QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Simple Tools for Complex Systems

by Amar Raja Thiraviam

oot cause analysis and corrective action tracking are vital elements of any quality improvement initiative. These tasks become even more critical in an organization with complex processes, simply because of the large number of opportunities for failure involved. In such instances, it is common to look for complex solutions to solve the complex problem. Often, all it takes are simple tools like Pareto analyses and

process mapping to reduce the defects of a complex manufacturing process. First, it is important to define the word complex. What is complex to one person may be simple to another. Our definition of a complex process is one with a large number of opportunities for failure.1 In our high-tech manufacturing environment, which produces electromechanical devices, each unit has more than 1,500 opportunities for failure. Of course, the tools explained here can work effectively on any process.

Six Sigma Based Process Maps

In 50 Words Or Less
Simple tools such as process maps and Pareto charts can help correct nonconformances in complex systems. A team in a high-tech manufacturing setting used such tools to achieve significant improvement.

The first tool we used in our case was process mapping. In our Six Sigma based technique, the first step was to understand, identify and define all opportunities for failure in a given manufacturing process. We mapped processes from incoming inspection through shipping, as shown in Figure 1. We knew the root cause of any quality problem can fall into one of three categories: part, process or tool.2 We classified all opportunities into one of the three categories and assigned each a code. Notice the process map also indicates whether the process is value added or nonvalue added and whether the part is electrical, mechanical or software. Such classifications are common in any complex manufac-

40

I JUNE 2006 I www.asq.org

FIGURE 1

The Process Map

Name of the assembly process

Tool code Final assembly two1.2.3 Program oneVIII Test the subassembly using the software program. N2 Install embedded software using program. 4 If the shaft is over size, turn it to spec. N4 Part Code

Cover oneE, cover twoF Use adhesive and torque screws to connect both covers. 5 Torque wrenchIII

PCBA ScrewsB, C Install PCB onto the base using two screws. 6

Wire bundleD Feed wire bundle through the bottom of the hub. 17

turing process and are helpful in analyzing these problems. The system also is designed so frequent revisions made to the product do not affect the tracking and analysis of the root cause data. In Figure 1, value added and nonvalue added processes are differentiated by color as are electrical, mechanical and software parts. Activities like testing (N2) and rework (N4) are labeled as nonvalue added. In a lean manufacturing organization, these types of activities are either eliminated or kept at a minimum.

Process code Vaule added Nonvalue added Software Electrical Mechanical PCB = printed circuit board

Root Cause Coding

The next step was to accurately code the root cause of all nonconformances so they could be analyzed effectively. In this case, Summary of Opportunities for Error TABLE 1 we found the existing root cause coding system was too generic and usually pointMechanical Electrical Software ed to the obvious effect and not the root Total Percentage opportunities opportunities opportunities cause. As these effects tended to manifest 23 0 2 25 54.3% Parts themselves in different ways, this in turn 17 0 4 21 45.7% Process caused the number of cause (effect) codes 40 0 6 46 100.0% Total to continually increase. 87% 0% 13% 100% Percentage The Six Sigma based process maps helped
QUALITY PROGRESS

create an effective replacement to the original cause code system. Several elements of the process map were integrated to form the cause code for each issue. The heading of each process map had a name and code. In the case of Figure 1, it is final assembly two1.2.3. All parts, process steps and tools also had their own codes. These two codes coupled together defined a unique code for each opportunity

