LIMS, Key Performance Indicators and Productivity - Labor ...

Robert Bosch North America

RBNA/ETC | 10/26/2010 | © 2010 Robert Bosch LLC and affiliates. All rights reserved.1

LIMS, Key Performance Indicators and Productivity



• Brief introduction of RBNA/ETC

• The approach with dacore

• Existing system features and those to be added

• Policy Deployment and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

• Productivity measurements and productivity improvement

• Summary

Agenda








• Summary

Agenda



• ETC = Engineering Technical Center

• More than 3,100 m2 of Labs

• Two Locations

• 60 Associates

• Competencies and Competence groups

• Throughput of approx. 3,000 single work requests per year

• Annual “billable work” for Bosch divisions + internal productive ETC work

approx. 7.5 Mio $

Brief Introduction of RBNA/ETC (1)



• Competencies and Competence groups

- Environmental Testing

- Noise, Vibration & Harshness

- Machine Shop & Fixture Design

- Engineering Materials Laboratory

- Equipment Calibration & Metrology

- Test Equipment and Software Development

- Design for Environment, Document Control, Technical Process Support

- Test Program Management

Brief Introduction of RBNA/ETC (2)



Engineering Technical Center – North America

Farmington Hills

Plymouth Technical Center



RBNA/ETC1

Center of Competence:

• Test Program Management

• Test Equipment Development

Process Champion:

• TLP – LIMS

• Electronic Laboratory

John McDonough

Manager

Test Program

Management

Cory Gira

Hector Gonzalez

Test Equipment

Development

Defang Meng

Dave Miller

Farahnaz Ashtiani

Jordan Smith

Robert Campbell

Todd Ellis



RBNA/ETC2


• Technical Support

• NVH

- Noise

- Vibration

Process Champion:

• Quality

• Mechatronic Laboratory

• ETC Web Site

Simon Price

Manager

Paul Potrzeba

Tom Smith

Kevin Welicki

Technical Support

NVH

Karen Kennedy

Tom Livingston

Richard Hahn

Sean McClure

Jacolbi Brooks

Steven Preiss

Steve

Essenmacher

Roger Narlock

Marc Shaver

Anthony Terminelli

Dushawn Williams

Ron Wolski

Robert Sullivan

Chris Luke



RBNA/ETC3


• Reliability Engineering

• Material Science

Process Champion:

• Reliability Engineering

John Haworth

Supervisor

Material Science

Reliability

Engineering

Kurt Enkeman

Dr. Frank Zhong

Erion Nikolla

Matt Wolfe

James Stachowski

Dr. Svetlana

Axakova



RBNA/ETC4


• Calibration

• Build

• Metrology

Process Champion:

• Preventive Maintenance

Pat Butler

Supervisor

Calibration/

Metrology

Build

Mohemmed Al-

Ansari

Sam Davis

Mike Edwards

Joseph Knecht

Steve Luckett

Brian Osborn

Robert Pendygraft

William Peppler

William Raikovich

Steve Santos

Keith Theil



RBNA/ETC5


• BES

• Process Development

Process Champion:

• Lean Development

• Process Development

• Policy Deployment

• Knowledge Management

• Sales & Marketing

• CTG

Mike Schwedt

Manager

Engineering

Documentation

Kim Howell

Diana Rochowiak

Deborah Valicento

Lean Engineering

TBD



RBNA/ETC6


• DRBFM

• PEP Process

• DFMEA

• DfE

Process Champion:

