Reading and questions

QP • www.qualityprogress.com2

Headline Goes In This Area: Deck or secondary part of headline

FIRST THREE WORDS are Vectora Bold 18 pt all

cap. Ullamet iustrud dipit nulla alit nonsecte modolenibh eum

at, quat. Ibh eui ea faccumsan henim atue magna faccum quat.

Odolortio odo dolor alit ipis at, con utatuer ad tat luptatumsan

enissecte molendrem iriure er acil eu feum eummolobor iurem

er sim quatet illa facidunt wisi.

Gait nullam quat. Ut inibh ero ex exerostrud tat nos autet ex

ea feugiat iusto consed tatie dolorper iril utat etueraessis ex

eugiamc onulpute modoloreet lum augueril dit vulputem venit,

sit nulput ut voloborper illa feum vendrer cincipi sisit, conse

erciduis dolorperos nulputpatum dolor iusto odolore rciniat,

se venis ad dunt lum ip ea facidunt ea am, veleniam volortinit

In 50 Words Or Less • Text for 50 words or

less is Vectora Roman 9 on 11 with hanging indents.

• Text for 50 words or less is Vectora Roman 9 on 11 with hanging indents.

• Text for 50 words or less is Vectora Roman 9 on 11 with hanging indents.

• Text for 50 words or less is Vectora Roman 9 on 11 with hanging indents.

AT A TIME when fuel prices have skyrocketed

and companies across the board are doing their part to

be greener, a team of individuals from CSX Corp. came

together to reduce the large amount of fuel wasted

while locomotives sat idling.

The locomotive shutdown team used a variety of

quality tools and methods and ultimately came up with

a solution to increase shutdown time and decrease the

temperature at which locomotives could be shut down.

The project saved millions of dollars in the form of mil-

lions of gallons of diesel fuel.

In 50 Words Or Less • A team from the rail

company CSX Corp. found idling locomotives wasted 30 million gallons of diesel per year.

• Team members used quality tools, such as Six Sigma and FMEA, to reveal root causes and develop fuel conserving solutions.

• The result: a savings of more than $28 million over three years.

May 2008 • QP 21

TEAMS

It All Ties Together

fuel consumption,

It All Ties Together CSX team’s project curtails fuel consumption, saves company millions

by Nicole Adrian, contributing editor

QP • www.qualityprogress.com22

The team’s work earned it a bronze medal at the 2007

International Team Excellence Competition, sponsored

by ASQ’s Team and Workplace Excellence Forum. The

team presentations are judged annually at ASQ’s World

Conference on Quality and Improvement.

War on waste CSX locomotives were typically left idling when not in

use, even for relatively short periods of time. Idling lo-

comotives wasted four gallons of fuel per hour. But if

the shutdown occurred for too long a period, gaskets

would dry out, causing engine leaks.

In 2004, the locomotive shutdown project was cre-

ated out of a CSX Six Sigma process improvement

team (PIT+) that focused on fuel. PIT+ teams created

at this time were to look at all business processes and

major cost areas. The project arose out of organiza-

tional needs, using a top-down approach that focused

on waste elimination based on data and broad stake-

holder involvement.

Fuel made up nearly 10% of total operating expens-

es, and fuel prices were expected to increase in the

coming years. The fuel PIT+ developed a value driver

tree to focus in on high impact areas that could be rap-

idly implemented.

To fi gure out if a fuel conservation project was

worth attacking, the team tapped into data that was

used for exception reporting on locomotive dwell

times (see Figure 1). The median time a locomotive

didn’t move was 12 hours on a weekday and 14 to 16

hours on the weekend. About 3,600 locomotives were

in transit at any given time.

The team found that the idling locomotives wasted

30 million gallons per year. Armed with these num-

bers and data, the team decided the project was worth

tackling.

Getting involved Potential stakeholders in the locomotive shutdown

project participated in the effort to defi ne and launch

the project, each bringing valuable perspectives, in-

sights and concerns. The team validated the project

stakeholder perspective by using suppliers, inputs,

process step, outputs and customers (SIPOC), and in-

cluded the suppliers and customers as stakeholders.

Ultimately, the project involved stakeholders

across various work areas (see Table 1). This included

employees and people from:

• The senior leadership team (SLT).