I JUNE 2006 I 41

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

for failure in the entire Pareto Charts Vital Few and Trivial Many FIGURE 2 process. Hence, step six in Figure 1 (p. 41) would be Top root causessubassembly assembly 1 to 3July 2005 coded as 1.2.3(6), in which 9 Vital the first three digits repre8 few sent the lower level 7 process, and the number or 6 letter inside the parentheses indicates the opportu5 nity that has failed. 4 So, if we have a quality 3 problem due to a faulty Trivial 2 printed circuit board (PCB) many 1 used in step six, the root cause code would be 0 1.2.3(A). When the screw 1.1.4 (17) 1.1.3 (12) 1.1.3 (8) 1.1.4 (E) 1.1.4 (XII) 1.1.2 (17) 1.1.1 (28) 1.1.1 (12) is faulty, the code would Cause be 1.2.3(B). Similarly, each Engineering team Production line employees incident can be investigatTop five causes ed and assigned to one of 1.1.4 (17)Installation of bearing the unique codes in the 1.1.3 (12)Installation of harness process maps. 1.1.3 (8)Shaft AB20 Table 1 (p. 41) shows a 1.1.4 (E)Bearing 5001 summary of the process 1.1.4 (XII)Software program X map. This gives us useful information about the nature of the production process and the types of components involved. Similarly, an incoming nonconformance in a PCB In a lot of situations, it wasnt feasible to map all will be coded as 1.2.3(A)!, whereas a design failure the processes. In these cases, we mapped only the will be coded without any special characters. This manufacturing processes and not the supporting technique also forces us to identify the root cause processes such as purchasing and planning. We and not the blatant symptoms or effects. also developed a list of other codes to categorize the issues whose root causes were not mapped: Monitoring the Progress 99.1: material shortage. Parts per Million Levels 99.2: inventory management. The three-digit assembly code (1.2.3) in the root 99.3: customer related. cause code helped identify the contribution of sev 99.4: other. eral lower level assembly processes to the overall The severity and nature of the quality problems process nonconformance level. Because the process often vary widely, and it is always better to differmaps are based on opportunities for failure, it is entiate the cause by the nature and magnitude of logical to use Six Sigma metrics such as parts per the quality problem. For example, we may want to million or sigma levels. More common metrics also distinguish between cosmetic and functional qualican be used. ty problems. We added special characters to the Table 2 (shows how the process map codes are process map code to facilitate this. For example, if categorized by the lower level assembly processes. there is a small scratch in the PCB (Figure 1) it This type of analysis helps us get the information would be coded as 1.2.3(E)-, whereas a functional on each of the subdivisions and focus our correcelectrical failure in the PCB would be coded as tive and preventive actions in the right areas. 1.2.3 (A) without any special characters.
42

I JUNE 2006 I www.asq.org

Count

TABLE 2

Pareto Chart at Individual Station

Parts per million (PPM) levels by stationJanuary 2005 Number of Total Categories nonconformities opportunities/unit Module assembly one 1.1.1 25 158 Module assembly two 1.1.2 0 5 Module assembly three 1.2.1 | 1.2.2 | 1.2.3 | 1.2.4 7 182 Module assembly four 1.2.5 | 1.2.6 | 1.2.7 4 120 Module assembly five 1.3.1 | 1.3.2 1 84 Module assembly six 1.4.1 27 93 Subassembly one to three 1.5.1 12 83 Subassembly two to six 1.6.1 | 1.6.2 6 97 Subassembly one to three 1.4.3 47 38 Final assembly one 1.7.2 1 34 Final assembly two 1.7.3 0 27 Cal/cert 1.9.1 | 1.9.2 | 1.9.3 1 25 EQC 1.12.1 | 1.12.2 | 1.12.3 1 52 Shipping 1.11.1 | 1.11.2 0 97 Total 132 1,294 Units produced this month Cal/cert = calibration/certification. EQC = environmental quality control. 38