• 5S

• DSP

Mike McCuaig

Manager

DfE

Magda Cenusa

Margarete

Wasilewski

Marc Robling

Manager

DRBFM/

DFMEA

Paul Baird

Timothy o’Dell



Martin Boos

Director

John Haworth

Supervisor

Pat Butler

Supervisor Simon Price

Manager

Mike Schwedt

ManagerJohn McDonough

Manager

Mike McCuaig

Manager

Test Program

Management

Cory Gira

Paul Potrzeba

Hector Gonzalez

Tom Smith

Kevin Welicki

Test Equipment

Development

Defang Meng

Dave Miller

Farahnaz Ashtiani

Jordan Smith

Technical Support

NVH

DfE

Engineering

Documentation

Karen Kennedy

Tom Livingston

Richard Hahn

Sean McClure

Jacolbi Brooks

Steven Preiss

Magda Cenusa

Steve

Essenmacher

Kim Howell

Roger Narlock

Margarete

Wasilewski

Marc Robling

Manager

Diana Rochowiak

Marc Shaver

Anthony Terminelli

Deborah Valicento

Dushawn Williams

Ron Wolski

DRBFM/

DFMEA

Material Science

Reliability

Engineering

Paul Baird

Kurt Enkeman

Dr. Frank Zhong

Erion Nikolla

Matt Wolfe

Robert Sullivan

James Stachowski

Calibration/

Metrology

Build

Mohemmed Al-

Ansari

Robert Campbell

Sam Davis

Mike Edwards

Joseph Knecht

Steve Luckett

Chris Luke

Brian Osborn

Robert Pendygraft

William Peppler

William Raikovich

Steve Santos

Keith Theil

Lean Engineering

Todd Ellis

Dr. Svetlana

Axakova

Timothy o’Dell

TBD

Overall RBNA/ETC Organization








• Summary

Agenda



Reasons for LIMS and dacore

Goal: Communized Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)

Increasing organization, work load and complexity (within RBNA/ETC)

To many separate systems in place, lack of data integrity (RBNA/ETC)

Streamlining existing processes and eliminate duplication

dacore was selected as supplier and Bosch TLP established as the

replacement for current or upcoming LIMS systems for all Bosch

laboratories

dacore´s project based and not license based business model

GS/ETC already gained experience with a dacore system (since 2005)

and purchased a more comprehensive one in late 2008

This comprehensive system was a good starting point for RBNA/ETC



Approach with dacore

RBNA/ETC needed some additional features and customization

Specification Process Dec 2008 – Feb 2009

Project released to start on Oct 2009

Target to switch use for RBNA/ETC in April/May 2010.

Bosch TLP development process:

TLP will be jointly developed by CI/NE2, GS/ETC, RBNA/ETC & GS/EAT-NA.

CI/NE2 to provide coordination of efforts by Bosch and dacore.

Development will be done via rapid prototyping of the software requirements.

Software development was separated into 4 work packages

Improves resource leveling for dacore

Allows software development test/teams to better focus their

testing/refinement efforts.



Timeline and Project TrackingS= Start X= other action item

Q= Questionnaire D= Delivery

F= Feedback P= Prototype (Feedback in between)

R=Ready for usage

CW 49

SW-Development RBNA-ETC 1

Group 1

1. Interface ETT S Q F X (Test-Environment provided ETC)P P

2. Test Sequences and Val. Plan S Q F P P

3. Booking & Tracking of Overtime S Q F P P

Group 2

1. Invoicing and related Reports S Q F P

2. Budget Data for ETC Labs S Q F P

3. Material costs and tasks to order material S Q F P

Group 3

1. Single Sign-On P (started in June 09) Q F

2. Scheduling within Machine Shops S Q F

3. Sample Management S Q F P (3xLIMS and 3xPDA)

Group 4

1. Key Metrics, Reports and Key Process Indicators (KPI) S Q F

2. Flexible Work Flows and Check Lists S Q F P

SW-Development GS/ETC-Willwand

Multilingual User-Interface with English Texts D F (Feedback by RBNA) R

PDA-Integration D

Changes discussed for Web-Interface D

Step by step migration of data and functions from old to new system S (end of 08)

Delivery of SW-Releases

Version 0.3

Version 0.4 D

Version 0.5 D

Version 0.6 D

Version 0.7 D

Version 0.8

Version 0.9

Version 0.10

Consulting and Ramp Up Packages RBNA-ETC 1

Setting up structures, content, overall process

Processes and Details per Lab Field

Reports and KPI

Finalization and Acceptance

Other activities

WebEx - Meetings

Final Training RBNA-ETC 1

CW 40 CW 41 CW 42 CW 43 CW 44 CW 45 CW 46 CW 47 CW 48 CW 50 CW 51 CW 52 CW 53 CW 01 CW 02 CW 03 CW 04

Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10



Switch over to productive Usage: Step 1

From May 2010

All new requests with new system

All old work requests with end date May not transferred

All others newly set up in TLP

Interface to Bosch-Project-System in use but still in test environment

60 people were trained

Depending on test/work request booking of labor and capital in new old

and new system

Approximately 60% of the existing features used from the very beginning



Switch over to productive Usage: Step 2

From June 2010

All work requests transferred to TLP

All labor and capital booked in new system

Switch over of reports for Key Performance Indicators and Policy

Deployment

Starting to use Test Report Generation, Scheduling and Planning,

Scanner








• Summary

Agenda



Overview LIMS Functionality



Web Interface for customer orders.