• Locomotive management and shop.

• Transportation management, and train and engine

departments.

• Finance and purchasing.

• Environmental group.

• Communities served.

In the beginning, the SLT and

project champion addressed re-

sistance, allocated resources and

ensured project goals cascaded

through the organization. The fi -

nance and purchasing stakehold-

ers tracked and validated savings,

ensuring that budgeting activity re-

fl ected the project’s success. Tying

in the budget process further com-

mitted functional departments to

the project.

Employees who managed and

worked in locomotive shops and ser-

vice centers agreed with the project’s

aim but had concerns. Employees

reasoned that if the locomotives did

not restart easily and needed as-

sistance, it could hurt their facility

throughput and pull resources away

Reasons this project was selected / FIGURE 1

Fuel cost is a function of these key drivers: volume, productivity, engine idling, price and logistics costs.

Total fuel costs

Gallons

Cost/gallon

Base price/gallon (including taxes)

Distribution cost/gallon

Nonproductive use (sitting)

Productive use (pulling freight)

Gallons/hour Engine idle efficiency

Largely exogenous, reflects purchasing, tax efficiency and physical facility locations

Gallons/KGTM Diesel engine productivity

KGTM Measure of volume

Idle Time Waste = 30 million gallons (~6% of total usage)

(KGTM = thousand gross ton miles)

May 2008 • QP 23

from their primary tasks.

The transportation management and train and en-

gine employees also had concerns. These included:

• Yard delays caused by restarting locomotives.

• Initial start-up taking more time than it would have

with idling locomotive waiting.

• Locomotives shut down for a short period of time.

• Lack of locomotive maintenance assistance at out-

lying areas.

• A lapse in production.

• Poor service to customers.

To be successful, the team needed to maintain and

leverage the support of the SLT while increasing sup-

port from the locomotive shop and service center

employees, and the train and engine personnel. The

team also needed them to change their behavior. To

understand the degree of impact the project would

have on stakeholders and the reasons behind potential

resistance, the team used failure mode effects analysis

(FMEA).

The environmental group was an obvious project

supporter. The group envisioned fewer noise and

air pollution complaints from the communities CSX

serves. The environmental group had received com-

plaints from residents, who said the idling locomotives

disturbed their sleep. The residents also had concerns

about diesel fumes. The group also saw the opportu-

nity to gain emission reduction credits.

Choosing the mission To select the project, the team used familiar tools: Six

Sigma and defi ne, measure, analyze, improve and con-

trol (DMAIC).

Project selection also included some consider-

ations and measures:

• Data availability and quality.

• Projected benefi ts and savings.

• Impact on internal and external customers.

• Impact on existing initiatives.

• Locomotive idle time in hours.

• Gallons per hour consumed while idling.

• Historical total idle time.

The team used various tools to assess the type of

impact the project could have on stakeholders and all

units involved. These tools included:

• Subject matter expert (SME) input.

• FMEA.

• Change acceleration process tools.

TEAMS

Stakeholder involvement / TABLE 1

Stakeholder roles, involvement and impact of contribution to root cause analysis

Who: Role: Responsibility: Impact:

SLT and Champion Secure resources. Monthly champion reviews and oversight. Low

Locomotive management Locomotive Engineering support. Validate improper shutdowns. High and shop employees Transportation manage- Advise on issues perceived by Evaluate failures. High ment and T&E employees end users. Identify exceptions for missed opportunities.

Finance and purchasing Finance/budget analysis. Not process owners. Medium Provide cost per gallon.

Environment/ Help identify “other”occasions Support through idea generation. Low communities served of shutdown opportunity.

Black Belt support Data analysis. Perception on process variation. High Effectiveness of current controls.

Levels of Impact: Low = support role Medium = validation High = SMEs

QP • www.qualityprogress.com24

• Driver trees.

• Analytical tools.

The team found that 78% of the locomotive fl eet is

equipped with a global positioning system (GPS), which

generates an automated transmission each hour, provid-

ing information about the status of the locomotive and

whether it has moved since the last transmission.

To gauge the shutdown performance and to measure

the project’s impact and value, team members used infor-

mation about the locomotive’s identifi cation, latitude and

longitude of reporting, hours since last movement and if

the locomotive was running or shut down.

