Six Sigma

Sigma (upper case , lower case , lower case in word-final position ; Greek ) is the eighteenth letter of the Greek alphabet, and carries the 'S' sound. In the system of Greek numerals it has a value of 200. When used at the end of a word, and the word is not all upper case, the final form ( ) is used, e.g. (Odysseus) note the two sigma's in the center of the name, and the word-final sigma at the end

The Normal Distribution: an example.

Suppose you must establish regulations concerning the maximum number of people who can occupy a lift. You know that the total weight of 8 people chosen at random follows a normal distribution with a mean of 550kg and a standard deviation of 150kg. What s the probability that the total weight of 8 people exceeds 600kg?

 First sketch a diagram. The mean is 550kg and we are interested in the area that is greater than 600kg. z=(x-m)/s Here x = 600kg, m , the mean = 550kg s, the standard deviation = 150kg z = ( 600 - 550 ) / 150 z = 50 / 150 z = 0.33

 Look in the table down the left hand column for z = 0.3, and across under 0.03. The number in the table is the tail area for z=0.33 which is 0.3707 . This is the probability that the weight will exceed 600kg. Our answer is "The probability that the total weight of 8 people exceeds 600kg is 0.37 correct to 2 figures." Having seen the worked example, calculate for yourself the answer to the question: What s the probability that the total weight of 8 people exceeds 640kg?

 Having seen the worked example, calculate for yourself the answer to the question: What s the probability that the total weight of 8 people exceeds 640kg?

 1 Sigma = 690,000 defects per million 2 Sigma = 308,000 defects per million 3 Sigma = 66,800 defects per million

3 Sigma
20000- WRONG PRISCRIPTION 15000- BABIES ACCIDENTALLY 2000- LOST MAIL/HRr 500-INCORRECT SURGICAL OPERATION NO ELECTRICITY AND WATER FOR NINE Hr S/yr

Origin Invented by Motorola in the early 1980s as a metric & quality management methodology Goal Strives for near-perfect quality Utilizes measurement & statistics to track important data

Origin
Bill Smith did not really "invent" Six Sigma in the 1980s; rather, he applied methodologies that had been available since the 1920s developed by luminaries like Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Ohno, Shingo, Taguchi and Shainin. All tools used in Six Sigma programs are actually a subset of the Quality Engineering discipline and can be considered a part of the ASQ Certified Quality Engineer body of knowledge. The goal of Six Sigma, then, is to use the old tools in concert, for a greater effect than a sum-of-parts approach.

Six Sigma
What is Six Sigma? A vision of quality which equates with only 3.4

defects per million opportunities for each product or service transaction A management philosophy & methodology Six Sigma should be viewed more as a business strategy than as a quality program Focus on process improvement and customer quality Widely applicable & broad

Doing the math 6 Sigma = 3.4 defects per million 5 Sigma = 230 defects per million 4 Sigma = 6,210 defects per million 3 Sigma = 66,800 defects per million 2 Sigma = 308,000 defects per million 1 Sigma = 690,000 defects per million

 In real world situations, the process distribution will not always be centered between the specification limits, process shifts to the right or left are not uncommon. It can be shown that even if the process mean shifts by as much as 1.5 standard deviations from the centre, the proportion of nonconforming will be about 3.4 ppm.

 Comparing this to a three-sigma capability of 2700 ppm demonstrates the improvement in the expected level of quality from the process. If we consider a product containing 1000 parts and we design it for six-sigma capability, then an average of 0.0034 defect per product unit (3.4 ppm) is expected, instead of the 2.7 defects expected with three-sigma capability.

 The cumulative yield from the process will thus be about 99.66% - a vast improvement over the 6.72% yield in the three-sigma case.

 One might wonder why a process shift of 1.5 sigma would be allowed. Since many common statistical process control plans are based on sample sizes that only allow detection of shifts of about 2 , it would not be unusual for a process to drift this much and not be noticed.

Six Sigma-Methodologies
DMAIC : Improvement methodology for existing processes and performance Define : Define project goals and customer deliverables based on Voice of Customer Measure: Measure the process to evaluate current performance with respect to customer requirements

 Analyze: Analyze and determine the root cause(s) of the problem Statistical analysis performed Improve : Devise and evaluate solutions ,pilot the chosen solution and compare performance Control: Implement control plans and sustain desired performance

Six Sigma -Methodologies (Cont d)

DMADV : Methodology of the design of new process, products or services, with a six sigma capability and performance Define : Define the scope of the project and initiate the project Measure : Measure customer needs and specify the CTQ parameters

Analyze : Analyze the concepts that meet customer needs (CTQs) Design : Develop a detailed design with respect to the customer needs and identify control plans Verify : Test and verify design performance with respect to customer CTQs

 A quality level of 3.4 defects per million can be achieved in several ways, for instance: With 0.5-sigma off-centering and 5 sigma quality With 1.0-sigma off-centering and 5.5 sigma quality With 1.5-sigma off-centering and 6 sigma quality.