Submit Orders

Review Open Orders

Retrieve Reports

Work order routing.

Work is routed to responsible lab personnel for processing.

Quotation development tools.

Able to quote single tests or complete validation test plans.

The ability to handle both single tests and complete validation plans.

Graphical interface for the ordering and linking of tests.

Resource management and scheduling.

Manage physical resources by class (vibration equipment,

environmental chambers, dynamometer, test benches, etc.)

Manage engineering human resources.

Overview LIMS Key Features (1)



Automated report generation.

Inserts pre-defined data into Microsoft Word templates.

Policy deployment report generation.

On-time delivery

First pass yield

Quoted cost adherence

Equipment Utilization by equipment class

Integrated WIFI Bar Code scanners

1-D & 2-D barcode scanner capability

Used in all facets of test performance

Scan Device Under Test (DUT), test equipment, interface

equipment (harnesses, fixturing, other tooling, etc.)

Integrated 2MP camera for recording test setups.

Greatly reduces errors caused by manual entries.

Overview LIMS Key Features (2)



BGN

DUT*

Wire

Harness /

Fixturing

Associates

Work

OrdersGeneral

Test

Equipment

Specialty

Test

Equipment

Built-in

Camera

* DUT = Device under Test

http://www.clker.com/clipart-16441.html



Main Features to be added to existing Solution (1)

Interface to ETT: Bosch TLP will act as RBNA/ETC‟s primary

tracking tool. All associate time will be transferred from TLP to ETT.

Test Sequence and Validation Planning: Extends the functionality

of Bosch TLP to cover DV/PV test planning consisting of multiple

tests grouped in test legs.

Booking and Tracking of Overtime: Add the ability to track

standard overtime, work on Sundays and work on holidays to Bosch

TLP. Also adds report tools for management to review overtime

usage.

Invoice and Related Reports: Enhances the built in invoicing

capability of TLP and adds summary invoices for Product Lines.

Material costs and Tasks to Order Material: Allows for a higher

level of manual control of material orders than currently



Main Features to be added to existing Solution (2)

Single Sign-On: Automatic sign-on of associates to the web interface

based on their Active Directory information to Bosch TLP.

Existing Hand-Scanner Features of GS/ETC to be implemented in new

Hand Scanner Hardware

Sample Management: Comprehensive „cradle-to-grave‟ sample

management for tests. Allows for the assigning of individual samples to

different tests and the scanning of bar codes for assigning samples to

specific tests.

Key Process Indicators: Added functionality to automatically created

KPI reports already used by RBNA/ETC.

Flexible Work Flows and Checklists: Work flows will be added to Bosch

TLP to support both internal and customer sign-offs of quotations and

invoices. Checklists will be added to TBD internal processes for improved

quality control



• RBNA/ETC is reviewing further upgrades of RBW LIMS

• Enhancements to the bar code scanner capabilities

• Improved data mining capability

• Improved resource management

• Productivity data gathering

• Improved web interface

• Improved automation of internal software processes.

• Other RBW laboratories looking to transition to RBW LIMS in 2011.

• GS/ETC

• GS/ETC-NA

• DGS?

• AE?

LIMS Future








• Summary

Agenda



Policy Deployment

ETC Policy Deployment – a strategic planning and management tool that

incorporates Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) to create goals for the group,

set measurable targets, and link our daily laboratory activities to Bosch‟s

vision and strategy

You can‟t change / improve what you don‟t track

Key Performance Indicators (KPI‟s) (P)

Align / focus the work carried out on a daily basis (D)

Goals / results are tracked, then commutated to all working levels (C)

ETC groups are held accountable for achieving set goals

If goals are not met, then act (A)

Understand why (reaction summary)