SMEs provided insights into the potential root causes

that stemmed from the FMEA. These ideas included:

• Employee knowledge and attitude.

• Current and expected ambient temperature.

• Dwell or sitting time of locomotive.

• Actionable opportunities.

• Applicable rules regarding when to shut down.

• Health of locomotive.

A questionnaire was then sent to all engineers to serve

as a fuel shutdown reminder and affi rmation, and to gain

their feedback and ideas. For the project to succeed, it

had to affect the behavior of more than 8,000 employees

in hundreds of locations throughout the eastern half of

the country.

Root cause analysis The team again used FMEA to identify issues of critical

importance to the stakeholders and to view the issues in

context with all stakeholder involvement. Additionally,

the team worked through a cause and effect matrix to

validate the insights from FMEA, relate the inputs to cus-

tomer requirements and prioritize potential root causes.

While team members developed SME insights from cause

and effect diagrams and FMEA, they also investigated

hard data, the GPS data from the locomotive fl eet and

other sources to confi rm SME insights.

The identifi cation and analysis of root causes started

with subjective insights followed by data collection and

analysis. The facts led to team agreement. The process in-

volved a wide variety of tools based on the type of infor-

mation and data available, which also created a common

perspective and commitment within the team.

These tools included:

• Process maps.

• FMEA.

• Cause and effect diagrams.

AN INSIDER’S VIEW I’ve worked for CSX Corp. for 34 years, and my father

and brother worked on the railroad. Railroading is in

my blood, and I know this industry very well. I realize

because of its 180-year history, there is a lot of tradi-

tion that can sometimes mean slow-moving processes

and resistance to change.

This changed at CSX when the company got in-

volved with Six Sigma and ASQ. From the start, I could

easily see how the Six Sigma process tore down the

walls that prevented our growth. Being involved with

the locomotive shutdown project is a perfect example

of how this process works at CSX and how it made me

see that we were changing for the better.

As one of the 32 fi nalists, our team was fi lled with

pride. To be included with some of the world’s cor-

porate leaders—companies such as Boeing, Siemens

and Genentech—was mind-boggling. This was the fi rst

time CSX was in the fi nals. When we marched into the

meeting with the other fi nalists, and as the streamers

were fl ying and the cheering crowd was using noise-

makers, it was hard to contain our excitement.

I remember that when it was announced that our

team was the bronze winner, we launched from our

seats and ran onto the stage, leaping and screaming

with excitement. I think my teammates would agree

that we didn’t feel this excitement just for ourselves.

We were accepting this coveted award for the entire

CSX Corp., and the employees who embraced this new

way of working. After generations of doing things the

same way, this was quite an amazing accomplishment.

Railroaders are full of a sense of pride in their work

because for nearly two centuries we’ve run trains.

Now, with this sort of process improvement, we don’t

just run trains—we run them well. This is the sort of

forward thinking that future generations of railroaders

will use to ensure that, indeed, CSX is how tomorrow

moves. — Dennis Merrell, core team member

After generations of doing things the same way, this was quite an amazing accomplishment. Rail- roaders are full of a sense of pride in their work because for nearly two centuries we’ve run trains.

“

”

May 2008 • QP 25

• Questionnaire/survey.

• Measurement system analysis.

• Statistical tests.

• Team agreement on results.

Following the rules The team found that locomotives were often left idling

because operators were simply following the compa-

ny’s rules. Before this project began, the CSX trans-

portation fuel conversation rule was to shut down die-

sel locomotive engines when they were not being used

for at least 30 minutes, and the ambient temperature

was above 40° F.

To develop possible solutions, the team benchmarked

other railroad shutdown practices—including those of

Burlington North Santa Fe Corp. and Canadian Nation-

al—to determine what risk levels railroad operators ac-

cepted. They discovered these other railroads supported

lower temperatures and time thresholds.

The team’s solution tree identifi ed several factors

that had statistical signifi cance to shutdown perfor-

mance—most were constrained by the fuel conserva-

tion rule. The data showed clear differences in per-

formance by location. It was also clear that shutdown

performance was impacted by temperature. Regres-

sion results on a fi tted line plot gave the team clues

that individuals had different interpretations of the

temperature.

