Case Study 3

Making the Case for Quality

Quality Revolution Reduces Defects,

Drives Sales Growth at 3M

• For several years, problems with abrasives belts topped the list of industrial abrasives customer complaints at 3M.

• By combining Lean Six Sigma and a Top- 200 customer focus, 3M improved its belt fabrication processes.

• The belt project led to improved quality as defects in parts per million were reduced by a factor of 28 times, and at the same time, sales grew by 54 percent.

• The improvement team entered this project in the ASQ International Team Excellence Award process and was named a finalist for 2009-10.

At a Glance . . . Seven years ago, leaders in 3M’s abrasives business saw that customer complaints were on the rise and belt failures were the no. 1 cause. The orga- nization’s sales representatives were spending 40 percent of their time han- dling complaints instead of pursuing sales activities. Customers suffered and the organization lost sales, which limited business growth and financial objectives. As one vice president declared, it was time for a quality revolution.

About 3M and Coated Abrasives

3M was founded more than a century ago with a single technology—abra- sives, often called sandpaper. Since then, the organization has grown into a $25 billion diversified technology giant, serving customers in six market-focused businesses. The abrasives division is part of the industrial and transportation business and provides innovative products such as tapes, adhesives, coatings, and abrasives for industrial and transportation customers. The organization’s coated abrasives come in many converted forms such as portable belts, back stand belts, utility sheets, cartridge rolls, utility shop rolls, and more.

Setting the Stage for a Quality Revolution

As customers of 3M’s abrasives products provided feedback—frequently complaints—to the sales, cus- tomer service, and quality teams, the need for significant quality improvement was apparent. When the executive vice president of the industrial and transportation unit declared the need for a quality revolu- tion, he noted, “To achieve our growth goals we need a step-change improvement in quality.” Strategic goals rolled down to every division, factory, and product line with annual targets. Soon thereafter, the abrasives division established the following goals:

• Reduce defects in parts per million (DPPM) by 25 percent per year. • Trim total complaint resolution time by 15 percent per year.

Specifically, the business unit initiated an improvement project to reduce belt DPPM from 12,000 to 500. To spearhead this work, the Abrasives Belt Fabrication Improvement Team was chartered in 2003.

by Janet Jacobsen

November 2010

ASQ www.asq.org Page 1 of 4

Members of the Abrasives Belt Fabrication Improvement Team, from left to right: Don Chan, Mark Nyberg, Tim Ness, Eric Rice,

Steve Maack, Bernadette Rasmussen, and Dan Miller.

and control (DMAIC) model to identify possible factors causing variation in 3M’s products and processes. More details about the tools used to identify root causes for both the Top-200 process and Lean Six Sigma approach are shown in Figure 1.

Data and data analysis were key in both the Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma improvement processes to help determine root causes and relationships. First, with the Top- 200, complaint and belt testing information was “sliced and diced” to support analysis and conversations with key customers about problems they experienced with belt products. 3M also established an extensive data collection system to gather data from raw materials, process information, finished product testing, and waste.

Both internal and external stakeholders provided valuable input, as sales, technical service representatives, and end users supplied problem information and samples. For example, team members met with a Top-200 customer to complete a cause and effect matrix focusing on belt life and reasons why the belts could fail. Engaging customers in this type of partnering activity proved to be a powerful business tool for the organization; subsequently other business units have since replicated this approach.

The final root causes and improvement path selection for the Top-200 process followed an investigative approach. The team used 5 Whys, stakeholder dialogue, consensus, and documenta- tion. On the other hand, statistical software to generate trend charts, compare data sets, and calculate capability values guided the Lean Six Sigma path.

Validating Final Root Causes

With final root causes in hand, the team validated each cause, as depicted in Figure 2. In the Top-200 program, the final causes centered around instructions, handling procedures, and application settings. These were validated through internal test- ing, audits, customer trials, and customer service visits. In the Lean Six Sigma process, final root causes focused on equipment capability, process control, and inadequate testing. Gauge repeat- ability and reproducibility (R&R) studies, equipment monitoring

All participants on the team are ASQ members by virtue of 3M’s ASQ Site membership for its Maplewood, MN, facility. Joe Pribyl, the abrasives quality manager, served as a coach for the improvement team.

The project worked to create value by providing more robust products that would perform better and longer to increase cus- tomers’ productivity. This coincides with 3M’s corporate goal: Growth through customer success by building value for our cus- tomers.

Team members estimated that, if successful, the belt improvement project would have a positive impact on several goals, such as:

• More robust products. • Reduced defects. • Better processes and product understanding. • Increased process capability.

