tm 1 ©the mcgraw/hill companies, inc.,2006mcgraw/hill juran’s quality planning and analysis for...
TRANSCRIPT
TM 1
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Juran’s Quality Planning and Analysisfor Enterprise Quality
INTRODUCTION
The Road Map to Enterprise Quality
TM 2
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
RadicalChangeIncrementa
lChange
Breakthrough ThinkingVARIOUS NEEDS…
Carry-overModules
Check Inspect Quality
Control Revise
Fix as FailSelf-Inspection
Quality Improvement
Lean Manufacturing
Process flow revisions
"As-is" Minor
modifications
5S Root Causes
are not always identified
Best-in
-Class
Best-in
-Class Customer
Focused Re-Design Creative thinking Innovation Six Sigma Benchmarking New technology
TM 3
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Using the Road Map Maximizes the Probability of Success and Avoids the “Flavor of the Month” Syndrome
Decide
Prepare
Launch
Expand
Sustain
Time
Organization/Partner
Yes toDeployment
-Up Front Planning-Establish Infrastructure-Executive Onboard
- Initial Training- Pilot Projects
- Expand Training across the organization- Transition Training from Juran to Client
- Integrate, Audit, Measure, Assess, Review, Inspect, Focus
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
TM 4
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Phase One (Decide) Starts With The Questions—Do We & How Do We Pursue The Transformation?
1. Learn about the transformation methodology2. Assess your organization status to identify strategies
and the goals3. Integrate and align “quality” goals into business plan 4. Determine if how the transformation initiative will be
integrated with other methodologies and initiatives already in the organization
5. Identify desired scope of change (e.g., spectrum of deployment- business unit, company-wide?)
6. Discuss other initiatives and their impact on resources7. Determine preliminary scope, goals and business case
for deploying the change system and make decision to deploy
8. Select an external partner to help deploy the changes needed and keep you on track
Decide
Prepare
Launch
Expand
Sustain
TM 5
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES
ENABLERSQuality Systems
INFLUENCERSCulture
MARKET/CUSTOMERS
(Loyal Customers)
DR
IVE
RS
ST
RA
TE
GIC
PL
AN
RE
SU
LTS
• Product Development
• Production
• Supply Chain Management
• Order Fulfillment
• Support Processes
• Etc.
KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES
ENABLERSQuality Systems
INFLUENCERSCulture
MARKET/CUSTOMERS
(Loyal Customers)
DR
IVE
RS
ST
RA
TE
GIC
PL
AN
RE
SU
LTS
• Product Development
• Production
• Supply Chain Management
• Order Fulfillment
• Support Processes
• Etc.
Conduct A Comprehensive Organizational Review
TM 6
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Phase Two (Prepare) Builds On The Reviews And Sets Up The Organization For Success
1. Establish infrastructure Identify the Change Initiative LeaderForm the Executive CouncilForm other Steering Committee(s)
2. Establish the initiative GoalsAssure they are aligned to company goalsFinalize business case
3. Conduct HR planning4. Address finance issues5. Develop and begin implementation of the communications
plan InternalExternal
6. Identify and select pilot projects for training and beyond7. Begin Developing a Balanced Business Scorecard8. Establish appropriate metrics and initiative tracking9. Finalize Deployment Plan
Decide
Launch
Expand
Sustain
Prepare
TM 7
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Phase Three - Launch
Action Item
1. Train onboard remainder of management team Champions Other managers
2. Conduct pilot training and projects
3. Support and monitor projects Juran Champions Executives
4. Measure and review progress5. Review lessons learned6. Make decision – Go/No Go?
How Partners Can Help
1. Executive and Champion training, mentoring and coaching
2. Employee training, mentoring and coaching
3. Project support4. Establishment of key metrics5. Analysis of progress6. Input into decision process
Decide
Launch
Expand
Sustain
Prepare
TM 8
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Phase Four - Expand
Action Item
1. Modify original deployment plan based upon lessons learned and current thinking
2. Expand (per revised deployment plan) Other organizational units Other geographics More “experts” More projects Additional training (Design for
Six Sigma, Master Black Belt, etc.)
Other3. Communicate success of pilots
and ongoing projects4. Maintain robust project and
selection process5. Establish objectives for
Executives and Employees6. Measure, review and inspect7. Transition training from Juran to
Client MBB
How Partners Can Help
1. Executive and Champion training, mentoring and coaching
2. Employee training, mentoring and coaching
3. Transition planning and implementation
4. Train-the-Trainers5. Licensed materials
Decide
Launch
Expand
Sustain
Prepare
TM 9
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Goals Reviews& Audits
PeopleKey
BusinessProcesses
There are four dimensions for successful integration of the intended Change into the life of an organization.
TM 10
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Phase Five - Sustain
1. Conduct audits and take action as appropriate2. Continue to assess culture and act on gaps3. Measure, review and inspect4. Stay focused on the customer and the bottom line5. The most critical cross-functional processes are managed
best by permanent cross-functional business process management teams led by a formal process owner.