DMAIC is define-measure-analyze-improve-control in the six sigma approach to projects. DMAIC six sigma approach. The six sigma approach for projects is DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control). These steps are the most common six sigma approach to project work. Some organizations omit the D in DMAIC because it is really management work. With the D dropped from DMAIC, the Black Belt is charged with MAIC only in that six sigma approach. We believe define is too important to be left out and sometimes management does not do an adequate job of defining a project. Hence, six sigma approach is the full DMAIC.

Define (DMAIC)
Define is the first step in six sigma approach of DMAIC. DMAIC first asks leaders to define core processes. It is important to define the selected project scope, expectations, resources and timelines. The definition step in the six sigma approach identifies specifically what is part of the project and what is not, and explains the scope of the project. Many times the first passes at process documentation are at a general level. Additional work is often required to adequately understand and correctly document the processes. As the saying goes The devil is in the details.

Measure (DMAIC) Many think when they start a journey the most important thing to know is where they are going. While we agree knowing where you want to go is very important, we believe some of the first information you need before starting any journey is your current location. The six sigma approach asks the Black Belt project manager to quantify and benchmark the process using actual data. At a minimum, consider the mean or average performance and some estimate of the dispersion or variation (may be, even calculate the standard deviation). Trends and cycles can also be very revealing. The two data points and extrapolate to infinity is not a six sigma approach. Process capabilities can be calculated once there is performance data,

Analyze (DMAIC)
Once the project is understood and the baseline performance documented and verified that there is real opportunity, it is time with the six sigma approach to do an analysis of the process. In this step, the six sigma approach applies statistical tools to validate root causes of problems. Any number of tools and tests can be used. The objective is to understand the process at a level, sufficient to be able to formulate options for improvement. We should be able to compare the various options with each other to determine the most promising alternatives. As with many activities, balance (no. of activities vs depth of analysis) must be achieved. Superficial analysis and understanding will lead to unproductive options being selected, forcing recycle through the process to make improvements. At the other extreme is the thorough analysis of only a few activities. Striking the appropriate balance is what makes the six sigma Black Belt highly valuable.

Improve (DMAIC) During the improve step of the six sigma approach ideas and solutions are put to work. The six sigma Black Belt has discovered and validated all known root causes for the existing opportunity. The six sigma approach requires Black Belts to identify solutions. Few ideas or opportunities are so good that all are an instant success. As part of the six sigma approach there must be checks to assure that the desired results are being achieved. Some experiments and trials may be required in order to find the best solution. While making trials and experiments, it is important that all project associates understand that these are trials and really are part of the six sigma approach.

Control (DMAIC)
Many people believe the best performance you can ever get from a process is at the very beginning. Over time, there is an expectation that slowly things will get a little worse until finally it is time for another major effort towards improvement. Contrasted with this is the Kaizen approach that seeks to make everything incrementally better on a continuous basis. The sum of all these incremental improvements can be quite large. As part of the six sigma approach performance tracking mechanisms and measurements are in place to assure, at a minimum, that the gains made in the project are not lost over a period of time. As part of the control step we encourage sharing with others in the organization. With this the six sigma approach really starts to create phenomenal returns, ideas and projects in one part of the organization are translated in a very rapid fashion to implementation in another part of the organization.

Examples of six sigma projects: 1. six sigma project: rail car cycle time. Define: Eliminate paying extra demurrage charges on rail cars. Measure: Paying over four days demurrage on some rail cars. Any demurrage charge over the allowed is a defect. Analyze: Rail car traffic, switch engine schedule, rail company operating rules, operating company procedures, spotting procedures. Improve: Changed sequences of handling empty and full cars. Modified loading times by less than 2 hrs. Result is essentially no demurrage, over the allowed, for the entire site. Control: Rail company changed procedures and operating company changed scheduling practices.

2. Six sigma project: chemical plant bottleneck. Define: Distillation tower has internal damage limiting production rates. Next outage is scheduled in one year. If outage taken now to repair damage we will still have to take outage in one year because of parts delivery for other essential projects. Measure: At anything over 85% of capacity the distillation tower will not perform. With six months of effort, Operations Engineers and Process Engineering could find no solution other than to take an early outage. Anything less than 100% capacity is considered a defect. Analyze: Identified key operating variables, established allowable ranges for each, and conducted a Designed Experiment. Improve: A single set of conditions allowed operations at 102% of capacity without problems. At that level another part of the plant became the bottleneck. Increased capacity until scheduled outage worth $6million. Control: All shift operators were trained for new conditions and the operations procedures were modified.

