Green / Environmental Case StudySteve Wittig – Vice President, Six Sigma

October 16, 2008

BCG Footprint

PlantLocations

BranchLocations

OfficeLocations

Duncanville

Cedar Hill

Atkins

Ocala

Rapid City

Jackson

Albuquerque

Mt. Jackson

Mt. Sterling

Culpeper

Adrian

Assembly Plants

Component Plants (6)

(6)

BCG Footprint

PlantLocations

OfficeLocations

BranchLocations

BCG Footprint

PlantLocations

BranchLocations

OfficeLocations

Duncanville, TX

Adrian, MI

BCG Production System

Operations ModelVertical integrationKAAT (kitchen-at-a-time) cell manufacturing5-day delivered 48 hr. replacement parts

Improvement Processes Kaizen: 300 formal 5-day events per yearPoka-Yoke / Mistake Proofing: 1,200 installed per yearSix Sigma: 100 formal projects per year

Lean Manufacturing

Six Sigma / MPS Productivity

Complete In Process TotalBlack belts 19 2 21

Green belts (statistics) 109 51 160

Green belts (non-statistics) 213 218 431Belts – Total 341 271 612

Six Sigma Impact

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

$9.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sa

vin

gs

$M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Re

turn

(S

av

ing

s/C

os

t)

Savings Return

Completed Events - Projects

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ka

ize

n E

ve

nts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Six

Sig

ma

Pro

jec

ts

Kaizen Events Six Sigma Projects

Sustain Progress – Focus on CI ProcessSustain Progress – Focus on CI Process

Masco Builder Cabinet GroupSix Sigma Improvement Process

Project Name: Solid Waste Removal Cost Reduction

Project Number: CUC070202

Project Leader: Chris Klinker

Problem Statement: Solid waste removal costs for Culpeper in 2006 were $XXX,XXX or $0.XXX/cabinet. This cost has been increasing over the past 5 years.

Objectives: Reduce per cabinet costs by 5% or $0.XXX to $0.XXX/cabinet by May 31, 2007. This is in accordance with ISO goals for 2007.

Define – Project Mission

In Scope:• All solid waste removal streams at Culpeper facility

Out of Scope:• Offsite Warehouse• All other Merillat facilities• Hazardous Waste

Define – Project Scope

Y = Solid Waste Removal Costs ($ per cabinet)

Measure – Project Y (or Y’s) in Y = f(x)

Cardboard Trailer Waste Hauler

Full Roll-Off

Measure – Process Pictures

“Air”

CURRENTCOPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.08

GOALCOPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.12

Measure – Baseline Performance

Waste removal costs

Man

Management Materials

Method Measurement

Machine

Poor training

No standard work

All particle board offal is thrown away

No yield maximization

Vendor manages pulls

No vendor accountability

Plastics not recycled

No particle board recycling optionsNo material segregation

Roll-offs not filled prior to being pulled

No management support

Cut-Direct Saw

Giben

DC throws everything away

Not maintaining previous improvements

Pallets not returned to suppliers

X1

X3

X2

Pulling too much “air”

Operators throw away useable material

X5

Nothing repaired in DC Recyclables go in to

roll-off/compactor

No yield maximization

Cut-Direct

Pulls not driven by cabinet production

volume

Cardboard not recycled efficiently

X4

Measure – CE Diagram

Analyze – Data Collection Plan

Theory: Roll-offs not being filled prior to pull

Ho: Mean load weight = 5.5 tonsHa: Mean load weight ≠ 5.5 tons

Conclusion: Since p = 0.000 < α = 0.05; reject Ho and conclude mean load weight ≠ 5.5 tons

Practical Conclusion: Roll-offs are not being filled completely prior to being pulled.

Tons/ Pull76543210

X_

Ho

Boxplot of Tons/ Pull(with Ho and 95% t-confidence interval for the mean)

One-Sample T: Tons/Pull

Test of mu = 5.5 vs not = 5.5

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P

Tons/Pull 106 3.24358 1.34256 0.13040 (2.98502, 3.50215) -17.30 0.000

Data is normal

Analyze – Test of Theory X1

X1: Roll-Offs not being filled prior to being pulled TRUE

X2: Pulls not driven by cabinet production volume FALSE

X3: Plastics not recycled properly TRUE

X4: Cardboard not recycled properly TRUE

X5: Pulling too much “air” TRUE

Analyze – Summary of Theories

X

X

X

X

X4: Cardboard

X

X

X

X

X3: Plastics

XXWaste Removal/Recycling Kaizen event

XXBegin plant-wide recycling program

XGrind waste before placing in roll-off

Install baler for cardboard and plastics

Segregate recyclables

XTrain operators to fill roll-offs 1 at a time.