A fi nal solution The team considered changing the

rule’s time and temperature limits,

which would result in increased em-

ployee awareness, rule adherence and

standardization of the delivery system

of temperature information. The team

used an improved FMEA to gauge the

solution’s potential value.

To understand the risk of increasing

shutdown opportunities by adjusting

the parameters of the rule, the team col-

lected data from temperature gages in-

stalled in the water system on a sample

of units in colder weather. Each of the

units had a dump valve installed so the

engine cooling water would automati-

cally drain when it reached 40° F, pre-

venting any possible freeze damage.

These samples indicated:

• At 28° F ambient temperature, it should take 32

hours for water temperature to reach 40° F.

• At 28° F ambient temperature, it should take 52

hours for the water temperature to reach freezing.

However, each locomotive had a different heat

transfer rate—the data on two of the units indicated

the water would reach 40° F in as little as 14 hours

TEAMS

TEAM MEMBERS WHO represented the CSX group at the 2007 International Team Competition were (from left) Andy John, Herb Schubert, Wayne Sequin, Dean Mene- fee, John Murphy and Dennis Merrell.

Final solution validation / FIGURE 2

Final solution opportunities

Cumulative % of locomotive idle time by temperature

35º - 30.44% 28º - 19.91%

32º - 24.80%

40º - 37.63%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-3 1º

-2 0º

-1 3º -5 º 3º 10 º

17 º

23 º

29 º

35 º

42 º

48 º

55 º

62 º

69 º

77 º

84 º

Outside temperature at start of not-moving period

% o

f t ot

al n

ot m

ov in

g tim

e at

or b

el ow

t hi

s te

m pe

ra tu

re

3,800 locomotives subject to temperature variation

QP • www.qualityprogress.com26

and begin freezing at 25 hours. The data showed that

CSX can tolerate risk at 35° F for shutdown without

unusual risk of locomotive engine and components

damage. At 35° F ambient temperature, locomotive

cooling water will never reach freezing.

After analyzing the data, the team concluded it

would support two rule changes (see Figure 2, p. 25).

First, at selected locomotive shops and service centers

that were manned 24/7, the shutdown temperature

threshold would be decreased from 40° to 28° F. Sec-

ond, the temperature in the rule would be decreased

from 40° to 35° F, and the time would be decreased

from 30 minutes to 15. These changes were based on

benchmarking and validated by temperature decay re-

gressions. The rules were applied in September 2004.

Making changes After the rules were put into practice, large, obvi-

ous signs were built at locomotive shops to reinforce

when to shut down locomotives and when to leave

them running. Daily scorecards for each location and

division were and continue to be used to provide re-

sponsible fi eld offi cers with current, relevant and ac-

tionable data.

Each 1% change in shutdown performance gener-

ates more than a half million gallons of fuel annually,

The team found idling locomotives wasted 30 million gallons of fuel per year.

Be a Face of Quality Thank you to our sponsors!

2008

�������������

Untitled-1 1 2/13/07 8:14:14 AM

ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement

May 2008 • QP 27

TEAMS

equaling more than $1 million in savings for each per-

centage point.

Some of the tangible and intangible results realized

include:

• Improvements to shutdown performance numbers

without collateral damage for operations’ mechani-

cal and transportation management.

• A savings of $3.6 million in 2004.

• Additional savings at specifi c shop locations.

• Train origins that were not impacted.

• Improved fuel effi ciency at a time when fuel costs

were escalating.

• An invitation to join the Environmental Protection

Agency’s greenhouse gas initiative.

• A savings of more than 14 million gallons of fuel and

more than $28 million over the three-year span of

the project.

• Better stewardship with regard to the environment

resources by reducing emissions and noise, which

has led to happier neighbors and recognition for the

achievements.

• A savings of more than 650,000 barrels of a non-

renewable fuel resource.

Beyond these results for CSX, the locomotive shut-

down team had results of its own. Over the course

of the project, the team members increased their fa-

miliarity and understanding of process improvement

tools and the workforce developed more disciplined

behavior. Several key members were identifi ed for per-

formance and received awards.

READ MORE TEAM COMPETITION ARTICLES Look for case studies on other winning projects from the 2007 International Team Competition on www.qualityprogress.com.