Develop counter measures

Repeat the cycle, PDCA



Preparation of Policy Deployment

Management drove Policy Deployment Implementation

Weekly “Lean Testing” meeting established

Research and study different methods, papers, articles, and books

Bosch Production System (BPS)

Visteon SAE paper

Wayne State University Thesis

Getting the Right Things Done

Toyota Way

Benchmarking was conducted (Sbd (AF), ChP, Visteon, Denso, GS/EAT)

Value Stream Map (VSM) was conducted- April 2008

KPI‟s were identified

Gaps were found in tracking methods

Direction was set for future improvement (3 strategic categories each

with their own KPI‟s)

Training / knowledge transfer



KPIs implemented: Customer Satisfaction

1.1 Work Contract on Time (OTD)

Owner – John McDonough

Report out – monthly

1.2 Customer Satisfaction

Owner – John McDonough / Erion Nikolla

Report out – bi-yearly

1.3 Quoted Cost Adherence

Owner – Simon Price


1.4 First Pass Yield (FPY)

Owner – John McDonough


From lists manually

maintained to automated

data reports using TLP

From lists manually

maintained to tick off list

in TLP



KPIs implemented: Associate Satisfaction

2.1 CIP Lean Suggestions

Owner – Kim Howell

Report out – quarterly

2.2 5S

Owner – Marc Robling


2.3 Associate Satisfaction- HR survey

Owner – HR

Report out – Yearly

2.4 Audit Performance

Owner –Marcus McCauley

Report out – semi-annually

2.5 Training

Owner –Mike Schwedt


All not kept measured with

TLP



KPIs implemented: Business Success

3.1 Machine Utilization /

Overall Equipment Effectiveness

3.1.1 Vibration Equipment

3.1.2 Environmental Chambers

3.1.3 Corrosion Chambers

Owner – Simon Price


3.2 Administrative Overhead



3.3 Overtime => TLP

Owner – Mike Schwedt


3.4 Budget => Partly TLP



From lists manually

maintained or gathered from

other systems to automated

data reports using TLP

C:/Aktuelles/Serversync/Projekte/Aktuelle/Bosch-US-RBNA-ETC_Productivity/02_Präsentationen/October_data/Files for Kai/3 - Business Success/3.1 - Machine Utilization - Overall Equipment Effectiveness - OEE/Equipment Utilization.xls



4. Other

4.1 Performance Review on Time

Owner – All ETC management

Report out – semi-annually

4.2 Lab Tour


Report out – quarterly

4.3 Storage

Owner – Kim Howell




On Time Delivery (OTD)

Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Rolling YTD

Work Contracts Due 175 177 212 173 273 231 259 188 179 230 206 180 2483

Wk Contracts On Time 170 175 206 171 257 216 248 172 172 217 198 173 2375

% Complete 97% 99% 97% 99% 94% 94% 96% 91% 96% 94% 96% 96% 96%

Wk Contracts Complete 187 203 233 200 306 253 292 222 219 264 252 204 283595 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Work Contracts Open 168 253 263 273 325 443 491 484 486 439 442 469 1599

Past Due 5 2 6 2 16 15 11 16 7 13 8 7 108

Tech or Engineering Capacity 5 0 6 0 14 13 9 12 5 1 1 2 68

Internal Scheduling Problem 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 7

Equipment Capacity Issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Outside Labs Issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

Equipment Down 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3

Customer Prioritization Change 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 11

Customer Information Issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 2 3 11

Task Scope Creep 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 6

Parts not available 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ETC Issues 5 1 6 2 15 13 10 12 6 5 2 3 80

% ETC Issues 3% 1% 3% 1% 5% 6% 4% 6% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3%

Total Customer Issues 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 8 6 4 28

% Customer Issues 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1%

Total Overall Issues 5 2 6 2 16 15 11 16 7 13 8 7 108

Percent of Scheduled Testing On-Time

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Dec-

07

Jan-

08

Feb-

08

Mar-

08

Apr-

08

May-

08

Jun-

08

Jul-08 Aug-

08

Sep-

08

Oct-

08

Nov-

08

Per

cen

t O

n T

ime

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Nu

mb

er O

f W

ork

Co

ntr

acts

% Complete % ETC Issues % Customer IssuesWk Contracts Complete Past Due Target

Top Reasons for Being Late

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Tech or Engineering Capacity