Using a Two-Pronged Approach for Quality Improvement

When a situational analysis confirmed that belt and splice com- plaints were the no. 1 quality complaint for industrial abrasives, the team developed a two-pronged approach to steer improvement:

• Act immediately on the needs of 3M’s leading customers through a Top-200 program.

• Drive long-term continuous improvement with Lean Six Sigma.

Identifying Potential Root Causes

To pinpoint the root causes of belt complaints, the improvement team used process mapping, cause and effect diagrams, Pareto charts, and other quality tools. For the Top-200 process, the team used basic graphing, data analysis, and other communica- tion tools to gather information from customers. Then, they began the Lean Six Sigma approach, attacking more chronic problems with the structured define, measure, analyze, improve,

ASQ www.asq.org Page 2 of 4

Figure 1— Methods and tools to identify root causes and improvement opportunities Method Process: How, Who, Rationale Why Tool Was Used Possible Root Causes

Top-200 Define Top-200 customers Daily complaint review and scorecard update

Analyze and communicate with sales

Lack of procedures Incomplete instructions Tests not predicting performance Product uses/application

Tools Pareto by sales CFR database Excel

Product lab testing Customer visits E-mail and phone

Who Sales management Manufacturing quality Quality coordinators

Lean Six Sigma Define Measure Analyze Equipment capability Process measurement Test method development

Tools Project charter Stakeholder analysis

Process map Cause & effect Gauge R&R Graphing

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), Risk priority numbering (RPN), Pareto chart, Process capability, Control charts

Who Product manager Master Black Belt

Black Belt, Green Belt, Project team Project team

ASQ www.asq.org Page 3 of 4

studies, and finished product testing were useful for validating the suspected causes.

Developing Solutions

Next, the team focused on possible solutions in the Top-200 pro- cess with brainstorming activities, experimentation, and sample testing. Possible solutions were developed somewhat intuitively, based on experience, speed, and cost of implementation. Data analysis came into play after problem samples were tested, allowing the team to compare them to historical information.

In the Lean Six Sigma process, the team employed process map- ping, cause and effect diagrams, and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for developing potential solutions to the belt issues. Team members used the FMEA tool after the first three phases of the DMAIC cycle to create a score or risk value for potential solutions—those with the highest scores earning the highest priority. Risk values were calculated based on severity, occurrence, and detection of the failure or variation in the pro- cess or product variable.

The criteria for selecting final solutions were similar for the Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma approaches and included trial results, expected customer impact, speed and ease of change, as well as implementation costs. As illustrated in Figure 3, the team selected final solutions for the Top-200 by completing a customer resolution evaluation that involved reviewing com- plaints, samples, test results, and customer feedback. These were documented in a Top-200 scorecard. For the Lean Six Sigma projects, the FMEA risk numbers were ranked and entered into Pareto charts. The team also used an old-fashioned “gut check” as members reviewed the lower-scoring variables and failure modes from the FMEA to ensure they had not overlooked any worthwhile solutions.

Validating Solutions

The most common solutions in the Top-200 process involved product specification changes, such as new splice tape or splice preparation condition. These solutions were validated internally with sample production and internal product testing. Externally, the solutions were verified by following up with customers after trial orders were shipped. On the other side, common solutions

with Lean Six Sigma centered on process equipment modifica- tions. The team validated these equipment changes internally through hypothesis testing, process capability measurement, and designed experiments. These experiments produced response surface plots and mathematical models that helped define pro- cess windows and targets, support troubleshooting, and provide training media for the team.

Overcoming Resistance

As with any process changes, the team did encounter some resistance. Internally, as the Top-200 process changes were introduced, resistance to the extra daily work required of operators surfaced. To help overcome this resistance, the team gathered stakeholder input on how to improve the Top-200 flyer, a bright yellow order form that travels with the material from station to station. After the order forms were modified and customer success stories were shared, the team quickly secured commitment and buy in.

Reducing Defects Leads to Increased Sales

Prior to implementing the final solutions, several modifica- tions were necessary. For example, with the Top-200, changes were made to products and standards, special handling proce- dures such as using new splice tape, and operator training. On the Lean Six Sigma side, typical changes included equipment upgrades as well as process, product, and documentation updates.

This team project created several positive intangible and tangible results, shown in Figure 4.