3. Six sigma project: retail display. Define: Marketing has designed a "fancy" display unit that they think will outperform the "standard" display unit and they want to put one in every store. "Fancy" display is 10X cost of a "standard" display and all stores already have "standard" units. Should the new displays be purchased. Measures: Have data for each store on sales of this product for every day. Analyze: The stores identified at least three other factors besides display type that could impact sales. Range for each factor was identified. Design of Experiments was conducted. Improve: "Fancy" display had no significant impact on sales. The "fancy" displays were not ordered for any more stores, with considerable cost savings. Control: Future changes will be tested and evaluated using statistical techniques.

4. Six sigma project: water treating. Define: Water treating unit in 15 years had never been able to handle the nameplate capacity. Treatment chemical costs were higher than other types of treatment units. Measure: Confirmed flow rate through the system vs. nameplate. Analyze: Measure system evaluation and found many measurements that were off by over 100%. Hourly operations identified key variables in the operation of the unit and the acceptable range of each. Conducted three different Designed Experiments. Improve: Corrected the measurement problems. Found set of operating variables that produced 107% of nameplate capacity at higher quality with lower chemical use. Chemical use reduced by $180K per year. Control: Hourly operations trained, procedures modified, process to check measurement instituted. Model for changes in inlet water conditions.

5. Six sigma project: power distribution reliability. Define: Large chemical site had significant losses due to power outages. Measure: Dollar value determined for each failure and the total. Each failure was assigned to a major component. Analyze: Mapped the entire system by major component and identified failure rates for each major component. Found areas with projects scheduled that were very unlikely to fail and would add nothing to overall reliability. Other components were being ignored and had a highly likelihood of causing an outage. Improve: Developed plan for each component depending upon failure mode and frequency for that component. Made a 10X reduction in the dollar losses due to power failures on site. Control: Track each major component and modify action plan based on failure mode if needed. System shared with other locations.

6. Six sigma project: redundant analysis. Define: Analysis is being conducted at two and three locations for the same product with different results from each location. Capital requests from multiple area for the same analysis for the same material. Measure: For each analysis collected the corresponding results from each location. Totaled the capital request for analysis where they were already being done or duplicate requests for the same analysis. Analyze: In some cases the methods were the same and the brand of instrument the same, some had the same type of instrument but different brand and different procedures, in others different types of instruments were being used. Found over calibration of most instruments. Sources of variation for each type of analysis were investigated using Design of Experiments. Improve: Real time telemetry of data eliminated some redundancy. For other analysis correlation curves had to be developed to show the equivalent values for different methods and agreement was reached to use one analysis and share the results. Totally eliminated the significant capital request for analysis. Control: Modified capital authorization request procedure. Control charts for each analysis to determine when to calibrate.

7. Six sigma project: new capacity justified. Define: Contract to deliver product at a minimum rate on a daily basis. Severe penalties if rate missed by even a small amount. Customer "good will" also an issue. Measure: Capacity of units in the system more than the minimum rates. Collected failure rate data for each unit and time to repair. Analyze: Failure rate data combined with the time to repair data indicated that there were significant periods of time when the minimum contract rates could not be met and penalties would be paid. Improve: Capital approved for an additional unit. Within the first year the new unit was required at least four separate times for several weeks each time to meet the contract minimums. Any one of the four times returned enough cash to pay for all of the capital expended. Control: System to track and monitor failure data and repair time data.

8. Six sigma project: people selection. Define: Why is there such a difference in the sales performance of people? Measure: Top people have 10X volume of the bottom 25%. Failure to meet sales quotas is a defect. Analyze: Education, training, time in job, product line, sales area, profiles. Improve: Able to identify by profile 72% of the top sales people. Use this tool to select new people into this function. Control: Use profiles for new hires and continue to monitor performance levels.

9. Six sigma project: parts failing after final machines. Define: Inspection is rejecting a high number of parts after final machines. Measure: Product yield was determined and number of defects in total to establish defect yield and sigma value. Analyze: Machine operators, engineers and vendor identified variables that could impact the production of defects. Range of acceptable levels determined for each variable. Five different Designed Experiments were conducted. Improve: Operating instructions changed to the conditions with the lowest defect production consistent with capacity limits. Final product yield increased 13%. Control: Control charts installed for each machine. Decision tree corrective action plan provided for known defects and known corrective actions.

