for TRIPER • For AWC’s, priority for TRIPER is “when we can get to it.” • Lots of questions and unknowns when asset leaves shop 31T • All A-assets that sit for > 90 days (85%) have to be re-tested (Why all?, and Why 90 days?) • People, Equipment & MHE not available when needed • Prior to VSM there was no understanding of TRIPER demand (TAKT time) from customer – esp. at point of work • Over 50% of what TRIPER does is unplanned or condition based maintenance  exceptions become the rule. • Very little data collected that would promote real improvement in the process at the point of work being done. Brief

  9. Data Collection Needed • Cycle Time • Value Added • Delays • vs Takt • Rework % & by reason • Lead Times for an asset families • Material Handling • # of different touches by people • # of times moved Brief

  10. Future State Map Brief

  11. Expected Results Brief

  12. IMPROVEMENT IDEAS 1 4 2 2 1 PRIORITY Scale: High Impact / Easy to do Low Impact / Easy to do 1 3 High Impact / Hard to do Low Impact / Hard to do 2 4 Brief

  13. IMPROVEMENT IDEAS 3 1 1 2 1 1 High Impact / Easy to do Low Impact / Easy to do 1 3 High Impact / Hard to do Low Impact / Hard to do 2 4 Brief

  14. IMPROVEMENT IDEAS 1 1 1 1 2 1 High Impact / Easy to do Low Impact / Easy to do 1 3 High Impact / Hard to do Low Impact / Hard to do 2 4 Brief

  15. IMPROVEMENT IDEAS 1 1 1 1 1 1 High Impact / Easy to do Low Impact / Easy to do 1 3 High Impact / Hard to do Low Impact / Hard to do 2 4 Brief

  16. IMPROVEMENT IDEAS 2 1 2 1 1 High Impact / Easy to do Low Impact / Easy to do 1 3 High Impact / Hard to do Low Impact / Hard to do 2 4 Brief

  17. Strategies from VSM“Prioritized Ideas” Brief

  18. Strategies from VSM Brief

  19. Strategies from VSM Brief

  20. Strategies from VSM Brief

  21. Measures Brief

  22. Comments from Workshop Participants • Good: • The participation by all the code shops helped us identify the process and the opportunities • Interaction between the participants was good • Excellent project and expect some good paybacks for the command • It really helped me understand the flow of the TRIPER process • A lot of good information was gathered to make things better for TRIPER. All participants worked together. • Other: • Instructor should have been briefed more than two days prior to course to help us pull together data needed in this process. • Great class! Might look into training personnel @ TRF to continue with the training of the ideology behind the Lean program Brief

  23. Assistance Needed • Commit a Value Stream Manager to TRIPER • Review Implementation Plan and provide resources to achieve Brief

More Related