A key result of the Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma efforts is evident in the organization’s belt fabrication DPPM chart shown in Figure 5, which illustrates that 3M reduced its DPPM from 12,000 to just 475 in seven years. Not surprisingly, cus- tomer complaints dropped by 90 percent in the corresponding timeframe and the business realized the benefits of customer sat- isfaction, loyalty, and abrasives sales growth of 54 percent. By driving the belt defects to such low levels, the team project sup-

Top-200 Process • Customer resolution evaluation Complaint and sample review Testing results Customer and representative feedback • Top-200 scorecard for documentation

Criteria: • Customer impact • Speed of change • Sample or trial outcomes

Criteria From C&E: • Customer impact • Capital investment • Ease of change • Time to implement • Impact on productivity, waste, and service

Final Solutions and

Actions Lean Six Sigma / DMA

• FMEA • RPN values • Pareto ➔ Natural break and gut check

Figure 3— Selecting final solutions

Final Root Causes Validation

Top-200 • Lack of procedures • Incomplete instructions • Improper product use/application

• Internal tests • Documentation updates and

approvals • Audits • Customer trials • Technical service customer visits

Lean Six Sigma

• Poor equipment capability • Lack of process control • Inadequate test method

development

• Gauge R&R and multi-vari studies • Equipment capability

measurement • Finished product testing • Voice of customer aligned with

voice of process

Figure 2— Root causes and validation

ASQ www.asq.org Page 4 of 4

ported the quality revolution by meeting defect reduction, cost of poor quality, and complaint response time goals.

Sustaining the Results

3M sustains the process changes through its ISO 9001 proce- dures, which require audits, documentation, quality metrics, corrective actions, and management reviews. The team devel- oped extensive control plans for both Top-200 and Lean Six Sigma projects. These plans, along with documentation, audits, and frequent training, continue to sustain 3M’s quality improve- ments over time. Several quality and business metrics are charted and monitored through plant dashboards for any statisti- cal shifts that may warrant attention. In addition, external and internal feedback data are gathered through satisfaction and loy- alty surveys and monitored to ensure that changes are delivering the expected results and continue to align with the organization’s goals and strategies. Team members report that the Top-200 process is now a way of life at 3M. The organization follows up with all critical accounts by conducting a trial production order and a tech service customer visit to ensure that 3M products meet the customer’s requirements.

Another benefit from this project was improved product and process understanding (PPU), notes Pribyl. He explains that PPU is the organization’s comprehensive quality improvement meth- odology linking voice of the customer data back through tests, product specifications, processes, procedures, and raw materi- als. “By truly understanding the science and technology behind our products and processes, we can control critical variables and deliver consistent products to our customers,” says Pribyl, an ASQ Certified Quality Manager.

Lessons Learned

In addition to the improved PPU, Pribyl cites three important lessons learned from this team project:

• Work directly with customers to understand how they use products.

• Develop tests that predict performance. • Use data, not emotions, to make decisions.

Earning Recognition and Looking Forward

As 3M enjoyed the internal and external benefits of this project, others took note of the team’s accomplishments. Not only was this project one of two 2009 corporate quality achievement gold award winners at 3M, it also was named one of 28 finalists in ASQ’s International Team Excellence Award (ITEA) process for 2009-10. This marked the first time that a 3M team participated in the award process.

The next challenge, notes Pribyl, is to continue the momentum from the team project and reduce the DPPM by another 25 per- cent each year. He says that newly introduced products will add to that challenge. “We are launching many new revolutionary abrasive products, some with four times longer life. These new longer lasting products require our belt splices to hold together that much longer.”

For More Information

• Details on the International Team Excellence Award process are available at http://wcqi.asq.org/team-competition/.

• To learn more about this project, contact Joe Pribyl at [email protected].

• Visit 3M’s website at www.3m.com to learn more about the organization.

• Details on the benefits of ASQ organizational memberships are located at www.asq.org/organizations.

About the Author

Janet Jacobsen is a freelance writer specializing in quality and compliance topics. A graduate of Drake University, she resides in Cedar Rapids, IA.

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits

External stakeholders

Reduced waste Increased productivity Fewer “emergencies”

Customer value Improved relations Improved morale

Internal stakeholders

Customer satisfaction • Improved DPPM Product and process understanding • Critical to quality (CTQ) capabilities • Variable interactions Financial • Increased growth • Reduced waste • Improved productivity • Fewer emergencies

Customer loyalty Customer value Brand value Improved relations Enhanced 3M image Improved morale

Figure 4— Intangible and tangible results

Customer complaints are down

90%

Pre-2003 2003 2004 2005 Belt Splice/Fabrication DPPM

2006

• Top-200 Process • Lean Six Sigma Projects

2007 2008 2009 2010 YTD

12,000 ppm

7,900 ppm

2,900 ppm 2,300 ppm

1878 ppm 1598 ppm 1107 ppm 774 ppm 475 ppm

Figure 5— Belt fabrication DPPM