6-PANEL Problem Resolution Process TRAINING MANUAL

Corporate NEED Global 6-Panel Reporting standard: 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements and data to drive decisions through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate. Assist problem solving teams with a template to guide the problem solving process using minimum required DMAIC+R steps to ensure robustness of the resolution. Individual summary panels of each DMAIC+R phase that is simplified and standardized, while allowing for additional information or slides to be inserted as backup information for any of the problem resolution phases. In a high level management report out, communicate with the six summary panels. For a team or quarterback deep dive, unhide information on additional slides. Standardization of problem resolution procedures combining best practices and 6-Sigma methodology on a format that is flexible enough to be used by all business units. Simplified and consistent communication to management in a concise way without having to rewrite what you have done. Encourages management to ask questions in line with the 6-Sigma disciplined methodology.

Process Layout Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 6-Panel Problem Resolution is a high level problem resolution document to capture the key requirements used to drive data decision through the problem solving phases: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control, and Replicate. Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Define Phase Who is my customer, and what is the current cost of poor quality? Voice of the Customer Defect Definition Cost of Poor Quality (includes warranty spending, as necessary) Project Scope & Goal Measure Phase Which inputs affect ouputs? What is my current process performance (capability)? Are defects contained? Analyze Phase By how much do X’s affect Y? What confidence do you have? Graphical Analysis Hypothesis Testing Regression Analysis Additional tools Fish Bone Gage R&R, Baseline Capability Containment Plan Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 Improve Phase How can we permanently fix the current product/process? DOE & ANOVA Verification data Durability/CAE/VSA Work plan Control Phase How can we make the process stay fixed? Control Plans SPC – Control Charting Audit Plans Replicate Phase Who else at Ford can benefit? Update corporate knowledge? Is the gain be sustained? Replication / Best Practices Core Books – SDS/VDS/FMEAs Validate sustain w/ data

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER 6-PANEL Header: Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header. The following generic fields are listed to identify project ownership (business unit), the customer, affected vehicle, process, and/or part number. Please note: The header “VRT / VFG / CCC” information along with the footer “Project Number / BB Name” information must be updated on the SLIDE MASTER. Goto “View” then “Master” then “Slide Master” to make these changes. Customer VFG Team / Functional Area Name VRT / Business Unit Name Vehicle Name & Model Year / Product Name Part / Process Name & Number Manufacturing / Technical Example: CCC: L66 – Exhaust System Troubles VFG: V44 – Mechanical Malfunction VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus / Sable PART: 5230 Muffler Transactional Example: Ford Motor Company Plants Global Customs MP&L Global Customs and Trade Process 9801 Duty Preference Program

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements): Identify the Project Classification (Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost…) objectives. Typical quality classifications will be based upon the Single Agenda for Quality data (both low time in service, 3 MIS, and high time in service, 3 YIS) from GQRS and Warranty. Include total annual warranty spending and JD Power data if available. In addition, use internal data indicators to help identify the concern including Best In Class (BIC) and Best In Ford (BIF) data to address customer concerns. Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and pareto formulates a means of prioritizing and help reflect the teams understanding of the major components making up the concern.) Data trend charts over time help define the severity of customer concerns. Data trend charts over time should include annotative updates. If needed, add backup slides. Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project). CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer requirements / expectations. Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric. Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Total Warranty Spending and Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.) Problem Statement (include scope and goal) Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Define material) Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not Analysis Unexpended Warranty Calculations TGW Verbatim Analysis QFD