Internal Scheduling Problem

Equipment Capacity Issue

Outside Labs Issue

Equipment Down

Customer Prioritization Change

Customer Information Issue

Task Scope Creep

Parts not available

YTD Monthly

Using TLP:

• Run a monthly report either for tests or orders

• Filter for “tests closed this month”

• Compare planned end date vs. date “technically closed”

• Can be combined with FPY (First Pass Yield) data



Quoted Cost Adherence (QCA)

Using TLP:

• Set up an run a monthly report either on test, orders

or test plan level

• Filter for “tests closed month “x””

• Compare planned costs vs. actual bookings either

on test, orders or test plan level



Equipment Utilization

Right now two parallel Reports

• One created manually with indicators for “not in use”

• The one built in TLP using the bookings

• Will be merged soon



First Pass Yield (FPY)

Using TLP:1) We use new feature “flexible work flow”2) Implemented a predefined check list to be ticked off3) Linked this list to the action “closing tests”4) So whenever a test is closed the questions have to be ticked off5) Set up und run a monthly report to analyze answers given6) Export this to MS-Excel and summarize the data

1

2

5

6



Administrative Overhead and Overtime

Using TLP:

1) In general two options to book time: Not billable (admin, training,

vacation, sick, ….)and billable means to book time against certain tests

2) Month end run a report and compare billable vs. non billable

3) Next step: to extend report so that kind of non billable can be

analyzed

1

2



Cost Transparency

On (Bosch internal) customer level:

1)Monthly summary and invoice of all costs per e.g. Product line

but also break down of labor, capital, material and external

2)Export of all data on all levels to MS-Excel

3)Same details available on Project Level, Order Level and Test Level

4)Inbuilt process to transfer cost data to ERP/Project System

1

2

2

3

4



Future Steps / Continuous Improvement

Accuracy of incoming data

Automated data gathering- LIMS

2nd level of tracking- dig deeper into the data for root cause

Raise the bar / target level

Training & awareness – take part in board review

Group members

Customer groups

Add additional KPI‟s for individual groups (productivity measures,

calibration back log, equipment usage, etc…)

Gain knowledge and continue to benchmark








• Summary

Agenda



Productivity Project

Two main goals:

Measurable improvement of overall Lab Productivity

More reliable Cost Estimation & Quotation Process

Project will use proven PDCA cycle: Plan – Do – Check – Act

Project is therefore going to have four Work Packages

WP 1: Plan => Definition of Base Line (Apr. – Aug.)

WP 2: Do => Analysis of Pilot Lab Processes & Areas and

Improvement of selected Processes (May – Sep)

WP 3: Check => Measure again (Sep)

WP 4: Act => Deployment to other Lab Processes & Areas (from Sep.)

Duration 9 months, from Apr. 2010 – Dec. 2010

Clearly defined set of tools and clearly defined Project Organization



Planned Work Packages of Productivity Project (1)

“Plan” (Work Package 1):

TLP to look at “standardized” Lab Processes & Areas

(Methods/Requirements & Lab Fields)

Define Matrix for deployment

“Do” (Work Package 2):

Measure booked hours and reports on process step level (set up,

execution, tear down

Analyze: Involve process stakeholders and identify potential areas for

improvement

(see separate slides)

Analyze with Mathematical tools (see separate slide)

Improve processes identified (apply CIP to selected areas)



Planned Work Packages of Productivity Project (2)

“Check” (Work Package 3):

Measure and Analyze again: See if same processes measured under

“Do” have improved

“Act” (Work Package 4)

Deploy but first decide if to deploy using same or different approach



Identification of Focus for Productivity Project

Identification of applicable

requirements per Lab Field:

x= as linked in TLP

m= indicate for missing links

green = pilot ares for productivity

project

red = identify areas for

prodcutivity improvements within

you lab field(s) LAB FIELDS DR

Tasks (Test Requirements)