X5: AirX1: Not FilledSolution

Improve – Possible Solutions

Low High Cost/Effort

Ben

efit

Lo

w

Hig

h

Selected

Future implementations.

6

5

4

3

21

Improve – Payoff Matrix

Selected Solutions:1. Train operators to fill roll-offs one at a time2. Kaizen event

Strip Stock

Pre-cut Parts,

frames and doors

Random Storage

Mixed Load

Dumpster

Shipping

Roll-off

WH Storage

Staging

Parts cart

Skid

Landfill

Pulled to cellStrip stock cartPre-stage,

pull on demand

Pre-load Giben

WH Storage

Scrap Container

Cut direct saw

Cut to KanBan

QCIs it

repairable?

Cut Parts

Scrap

Cut Parts

Damaged Parts

No

Yes

KAAT Cell

Pick Location

Finished goods

scrap

Scrap

Good parts

Changes made to the filling process are highlighted in green.

Improve – Revised Process Map

Returned to supplier plant

Vending, paper, office supplies, maintenance waste

Half-pallet box

PO type item,MRO, etc..

Indirect materials,

SB wrap, corner

protectors, fillers,

menusha

Other packaging,

internal, external

Internal storage

containers

Various received

packaging

Shipping containers -

Merillat

Unpackaged in

WarehouseDumpster

Received in WH Unpackaged

Received in WHSent to

various plant locations

Recycle truck

LandfillCompactor

Recycler

Dumpster

EOL

Received in WH

Various inputs

Sort

Paper Container

Trash Container

Aluminum Container

Paper

Aluminum

After useful life

LF Waste

Improve – Revised Process Map

Control – Control Plan

Box plot of $/unit after are for the 4 month period April – July 2007. A control chart will be generated after a minimum of 20 data points have been collected.

Data

$/unit after$/unit before

Boxplot of $/ unit (Before Project vs. After Project)

Control – Implemented Results

CURRENT

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.08

GOAL

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.12

ACTUAL (annualized)

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.22

Control – Project Results

Project Savings = $70,800 per year

TBDReduce the amount of particle board scrap produced

TBDCompare Masco approved waste hauler to existing waste management provider

TBDInstall grinder compactor unit

8/31/2007Install baler, begin recycling plastics and improve cardboard revenue

8/31/2007Implement in-house recycling program

Control – Next Steps

Chris Klinker, Andy Ballew, Chris Kemp

Start Date: 2/11/2007 End Date: 3/10/2008

Project Cost: $0

Total Savings: $5,209/year

The goal was to reduce solid waste removal costs at the Culpeper facility by 5% in accordance with ISO requirements.

During the data collection phase it was discovered that pallets were thrown into the wood scrap dumpster. The average weight per week of pallets going to the land fill is 2787lbs or 72.5 tons per year. The COPQ is $5209 per year for tipping fees and pulls.

Our target is to send no pallets to the landfill. We were not hitting the target of 0.

Pallets are monitored by the Warehouse Supervisor with a quantity picked up each Monday. That information is sent to C. Kemp. The warehouse team member who signs for the roll off removal will check to see if pallets are being put into the dumpsters. If pallets are found in dumpster, he will alert the warehouse supervisor who will perform a corrective action.

Project #: CUC070202

Replication ? Yes / No

Before After

Problem Statement: Pallets are thrown into the wood scrap dumpster, taking up room and adding cost to disposal

Improvement

Worked out an arrangement for a local vendor to haul pallets offsite for recycling at no additional cost.

All excess pallets are now being picked up and recycled. Identified a vendor that would pick up and recycle pallets at no cost. Audited open top containers for 1 week and verified that pallets are no longer being sent to the landfill.

Control – Replication

CURRENT

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.08

GOAL

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.12

ACTUAL (annualized)

COPQ = $XXX,XXX

$ per unit = $0.XXX

Sigma(ST) = 2.22

Control – Project Results

Project Savings = $70,800 per year

Replicated Savings = $54,600 per year

Total Savings = $125,400 per year