PPM 4,164 0 1,012 877 313 7,640 3,805 1,628 32,548 774 0 1,053 506 0 2,684

Target PPM 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 773 1

Target quality problems per unit

Pareto AnalysisThe Vital Few And Trivial Many

Subsequently, we used another simple tool, a Pareto analysis, on quality problems of each of the lower level assembly processes. This analysis helped the engineering team focus on the vital few problems against the trivial many. But it is important to remember you need to pay attention to the trivial many issues as well in a continuous improvement environment.3 We achieved this with a unique approach. The individual production teams had monthly meetings in which they discussed recent quality problems. The focus, though, was on the trivial many issues that could be solved by simple techniques that didnt require technical expertise. Thus, engineering worked on one side of the Pareto analysis, solving complex technical problems, while production employees worked from the other end of the Pareto analysis, solving simple quality problems (Figure 2). This increased involvement and created

a sense of teamwork among the employees. To further increase awareness, we published and posted Pareto charts in production cells. This also created a visual factory environment. Table 2 shows an example of a Pareto chart at an individual station.

Tracking the Effectiveness Of Corrective Actions

If root cause analysis makes or breaks a quality improvement project, the corrective action tracking technique makes it complete. Hence, it is important to verify corrective actions and ensure they are effective. We can do this just by monitoring the reoccurrence of the same problem in subsequent periods. In our case, the root causes were identified by a unique process map code, so finding reoccurrence was as easy as doing a simple search in the spreadsheet or database where the information was stored. At the end of each month, the subject matter experts documented the corrective actions taken against each root cause that occurred more than
QUALITY PROGRESS

I JUNE 2006 I 43

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

TABLE 3

Corrective Action Tracking Matrix

Root Cause Analysis MatrixSeptember 2004 Purpose: To track the effectivness of corrective actions based on the process map cause code analysis Scope: Production quality problems Number of Cause(s) Effect(s) Actions taken Responsibility Sign off occurences Total Prodn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Cause code Assembly one 1.1.4(N12) 1.1.1(B)! 1.1.1(B)!1.1.1(A)! 1.1.3(6) Assembly two 1.2.1(30) 1.2.1(B)! 1.2.4(10) 1.2.4(9A) Assembly three 1.2.5(N7) 1.2.5(D)+ 1.2.7(D+) 1.2.6(D+) Calibration one

manufacturing efforts in the company. We identified the nonvalue added activities and expressed them as a fraction of total opportunities. This helped us critically examine the need for each activity, eliminate waste and work toward lean processes. It also helped create a visual factory environment and increase employees awareness of quality problems in their own areas and other areasthus showing them the ramifications of their actions. The process maps also provided valuable input into design and process failure modes and effects analysis. This system of root cause analysis and quality improvement was effective and rewarding in the kind of complex system common in high-tech industries. It has helped us meet the increasingly tough customer requirements and standards demanded in critical areas.

once that month. This information was stored in the root cause analysis matrix (Table 3). After 60 days, these incidents were reviewed again by searching for reoccurrence of the same issues. Reoccurring issues are considered open items, and expansive quality plans or problem solving projects may be developed to solve them.

REFERENCES

1. Allen Sajedi, discussions with author in May 2003, August 2003 and February 2004. 2. Joseph M. Juran and A. Blanton Godfrey, Jurans Quality Handbook, fifth edition, McGraw-Hill Professional, 1998. 3. Kenneth Stephens, lecture at the University of Central Florida, Quality Design and Control class, spring 2003. AMAR RAJA THIRAVIAM is a quality engineer for Ocean

Breakthrough Improvements
A structured method like this allows us to review all issues and ensure they are addressed. In this case, the project resulted in more than 60% reduction in nonconformance levels and helped the organization reach breakthrough improvements. The root cause analysis matrix included root cause, effects, actions taken, frequency and effectiveness. This facilitated the existing solution search process and made sure the knowledge gained through root cause analysis was retained and made available to appropriate locations. This system also provided feedback for the lean
44

Design Inc. in Ormond Beach, FL. He earned a masters degree in engineering from the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Thiraviam is a member of ASQ and a certified Six Sigma Black Belt.

Please comment
If you would like to comment on this article, please post your remarks on the Quality Progress Discussion Board at www.asq.org, or e-mail them to editor@asq.org.

I JUNE 2006 I www.asq.org