AIF - Air Flow AST - Asset

Tracking

CAL -

Calibration

COR -

Corrosion

DAS -

Documents

and Standards

DFE - Design

for

Environment

DRB -

DRBFM_DFME

A

EDS -

Electronics

Development

& Support

MAL -

Materials Lab

MAS -

Machine Shop

MET -

Metrology

NVH - Noise

Vibration &

Harshness

OCS -

Occupant

Development

Support

PDE - Product

Development

Engineering

Support

Purchasing REL -

Reliability

Engineering

SAO - Sample

Ordering

STA - Starters

& Alternators

SWD -

Software

Development

& Support

TSD - Test

System

Development

& Support

VEH - Vehicle

Instrumentatio

n

VET -

Validation

and

Environmental

Testing

VIB - Vibration WIP - Wipers

Simon Price,

Kevin Welicki

Howell Butler Price Schwedt Robling McCuaig McDonough Haworth Butler Butler Price Price Price ? Haworth Schwedt McDonough McDonough McDonough McDonough Price Price McDonough

Data Analysis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Document Management x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Estimation x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

General admimistrative Activities x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Materials Processing/Procurement x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Program Management x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Review Documents, Requirements, and

Specifications x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Sample Ordering x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Supplier Management x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Travel x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Electrical x x x x x x x x x x

Mechanical x x x x x x x x x x

Software x x x x x x x x x x

Fabrication x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Machining x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Programming x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Technical Support x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Data Management x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Documentation x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Photography x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Report Generation x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Calibration x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Repair & Maintenance x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Application Assessment x x

Customer Negotiation x x

Specification Assessment x x

Test Definition (DV/PV/QZ) x x

Vehicle Assessment x x

Failure Analysis x x x x x x x x

Inspection x x x x x x x x

Measurement x x x x x x x x

Specimen Preparation x x x x x x x x

Test Execution x x x x x x x x x x x x

Test Setup x x x x x x x x x x x x

Test Teardown x x x x x x x x x x x x

Debug x x x x x 40

Verification/Validation x x x x x

No

methods

assigned

up to now

(05-05-10)

Te

st M

eth

od

s

Valid

atio

nD

esig

nD

evelo

pm

en

tE

qu

ip

m.

Su

pp

ort

Do

cu

men

tatio

nR

eliab

ility

Sam

ple A

nalysis

To Do =>

Testin

gA

dm

in

istrative W

ork

Lab Processes

=

Test Methods +

Requirements

as set up in TLP

Areas = Lab Fields as set up in TLP

Pilot Areas = Lab Fields: • Vibration• Validation• Enviro. Testing• Materials Lab• Calibration• Air Flow• Corrosion• DFE• Starters & Alternators

Pilot Lab Processes:• Test Set up, Test

Execution,Test Tear Down

• Program Management (TPM)

• All Sample Analysis• Calibration• Data Analysis• Document

Management• Review Documents

Matrix shows how the

various lab processes (methods & requirements)

are used in the lab fields!



Productivity

Kind of data to be collected:

Time estimated/planned per single process (method/requirement=> set up,

execution, tear down)

Actual time needed per single process that was finished

How to collect:

Per test finished

Per lab field

Per period of time

Of all associates that booked against one and the same lab process

Data derived :

Distribution and mean of planned time within a lab field

Distribution and mean of actual time within a lab field

Distribution and mean (%) of planned vs. actual needed within a lab field

How to use Data? (see separate slide)

Discussion and Decision on statistical/mathematical methods to be used



Productivity Project Data Analysis Approach

t (planned)

frequency

t (actual)

frequency

Data derived from TLP reports Planning process:

e.g. t (planned) – t (actual) => planning accuracy

Mean = 0 => Average planning process good

Standard deviation => reliability of estimation process

Review influencing factors

Set up action items

Continuous measurement and improvement

Productivity

Mean and distribution of t (actual) e.g.

Shift mean to left => improve overall productivity

Improve standard deviation => improve repeatability

Depending on shape to discuss and decide if to focus

on runaway values (tests) or set up generic

improvement steps



Overall data:

• Number of tests in the system by Aug 13´th: 1350

• Number of tests “technically closed” by Aug 13´th: 425

• Number of lab fields in TLP 28

• Number of lab fields that have tests “technically closed” 19

Usage of methods and requirements in tests “technically closed”

• Total number of line items in test plans in tests performed: 2110

• Average number of line items (method/requirements) per test performed (technically closed): 5

• “not used” at all (not planned and not booked): 956 (45%)

• “planned but not booked”: 318 (15%)

• “booked but not planed”: 138 (7%)