10. Six sigma project: out of specification product. Define: Amount of product out of specification (spec) and being automatically removed is high. No recycle or salvage value. Measure: Quantified the amount of out of spec product for each product grade. Analyze: Operations and Engineers identified the variables that impact the production of out of spec material. Several of these are preventive actions performed by operations. Ranges for the levels and frequencies for the variables were determined. Designed Experiments were run and acceptable levels and frequencies determined. Improve: Levels for the variables and frequencies for operator preventive actions established. Out of spec material dropped by 50%. Control: Operating procedures were modified, schedules for operator corrective actions instituted, and control charts for the amount of out spec material are being kept.

11. Six sigma project: engineering changes Define: Large number of changes from client after approving engineering design. Schedule slipping. Measure: Number of changes, time involved in changes, compliance to critical path schedule. Analyze: No clear authority on client team to establish scope, any of client team could make changes, verbal communication of changes, conflicting changes by client team members. Language issues between client and engineers. Improve: Regular engineering/client meetings where topics included: scope for each section and desired objective, known limitations defined, unclear requirements were questioned and options discussed. Written plan signed by client representative and engineering lead. Change requests in writing and signed by client representative. Changes decrease by factor of 4.7 and schedule met. Control: Change requests all in writing. Shared approach with other disciplines on project.

12. Six sigma project: web design. Define: Design a web site that ranks in the top ten (10) on all major search engines and directories. Measure: Enter "six sigma" and check ranking in search engines. Analyze: URL name, title of pages, and other factors are major ranking criteria. Reciprocal links and other routine activities aid in search engine ranking. Improve: Purchase URL with six sigma included, optimize each page, develop reciprocal links, and perform other regular activities required to maintain traffic and ranking. Control: Monitor ranking on search engines weekly. You can check on the success of this project by entering "six sigma" in the search field of your favorite search engine. The titles and descriptions may vary , the URL link is the performance measure.

Implementing Six Sigma Quality at Better Body Manufacturing

D
Define

Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Overview
ABC Incorporated (ABC) is not achieving Six Sigma quality levels for all critical Body-Side Sub-Assembly dimensions as requested by their customers.
200000 150000 DPM

Dimension ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_3Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y ASM_6Y

DPM 172475 85824 19786 3874 776 4

100000 50000 0 AM S _7Y AM S _8Y AM S _3Y AM S _9Y AM S _10Y AM S _6Y

Ensure that all critical body-side subassembly dimensions are within Six Sigma quality levels of 3.4 DPM. Cp u2.0 and Cpk u1.67. Determined the correlation between body side and assembly dimensions. Evaluated the significance of Tonnage > 935 for ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y. Conducted a DOE for Clamp position for ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y. Change tonnage to > 935 to correct ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y Set clamp position to location 2 for ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y Re-machine A-pillar die to correct A_3Y and ASM_3Y

Problem Statement & The Goal

D
Define

ABC Incorporateds customer wants ABC to apply Six Sigma problem solving methodology to insure that the body side subassembly is achieving Six Sigma quality levels of less than 3.4 defects per million for all critical body side subassembly dimensions. ABC needs an improvement strategy that minimizes the rework costs while achieving the desired quality objective. ABCs goal is to produce module subassemblies that meet the customer requirements and not necessarily to insure that every individual stamped component within the assembly meets it original print specifications sub-system optimizations vs. local optimization.
A-Pillar Reinforcement Body Side Outer B-Pillar Reinforcement

+ +

Measure Phase
Key Variables:

M
Measure

Assembly process variables: Weld Pattern (density), Clamp Location, and Clamp Weld Pressure Stamping process variables (body side): Press Tonnage, Die Cushion Pressure, Material Thickness

Body Assembly Dimensions ASM_1Y through ASM_10Y Assembly Dimensions with Highest Defects
200000
172475
DPM

150000

100000

85824

50000
19786 3874 776

0 ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_3Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y ASM_6Y

Analyze Phase
Resolution alternatives (based upon past experience): 1. Make adjustments to assembly process settings 2. Reduce variation of components through better control of stamping process input variables 3. Rework stamping dies to shift component mean deviation that is off target and causing assembly defects

A
Analyze

Target Performance Level: All ten critical assembly dimensions at Six Sigma quality level of e 3.4 DPM. Cp u2.0 and Cpk u1.67 Fish Bone and P-Diagrams: Understanding potential causes of defects. From this we pick the assembly and component dimensions that require further analysis

Analyze Phase
Environment Quality Component Variability Gage R&R Yield Strength Humidity Temperature Operator Inspection Process Clamp Weld Pressure Weld Pattern (density) Clamp Location Methods Training Body Assembly Material Thickness Elastic Limit Materials Machine Die Cushion Pressure Press Tonnage

A
Analyze

For our analysis we will do a DOE to check for levels that contribute to better quality product.