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: SAQ #26 L66 - Exhaust System Troubles ’01 MY ’99 MY 3 MIS 3 YIS TGW 4 6 CUST SAT LOSS 0.43 0.61 CPU 0.27 2.11 R/1000 1.04 3.54 JD Power 0.4 Consumer Reports n/a for L66 TREND CHARTS and BREAKDOWN OF ISSUE: L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty 2002 Sable 2002 L66 Warranty by part 3 MIS R/1000 TOTAL WARRANTY SPENDING: $315K (2002 CY) VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From AWS Verbatims “the vehicle bottoms out, exhaust noise banging on side of vehicle.” CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement):  Customers expect no ground out noises from the exhaust system. DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Engineering Metric):  Muffler to body clearance less than 17mm at fascia COST OF POOR QUALITY (TGW, Unexpended Warranty, etc.):  $350,000 annually in internal repairs and external warranty. In addition, 2.5 TGWs from 3MIS GQRS surveys. PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOAL Owners of 2001 MY Taurus/Sable vehicles indicate that exhaust pipes and muffler to body side ground outs are a significant issue. These ground outs conditions, particularly around the rear fascia & lower control arm, cause noises such as rattles, knocks, bangs, clunks, dings, and rubs. Reduce ground outs by 90%. Y=f(x) CASCADE: Y= L66= f (Muffler, Pipe, etc.) Muffler= f ( Ground outs, etc.) Ground Outs= f (clearance to fascia) Project Y DEFINE PANEL (Minimum requirements): Identify VRT to CCC cascade of the issue in the header. Identify the Project Classification (Safety, Quality, Deliver, Cost… objectives: see SAQ=Single Agenda for Quality example above) Trend Charts and Breakdown of Issue (Internal or External trends, and graphical quantification and pareto to help break down the issue. Y=f(x) Cascade (High level Y=f(x) cascade should communicate the scope of the project). CTQ (Critical to Quality) Statement - identifies customer need. Defect Definition of Key Process Output Variable (KPOV or Y) in the form of an engineering metric. Cost of Poor Quality (Cost of the Problem includes all external and internal cost, TGW, Unexpended Warranty, labor & overhead, etc.) Problem Statement (include scope and goal) Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Define material) Process Mapping (As Is), SIPOC, Is-Is Not Analysis Unexpended Warranty Calculations TGW Verbatim Analysis QFD Please note: The header “VRT / VFG / CCC” information along with the footer “Project Number / BB Name” information must be updated on the SLIDE MASTER. Goto “View” then “Master” then “Slide Master” to make these changes.

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Trend Charts of Explorer Brake Noise-N17:

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY MEASURE PANEL (Minimum requirements): Fishbone (Cause & Effect Diagram). Identify the key process input variables (KPIV or Xs) that affect your KPOV (Y) most (display ranking). (This is the first stage of root cause analysis, in the analyze phase you will validate the root cause with data). MSA – Measurement System Analysis. Validate the Measurement System for your KPOV (Y), Gage R&R stated as % Study. (May be needed for both Ys and Xs performed in other stages of the project.) Determine the Baseline Process Capability of your KPOV (Y) Containment Plan - state actions taken to protect the customer, including statistical evidence validating action (before and after data). If containment is not needed, state why. While the team is working on permanent solution, containment actions are required to protect the customer 100%. Example of actions include Stop-ship, 100% inspection, Quarantine stock, QR’s supplier. Use additional slides with visual aids to this panel to drive home your containment resolutions. Effectiveness of containment actions must be shown with Before and After indicator. Containment Plans should include: 1. Metric/Indicator that is used to find the issue at: (a) Supplier facility, before shipping to Ford facility, (b) Assembly plant, before shipping to customers. 2. Before and after statistical data evidence showing the issue is contained (Cpk, defect rate, etc) Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Measure material) Cause & Effect Matrix P-Diagram PFMEA and/or DFMEA SPC Rolled Throughput Yield

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler MSA & Process Capability: Engineering Test Requirement Muffler to Body Clearance (17-30 mm) Gage R&R = 15 % Study Baseline Capability (Oct. 15, 2001): Z = 0.72 DPMO = 255,141 Cpk = 0.24 (note: short term) B A B B B Data Collection plan includes all circled, highly ranked X’s B B A Process Elements Element OK A Investigating B Element Not Capable C Element Removed D A CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required): Process Owner Date Before Data After Data 100% audit (clearances at fascia / lower control arm. John Smith 10/17/01 0.24 Cpk 1.23 Cpk When necessary, reposition muffler assembly to obtain adequate clearance. If muffler does not shift to desired position, loosen joint attachment & reposition assembly.

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY FISHBONE Cause and Effect diagram is a problem solving tool used to identify and graphically display all possible causes of a problem or effect. It helps a team to discover root cause(s). Additional tools can and should be used to deep dive in the measure phase to help prioritize the KPIV – Key Process Input Variables: cause and effect priority matrix, fault tree / contribution analysis, process / design FMEAs, is/is not analysis, process mapping, etc. Fishbone diagram is one of the most widely used tools in quality management. Example – Brake Cold Squeal Fish Bone Diagram Important: Look for Internal Indicator at Supplier facility and Assembly plant Environment Customer Usage System Interactions Piece to Piece Vartiation Aging Wear Design Brake application (line pressure) Vehicle speed Braking distance Driving habits (D) Cooling of Brake System (D) Pad modal parameters (A) Material Property Variation Surface Friction Variation Manufacturing misassembly (D) Rotor/Hub Alignment Pad Geometric Variations Pad Damping Deterioration Running Clearance Sys Damping Deterioration Pad/Lining Wear/Cracked Aging of Slide Pin Wear Shape of lining (A) Uneven Rotor Wear Lining material Characteristics (A) Humidity(wet/dry)/water/Moisture absorption (A) Contaminates Corrosion Road salts Solvents Temperature Road inputs Customer’s Maintenance Schedules (D) Incorrect Maintenance (D) Road Quality (D) Lot Rot Deceleration rate Suspension Interactions (D) Body Sensitivities (Acoustic/Vibration (D) Rotor Warping Rotor Scorching Booster Noise Filter Wear Rotor Geometric Variations Thickness of lining material (A) Pad/Rotor pressure distribution (even/uneven)when apply brake (B) Chamfers in lining (A) Slots in lining Insulator type Insulator damping/damping material (A) Caliper design Rotor modal parameter Process Elements Element OK A Investigating B Element Not Capable C Element Removed D

MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Example of Additional Tool – U152 Brake Cold Squeal Is/Is Not Analysis NOTE: ONE THING WE SHOULD MAKE CERTAIN IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT LET THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ROOT CAUSE (ANALYZE PHASE) BE A DETRIMENT TO THE TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE CONTAINMENT PLAN. AN INSPECTION, SORTING, STOP SHIP, ETC. MAY BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE CUSTOMER WITHOUT KNOWING THE "ROOT CAUSE".

D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) ANALYZE PANEL (Minimum requirements): Which Inputs (Xs) affect my Outputs most (with data)? How many samples do you need to draw conclusions? What level of confidence do you have in your conclusions? Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Analyze material) Graphical Analysis & Hypothesis Testing Regression Analysis Correlation Analysis Process FMEA P-Diagram Contribution Analysis Multi-vari studies Shainin Analysis

MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X” ANALYZE y=f(x) VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler y=f(x) The current design muffler assembly aid positions the pipe to the center of tunnel, which is 4.2 mm from design position. This translates 13 mm muffler body movement toward the fascia area. CURRENT ASSEMBLY AID • 4.2 mm offset from design allows pipe position to vary when installed y=f(x) Muffler assembly aids used during installation require detailed 4.2 mm offset positioning feature to meet design intent. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 0.0038 0.0038 0.05 0.826 Error 48 3.7236 0.0776 Total 49 3.7274 FASCIA LOCATING HOLE & MUFFLER HANGER LOCATING HOLE DETERMINED AS INSIGNIFICANT “X” REDESIGNED ASSEMBLY AID • incorporated the 4.2 mm design

D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) IMPROVE PANEL (Minimum requirements): What is the optimal Y=f(x) solution? How was optimal solution verified? (Statistical proof that the solution works.) Key actions taken and work plan to improve. Work plan must include: Permanent/Interim actions, Sample size, Next steps if trial is successful, Next steps if trial is NOT successful, Part availability if trial is successful, Additional actions pending. Validation of fix after implementation. Before and after process capability of Y, showing variable data histograms, attribute data, etc. Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Improve material) Design of Experiments (Main Effect & Interaction Plots, ANOVA Tables) Regression Analysis Correlation Analysis Hypothesis Testing Cost / Benefit Analysis Process Mapping (should be)

Implementation Workplan D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler Improved y=f(x) A. Incorporate trimmed fascia and sheet metal for clearance. B. Muffler hanger bracket design modified, along with fascia and sheet metal change improved clearance 15 mm. BEFORE: Oct. 15, 2001 AFTER: March 1, 2002 Hypothesis Testing Statistically Confirms Improvement of Y One-way ANOVA: FASCI-END (IMPROVEMENT), FASCIA-PRE (BASELINE) Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Factor 1 8781.3 8781.3 822.74 0.000 Error 155 1654.4 10.7 Total 156 10435.6 Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev Level N Mean StDev ----------+---------+---------+------ FASCI-EN 120 36.838 3.244 (*) FASCIA-P 37 19.216 3.343 (-*-) ----------+---------+---------+------ Pooled StDev = 3.267 24.0 30.0 36.0 Implementation Workplan Permanent / Before/After Interim Actions Who/When Indicators Concern C11298746 Robert Bryer 0.2 Cpk (B) Revised Sable Fascia (AAP-PVT) 1.2 Cpk (A) and sheet metal for In production additional clearance. Jan., 2002 Concern C11272097 Steve Hornby 1.2 Cpk (B) Redesigned muffler (PTSE D&R) 2.0 Cpk (A) assy aid to meet design March, 2002 y and z specification. All trails successful, see sample size above. All actions and parts in house and implemented, March 5th, 2002.

Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification Data requires solid statistical evidence using adequate sample size showing the fix is permanent. Example of Weibull Plotting B10 Life Improvement Example of hypothesis testing. U152 Explorer wind noise level is significantly improved. Noise Level (Base vs Modification) Two Sample T - Test and Confidence Interval Two sample T for Rr Base vs Rr Verif . N Mean StDev SE Mean Rr Base 22 34.46 1.40 0.30 29 32.27 1.31 0.24 95% CI for mu Rr Base : ( 1.41, 2.96) T Test Rr Base = ( not =): T = 5.69 P = 0.0000 DF = 43 Mean is at the Target of 32 Sones P Value is less than .05 Therefore, there is a statistical difference between means 3 8 6 X = 3 . 2 S L 7 u e 3 7 l 3 6 Modification V a 3 5 a l 3 4 u 3 3 d i i 3 2 v 3 1 B a s e l i n e d n I 3 2 9 2 8 S u b g r o u p 1 2 3 4 5

Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Examples – Verification with Durability Data DYNO: SAE J2521 & Simulated LACT operating conditions Example of APG Durability Reliability Analysis Cumulative Incidents vs Cumulative Mileage 2 4 6 8 10 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Cumulative Test Mileage / Vehicle Cumulative Incidents / Vehicle APG or CAE/Lab test can be used for this Slot) Less is better

Extra Slide (if required) WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) Additional Improve Phase Example – Workplan detail timeline chart WORKPLAN DETAIL TIMELINE CHART An overall plan showing improvement timelines for implementing containment, interim and permanent corrective actions. Develop a work plan is to include detailed course of actions to fix the problem, including permanent/ engineering/process/quality actions, Plant trial schedule and sample size, next step after the trail, etc Example - Work Plan

D M A I C R CONTROL X’s CONTROL PANEL (Minimum requirements): Graphical (SPC Charts) or analytical proof showing that the process is in control over time, using internal indicators. What actions are taken to sustain the gains? (Example: Standard Operating Procedure changes (including control plan), permanent design or tooling change, etc.) Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Control material) Process or Design FMEAs Control Plans for Process and Gage Statistical Process Control Standard Operating Procedures Visual Factory Preventative Maintenance Prevent Recurrence Poka Yoke / Mistake Proofing Document special cause actions (Global 8-D), as necessary.

VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles D M A I C R CONTROL X’s VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler August 27, 2002 L66 (Exhaust System Trouble) warranty trend chart for 2002 Sable Containment 10/17/02 Fascia Change 1/2/02 Muffler Aid Revised 3/1/02

DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Extra Slide (if required) D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Total Warranty Spending and Unexpended Warranty Savings: Unexpended roadmap opportunities for all affected model year coverage periods: Warranty-spending savings with roadmap actions: Top spending parts for this CCC: (for each part, please explain) Problem fixed in production Optimized solution availability Supplier is in Warranty Reduction Program What are your unexpended roadmap opportunities for ’00, ‘01, ’02, and ’03 MY? What is your warranty-spend savings with road map? What are your top spending parts for this CCC? For each part: Is the problem fixed in production? Is there an optimal solution? Labor time: More efficient repair process, special service tool Part pricing: Does it meet 70% guideline? Other: Efficient repair procedure (part vs. subassembly) Improved diagnostics-reduced TNI, Policy changes, Customer education to prevent failure Does the supplier participate in Warranty Reduction Program (WRP)? Yes No Yes No Yes No

D M A I C R REPLICATE REPLICATION PANEL (Minimum requirements): Who else at Ford could be affected or could benefit? (Replication at another Plant or on another vehicle line?) Are there any larger business unit or even global intellectual capital effects? (SDS, FMEAs, VDS, etc. in need of updates?) After 6 months, is the process still in control and the improvement in Y and X sustained? (Control Charts, Proof from Warranty or GQRS, etc.) Additional Tools: (add slide(s) to capture backup Replicate/End material) SPC, Control Charting

D M A I C R REPLICATE VRT: Powertrain / Fuel VFG: V44 - Mechanical Malfunction CCC: L66 - Exhaust System Troubles VEHICLE: 2001 Taurus/Sable PART: 5230 Muffler REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Key Actions Is this Replicable? If Yes, Where? Responsibility Design Change to Assembly Aid Yes, at sister Plant (CAP) Chicago, ILL Orlando Ventura Design Change to Fascia No, specific to Taurus/Sable design UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?): Core Book Change Made Owner Document # Completed Attribute FMEA Design FMEA Process FMEA SDS Changed clearance specs. Dan Valle ER-0039 ver 11 8/2/2002 VDS FDVS <other specify here> PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: Re-validated Process in Control Process Owner (8/27/02 Randy Wright-Atlanta Assembly Plant) Improvement Data proves sustainment ( 8/27/02 Capability – 0 DPMO, Cpk=2.82) AWS Analysis indicates Financial Data Sustained ( Warranty Savings = $152,000/yr, 2.1 R/1000 )