• “planned and booked: 698 (33%)

Intermediate Results: 3,5 Months using TLP(all ETC)



VET

7

23

12

10 10

8

34

32 2

1 12 2 2

1 1 1

1312

7 7

34

34

21 1 1 1

10

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 17 23 24 52 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 17 18 1 2

Test Execution Test Setup Test

Teardow n

VET

Seitenfelder hierher ziehen

Anzahl von Rounded Hours(h) -Actual Labour

Requirement Rounded Hours(h) -Actual Labour

Lab Field

Test Execution

• 94 bookings for Execution

• 10 bookings > 10 hours

• Average = 4.9 h

• Stand. Dev. = 7.0 h

Set up

• 60 bookings for Set up

• 4 bookings > 10 hours

• Average = 4.2 h


Tier down

• 12 bookings for Teardown

• No booking > 10 hours

• Average = 1.0 h


Intermediate Results: Distribution of Labour booked(within one Area of the Lab)



In total methods and requirements are not

used the way they should be (planned and

booked).

Some lab fields use them properly others

do not.

The proper usage is a precondition to

- Derive & analyze productivity data

- Reach a much better QCA

In principle 40% of all line items in test

plans have bookings and can be used for

productivity data analysis

Only 33% of all line items in test plans can

be used for productivity data analysis and

QCA analysis

The approach on how to analyze data has

been proven (easy to get distribution

curves, mean, deviations, runaways, …

Status Quo To Do: Improve TLP-Usage

Review applicability of methods/requirements

that were set up and linked to lab fields

=> tendency “less is more”

Review Test Plan Templates available

Set up rules for planning and booking

Improve common understanding of line items

planned

Train proper usage of booking (especially set

up/execution/tear down)

Improve communication between those that

plan and others that book, especially TPMs

(Test Program Manager) and lab field

associates

Set up approach for estimation/quoting

introducing and using “influencing factors”

Ongoing!

Ongoing!

Ongoing!

Ongoing!

Intermediate Results: Action Plan (1)(based on data analysis)

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://www.behmor.com.au/big-tick.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.behmor.com.au/&usg=__fPiM9rS5su_60UxcQk4OQXALIhs=&h=350&w=360&sz=8&hl=de&start=8&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=WCq0dEjB_ddYSM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtick%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7ADRA_de%26tbs%3Disch:1





Intermediate Results: Action Plan (2)(based on personal interviews with lead technicians per lab field/lab area )

• General comuniaction, notification and planning concept for tests and orders:

- Responsibility

- Assignments

- Perform/execution

- Notification of changes

- Resource planning

- Estimation

- ….

• Review OTD focus and target groups

• TP-Project-rules or processes

• No other “big” limitations as e.g. working environment or logistic barriers mentioned

Not TLP related TLP related

• Equivalent messaging, assigning and planning in TLP (partly covered by Gen II and ongoing discussions concerning planning)

- Compare concept (see left) to features available

- Specify D if there is one or work around

- Implement in TLP

• May be run two OTD reports

- Order OTD => address customers

- Test OTD => address internally

• Improve booking features (see Gen II)

• Transfer equipment utilization reports from manual lists to TLP (needs some add ons)



Productivity Project: Next Steps

• Establish an enhanced Reporting on KPIs

• Monthly follow up on ETC and on Lab Field Level

• Monitor if Improvements and Action Items identified have impact

• Monitor the estimation process and compare estimates to actual total for tests closed

• Focus on identified main lab fields and test plan “activities” identified

• Evaluate data in January 2011

• Decide if and how to apply to other areas and test plan activities








• Summary

Agenda



The Approach with dacore

• A lot of effort spent to make a big step in a short amount of time

• Well supported by dacore

Existing System Features and those to be added

• Comprehensive System in use

• Additional features on the wish list

• Potential identified to improve the existing software

Policy Deployment and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

• Most of the data are in the system n

• More detailed level creates a different kind of quality and awareness concerning data

Productivity Measurements and Productivity Improvement

• Promising Approach

• Tools in place to measure (in a way we could not have done before)

• Potential identified to improve

Summary

LIMS, Key Performance Indicators and Productivity - Labor ...

Documents

Transcript of LIMS, Key Performance Indicators and Productivity - Labor ...