Control Variables
Clamp Location Press Tonnage Weld Density Die Pressure Clamp Pressure

Inputs
Material Thickness Yield Strength

Body Side Sub-Assembly Stamping Process

Outputs
Body Side Sub-Assemblies at Six Sigma quality levels

Noise Variables
Environment Inherent Variation

Error States
Dimensional defects

Analyze Phase
Analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y
Run Chart for ASM_7Y
1.0 1.0

A
Analyze

Run Chart for ASM_8Y

ASM_7Y

ASM_8Y

0.5

0.5

0.0 0.0

12

12

Subgroup Number
Number of runs about median: Expected number of runs: Longest run about median: Approx P-Value for Clustering: Approx P-Value for Mixtures: 4.00000 7.00000 5.00000 0.03464 0.96536 Number of runs up or down: Expected number of runs: Longest run up or down: Approx P-Value for Trends: Approx P-Value for Oscillation: 6.00000 7.66667 3.00000 0.10778 0.89222 Number of runs about median: Expected number of runs: Longest run about median: Approx P-Value for Clustering: Approx P-Value for Mixtures:

Subgroup Number
4.00000 7.00000 5.00000 0.03464 0.96536 Number of runs up or down: Expected number of runs: Longest run up or down: Approx P-Value for Trends: Approx P-Value for Oscillation: 8.00000 7.66667 2.00000 0.59781 0.40219

XY Plot of ASM_8Y and ASM_7Y

Conclusion: BS_7Y and ASM_7Y are following a similar trend. A correlation chart to study this further shows high correlation. (Pearson correlation, R of 0.701).

1.0

ASM_7Y

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

ASM_8Y

Analyze Phase
Capability Capability of B_7Y Analysis of B_7Y
Process Data USL Target LSL Mean Sample N 0.70 * -0.70 0.11

A
Analyze

Capability Capability of BS_7Y Analysis of BS_7Y

USL
Process Data USL 0.700000 Target * LSL Mean Sample N StDev (Within) -0.700000 0.899444 36 0.149640

LSL

LSL

USL

0 DPM

Within Overall

698416 DPM

Within Overall

36 StDev (Within) 0.0788122 StDev (Overall) 0.0791215

StDev (Overall) 0.383691

Potential (Within) Capability Cp 2.96 CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 2.95 2.49 3.41 2.49 2.50 3.43 2.50 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk 1.56 -0.44 3.56 -0.44 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 0.61 -0.17 1.39 -0.17
1.3

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Observed Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Observed Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 666666.67 666666.67

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 908706.09 908706.09

Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL 15.33 PPM > USL PPM Total 698400.06 698415.39

XY Plot of ASM_7Y and BS_7Y

BS_7Y

Conclusion: B_7Y has 0 ppm compared to ~700K DPM in BS_7Y. Furthermore, BS_7Y shows strong correlation on dimension ASM_7Y. (Pearson correlation, R of 0.786).

1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.5

ASM_7Y

Analyze Phase
XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y
1.5

A
Analyze

XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y

BS_7Y

1.0

0.5

905

915

925

935

945

Tonnage

Conclusion: Tonnage values above 935 greatly improves BS_7Y and brings it closer to the mean. Lets see what impact this has on ASM dimensions 7Y, 8Y, 9Y, and 10Y by creating a subset of the data looking only at Tonnage > 935.

Analyze Phase
Impact this has on ASM dimensions 7Y, 8Y, 9Y & 10Y on Tonnage
Capability Analysis of ASM_7Y at Tonnage > 935
Process Data USL Target LSL Mean Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall) 1.00 * -1.00 0.09 12 0.163174 0.147855

A
Analyze

Capability Analysis of ASM_8Y at Tonnage > 935

USL
Within Overall
USL Target LSL Mean Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall) Process Data 1.00000 * -1.00000 -0.12833 12 0.101825 0.089161

LSL

LSL

USL
Within Overall

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 2.25 2.05 2.46 2.05 2.04 1.86 2.23 1.86 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk 3.27 3.69 2.85 2.85 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 3.74 4.22 3.26 3.26

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Observed Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.01 0.01

Observed Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance 0.00 PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Capability Analysis of ASM_9Y at Tonnage > 935

Process Data 1.00000 * -1.00000 0.52083 12 0.206010 0.177098

Capability Analysis of ASM_10Y at Tonnage > 935

Process Data

LSL

USL
Within Overall
USL Target LSL Mean

LSL
1.00 * -1.00 0.39

USL
Within Overall

USL Target LSL Mean

Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall)

Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall)

12 0.215541 0.187663

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 1.88 0.90 2.86 0.90 1.62 0.78 2.46 0.78 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk 1.55 0.94 2.15 0.94 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 1.78 1.08 2.47 1.08

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 3408.51 3408.51

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 576.00 576.00

Observed Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 10010.77 10010.77

Observed Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL PPM Total 2326.72 2326.72

Conclusion: Setting Tonnage to greater than 935 resulted in ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y meeting the goal of <3.4 DPM. ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y require further analysis.

DOE for Response Variable ASM_9Y DOE factorial analysis shows Clamp Position is the only significant factor in determining ASM_9Y dimension DOE Response Optimization for ASM_9YLocation Clamp Location 2 Location 2 Weld Density (welds per X inches) 1.33 1.33 Set Clamp Position to Location 2Clamp Pressure1) (level 2100 psi 2100 psi Optimizer recommends setting Weld Density to 1.33 weld per inch (level 1), but this appears to be a robust parameter, which could be changed for the benefit
Input Variable Proposed ASM_9Y Setting Proposed ASM_10Y Setting

Analyze Phase

A
Analyze

of process without reducing quality if processing time or cost shows a benefit. Optimizer recommends setting Clamp Pressure to 2100 psi (level 1), but this appears to be a robust parameter, which could be changed for the benefit of process without reducing quality if processing time or cost shows a benefit. Run additional tests at recommended settings to confirm results Weld Density and Clamp Pressure are robust parameters and can be set to optimize the process capability to maximum level and lowest cost.

Analyze Phase

A
Analyze

DOE for Response Variable ASM_10Y DOE factorial analysis shows Clamp Position is also the only significant factor in determining ASM_10Y dimension DOE Response Optimization for ASM_10Y Setting clamp to location 2 also improves ASM_10Y Recommend same settings used to improve ASM_9Y to improve process capability which also allows for no changes to machine setup and helps reduce possible process concerns Run additional tests at recommended settings to confirm results Weld Density and Clamp Pressure are robust parameters and can be set to optimize the process capability to maximum level and lowest cost.

Analyze Phase
DOE for Response Variable ASM_3Y DOE factorial analysis shows that no factors are significant Response Optimization shows no solution for response optimizer Observe Process Capability of A_3Y and BS_3Y ASM_3Y and A_3Y have a similar mean shift in the -Y direction Correlation of Output Variables No dimensional correlations appear to exist between ASM_3Y and A_3Y or BS_3Y Stepwise Regression Analysis of BS_3Y Tonnage and Die Pressure appear to be significant in determining dimension BS_3Y Tonnage values < 920 may improve BS_3Y Die Pressure appears to have no clear correlation to BS_3Y

A
Analyze

Analyze Phase
Process Capability of BS_ 3Y and ASM_3Y at Tonnage < 920

A
Analyze

Created subset of body data looking only at dimensions with Tonnage < 935 Tonnage < 920 appears to improve the mean of BS_3Y slightly, but has no impact on improving the mean of ASM_3Y.
Capability Analysis of ASM_3Y
Die remachined to move mean +0.80

Capability of A_3Y and ASM_3Y with +0.80 mm mean offset Manipulate data for A_3Y and ASM_3Y by +0.80 mm to simulate re-machining Process capability shows 0 defects for A_3Y and ASM_3Y with this mean offset

Process Data USL Target LSL Mean Sample N 1 * -1 0 36

LSL

USL
Within Overall

StDev (Within) 0.0851436 StDev (Overall) 0.0971725

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 *

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0
Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Analyze Phase
Conclusions From the analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y we can conclude that:

A
Analyze

Setting tonnage > 935 results in ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y meeting the goal

Analyzing ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y helps determine that:

Setting clamp position to location 2, weld density to 1 weld every 1.33 and clamp pressure to 2000 psi helps with dimensions ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y

Analyzing ASM_3Y helps us conclude that:

Re-machine A-Pillar die to move A_3Y to nominal which could cause BS_3Y to shift towards nominal effectively shifting ASM_3Y to nominal

Analyze Phase
Dimension Mean ASM_1Y ASM_2Y ASM_3Y ASM_4Y ASM_5Y ASM_6Y ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y -0.035 0.259 0.000 0.009 -0.330 -0.284 0.090 -0.128 0.521 0.395 StDev Overall 0.165 0.152 0.097 0.115 0.145 0.160 0.148 0.089 0.180 0.191 DPM_Obsv DPM_Within DPM_Exp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2.90 2.30 2.08 2.25 3.74 2.87 1.54 1.49 2.05 3.26 3.53 3.72 2.24 2.04 3.27 Pp 2.01 2.20 Ppk 1.94 1.63 Cp 2.47 2.31

A
Analyze

With the recommended changes the process performance will improve significantly
Cpk 2.39 1.71 3.50 2.50 1.60 1.86 2.85

Improve Phase
Recommendations for improving the process:
Set Tonnage to above 935 to improve ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y Set Clamp to Location 2 to improve ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y

I
Improve

Re-machine the A-Pillar die to move the mean of A_3Y to nominal which in turn

will move ASM_3Y to nominal

Implement the above recommendations and run additional samples to verify results.

Control Phase
Recommended controls :
Implement a gauge on the body side component press to monitor tonnage Implement an alarm and shut-off feature on the body side press if tonnage

C
Control

falls below 935 tons

Implement poke-yoke clamping fixture that ensures clamp is always in

Position 2
Establish an affordable control plan for ongoing monitoring of the 10

critical assembly dimensions.

Summary
ABC Incorporated is not achieving Six Sigma quality levels for all critical Body-Side Sub-Assembly dimensions as requested by their customers. BBM needs to apply Six Sigma problem solving methodology to establish an improvement strategy that minimizes rework costs, yet achieves the desired quality objective. Bring the key process output variables within Six Sigma quality level of Cp u2.0 and Cpk u1.67 Set Tonnage to above 935 to improve ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y Set Clamp to Location 2 to improve ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y Re-machine the A-Pillar die to move the mean of A_3Y to nominal

3.4 DPM.

Implement a gauge on the body side component press to monitor tonnage Implement an alarm & shut-off feature on body side press if tonnage falls below 935 Implement poke-yoke clamping fixture that ensures clamp is always in Position 2 Establish control plan for ongoing monitoring of the 10 critical assembly dimensions.

Bank of America SS Experience

Goals
# 1 in Customer Satisfaction Worlds most admired company Worlds largest bank

Strategy - Develop business process excellence by applying voice of the customer to identify and engineer critical few business processes using Six Sigma Created Quality & Productivity Division
Source: Best Practices Report

60

Bank of America SS Experience

Wanted results in 1 year; Hired more than 225 MBB & BBs from GE, Motorola, Allied Signal for rapid deployment Developed 2 week Green Belt training programs Introduced computer simulation of processes Trained 3767 Green Belts, certified 1230 - Minimum value target per GB project $ 250K Trained 305 Black Belts, certified 61 - Minimum value target per BB project $ 1 million Trained 43 MBB, 1017 in DFSS 80 % of Executive Team trained in GB and 50 % Certified
61

Bank of America SS Experience

Results of first 2 years: Reduced ATM withdrawal losses by 29.7 % Reduced counterfeit losses in nationwide cash vaults by 54% Customer delight up 20%; Added 2.3 million customer households 1.3 million fewer customer households experienced problems Stock value up 52% Y 2002 BOA named Best Bank in US & Euro money's Worlds Most Improved Bank
62

Quote Time Defect Rate Waste On Time Delivery Inventory; Machine Utilization

Revenue Capital Utilization Return on Assets Profits

Strategically: Used by Leadership as a vehicle to develop sustainable culture of Customer, Quality, Value and Continuous improvement. Operationally: By Quality Managers to reduce cycle times, costs, errors, rework, inventory, equipment downtime. Deployment across all types of processes and industries - worldwide
63

Six Sigma & EFQM/ DQA Framework Enablers

People Results
Satisfaction Involvement

Results

Personally actively Involved in improvement

People

Recognizing People

Developing Team skills

Aligning Individual & Organization Goals

Establishing Process management System to be used

Competency Productivity

Key Perf Results

Gross margins Net profit Sales Market Share

Recognition

Encouraging & enabling people To participate in Improvement

Identifying & designing processes to deliver strategy

Implementing Process Measures

Customer Results
Delivery, Value, reliability Response Time to customers Process cycle time Process costs Defect rates Productivity

Policy & Strategy

Improving processes to satisfy and Generate value For customers

Repurchase satisfaction

Time to Market
Cash flow Maintenance cost Return on assets

Recognizing Individual & Team effort

Partnerships Resources Leadership Processes

Society Results

Utility consumption Timeliness Inventory

Innovation and Learning

64

Who is Implementing Six Sigma

At least 25% of the fortune 200 claim to have a serious six sigma program - Michael
Hammer.

Financial - Bank of America, GE Capital, Electronics - Allied Signal, Samsung, Sony Chemicals - Dupont, Dow Chemicals Manufacturing - GE Plastics, Johnson and Johnson, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft, Ford. Airline - Singapore, Lufthansa, Bombardier And hundreds of others in Americas, Europe, Sub Continent.
65

Six Sigma Results

Company General Electric JP Morgan Chase Annual Savings $2.0+ billion *$1.5 billion (*since inception in
1998)

Motorola $ 16 billion (*since inception in 1980s) Johnson & Johnson $500 million Honeywell $600 million
Six Sigma Savings as % of revenue vary from 1.2 to 4.5 % For $ 30 million/yr sales Savings potential $ 360,000 to $ 1.35 million. Investment: salary of in house experts, training, process redesign.

66

Six Sigma Project Methodology

Project Phases Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Collect data  Analyze data,  Identify, on size of the establish and evaluate and selected confirm the select problem, vital few projects for determinants improvement  identify key customer of the  Set goals requirements performance.  Form teams. ,  Validate  Determine hypothesis key product and process characteristic .

 Improvement  Establish strategy standards to  Develop maintain ideas to process; remove root  Design the causes controls,  Design and implement carry out and monitor. experiments,  Evaluate  Optimize the financial process. impact of the  Final project solutions

67

Six Sigma Case Study Service Organisation

Background M/s Alpha Inc. manages out bound cargo from a distribution centre to different stores. Deliveries made on trucks - owned and hired. Customers dissatisfied at delivery schedules. Leadership decision to deploy Six Sigma; Team of 1 Black Belt and 3 Green Belts formed Sponsor of the project Distribution Manager

68

Define - Critical to Quality (CTQ)

Focus on customers generating annual revenue of USD 400,000/-. Customer needs Level 1 CTQ Level 2 CTQ Level 3 CTQ Improved delivery performance Timely delivery On time delivery to schedule

Delivery within +/- 1 hour of scheduled delivery time Current process sigma level - 2.43 or 175889 DPMO
69

Define - Goal Statement

Reduce number of delayed deliveries by 50 % by 31st December Y 2002 to better meet customer requirement of timely delivery defined as within +/- 1 hour of scheduled delivery.

70

Define - Performance Standards

Output unit Output characteristic Project Y measure A scheduled delivery of freight Timely delivery Process starts when an order is received Ends when goods are received & signed for at customers desk. Process measurement Deviation from scheduled delivery time in minutes. LSL = -60 minutes USL= +60 minutes Scheduled time or zero minutes deviation Delivery earlier or later than 1 hour. 1 opportunity for a defect per scheduled delivery of freight.
71

Specification limits Target Defect No. of defect opportunities per unit

Define - SIPOC Diagram

Supplier Input Process Steps
(high level) Stores Manager Stores Order Receive order Plan delivery Dispatch Driver with goods Deliver goods to stores Receive delivery Received freight with Documents

Output

Store Manager Customer Detailed process maps drawn

72

Measure and Analyze

Driver and Distance identified as key factors influencing delivery performance. Driver selected for focus. Potential root causes as to why Driver influenced the time: Size of the vehicle Type of engine Type of tyres Fuel capacity
73

Improve
Experiments designed and conducted using truck type and tyre size. Findings:
Larger tyres took longer time at certain routes where area was cramped and time lost in maneuvering. High incidence of tyre failures since tight turns led to stress on tyres thus increasing number of flat tyres.

Team modified planning of dispatch process by routing smaller trucks at more restrictive areas.
74

Control
Test implementation. Process sigma level up from 2.43 or 175889 DPMO to 3.94 or 7353 DPMO. Performance still fell short of best in class 4.32 or 2400 DPMO. Improvement led to significant customer satisfaction. Process continually monitored and data on new cycle times, tyre failure collected as per defined methods and frequency, analysed and monitored. Customer satisfaction measured and monitored.
75

Key Lessons Learnt Define

Difficulty in identifying the right project and defining the scope; Difficulty in applying statistical parameters to Voice of the Customers; Trouble with setting the right goals;

Measure
Inefficient data gathering; Lack of measures; Lack of speed in execution;
76

Key Lessons Learnt

Analyse Challenge of identifying best practices Overuse of statistical tools/ under use of practical knowledge Challenge of developing hypotheses Improve Challenge of developing ideas to remove root causes Difficulty of implementing solutions Control Lack of follow up by Managers/ Process Owners Lack of continuous Voice of the Customer feedback Failure to institutionalize continuous improvement.
77

Key Lessons Learnt

Define ranked most important step but gets the lowest resource allocation Project scoping and its definition is critical to its success/ failure; Measure is considered most difficult step and also gets the highest resources

Source: Greenwich Associates Study Y 2002

78

What Makes Six Sigma Different?

Versatile Breakthrough improvements Financial results focus Process focus Structured & disciplined problem solving methodology using scientific tools and techniques Customer centered Involvement of leadership is mandatory. Training is mandatory; Action learning (25% class room, 75 % application) Creating a dedicated organisation for problem solving (85/50 Rule).
79

Benefits of Six Sigma

Generates sustained success Sets performance goal for everyone Enhances value for customers; Accelerates rate of improvement; Promotes learning across boundaries; Executes strategic change

80