6. Strategic goals for the organization must include measurable, stretch goals related to such areas as customer loyalty, product performance, competitive performance, costs of poor quality, and internal quality culture.
7. Upper managers must personally review and audit progress toward quality goals.
8. All employees must be trained to know what is expected of them, know how they are doing with respect to those expectations, and have the skills, tools, and authority to regulate their work to meet the expectations.
Decide
Launch
Expand
Sustain
Prepare
TM 11
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 1-1
TM 12
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 1-3
TM 13
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 1-4
TM 14
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 2-1
TM 15
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 2-2
TM 16
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 2-3
TM 17
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 2-6
TM 18
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-3
TM 19
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-5
TM 20
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-6
TM 21
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-8
TM 22
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-9
03 GB Measure Data Collection - 5 All Rights Reserved, Juran Institute, Inc.
GENERATING INFORMATION VS. PLANNING FOR DATA COLLECTION:
Information Needs
Analysis
DataCommunication
Questions
TM 23
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 3-10
01 OB GB Analyze Foundations - 13 All Rights Reserved, Juran Institute, Inc.
EXAMPLE: DATA COLLECTIONPLAN FOR SHIPPING SHORTAGES
Shippingshortagespreadsheet
Six sigmateammembers
Completedload sheets
Selectedcustomers byplant forapproximately2-3000 unitsshipped perplant.
Y = Discrete
X = Discrete
Chi-Square
Shortagerate is notindependent ofSupervisor.
Shortagerate isindependent ofSupervisor.
Is there adifference inshortagerate bySupervisorof the cellthat shippedthe product?
2
Shippingshortagespreadsheet
Six sigmateammembers
Completedload sheets
Selectedcustomers byplant forapproximately1500 unitsshipped perplant.
Y = Discrete
X = Discrete
Chi-Square
Shortagerate is notindependent of type ofproduct.
Shortagerate isindependent of type ofproduct.
Is there adifference inshortagerate by typeof product?
The shortageproblem issystematicthroughout theentireloading/shippingprocess
1
HAHO
RemarksHow WillData BeRecorded
Who WillCollectData
Where ToCollect Data
Sample Size,Number ofSamples
Description/Data Type
ToolsTo BeUsed
Where Applicable, StateThe Null and AlternativeHypotheses
List OfQuestionsThat MustBeAnsweredTo TestEachSelectedTheory
Theories To BeTested (SelectedFrom The C-EDiagram, FMECA,and/or FDM)
Ref.
TM 24
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Pareto Diagram – Total Finish Defects
6 15 68 95146206262 0.8 1.9 8.511.918.325.832.8
100.0 99.2 97.4 88.8 76.9 58.6 32.8
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Defect
CountPercentCum %
Per
cent
Cou
ntPareto - Total Finish Defects by Type
FOCUS
CONCLUSION: Dirt in Finish, Blisters, and Contamination are most frequently occurring finish defects on all
frames.
Fig. 3-p111
TM 25
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Cause-Effect Diagram for Dirt
DIRT IN FINISH
Material
Dirty Frames
Air Born Particles
Open Exhaust Ducts
Dust Settling
Open Doors/Windows Warm Weather
Unused Equipment Pipes/DuctsAir Born Particles
Air Make up
House Keeping
Standard Procedures
Dirty Filters
Preventative Maint.
Prev. Maint.
Std Proc.
Open Flash
Fans Unfiltered Air
Dust Collection
Inadequate Draw
Maint. Inadequate Size
Clogged Ducts
Paint Build-up
Booth Ventilation
Fan Maint. Stack Unclean
Over Spray
Fluid Pres Air Pres
Neg Pres
Environment
Flash Tunnel Dirty
Poor MaintInadequate Access
Procedures
Ovens Dirty
Poor Maint.
Inadequate AccessProcedures
Dirt in Air
Top Coat Booth Dirty
Reciprocator
OverSpray
Maint/CleaningProcedures
Primer Booth Dirty
ReciprocatorOverspray
Maint/CleaningProcedures
Floor DryWater Leaks
Not Cleaned
Equipment
Conveyor Debris
Paint Chips
Paint Scraper
Poor Maint Procedures
Dirt on SubstrateInadequate Blow-off
Lack of Procedures Handling
Operators
Dirty Hands
Food
Clothes
Top Coat
Dirt
SupplierDirty Drum
Drum SealerPoor Filt
Maint.
Blown FilterProcedure
Process
Repair/Sanding Debris
Repairs close to Paint Booths
Layout
Inadequate Dust Collection
Procedure
Procedures Dirt in Air
Fig. 3-p112
TM 26
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Cause-Effect Diagram for Blisters/Contamination
EQUIPMENT
PROCESS
SUPPLIEDFINISH
MATERIAL
PUTTY
SOLVENT USEDIN PUTTY
PUTTYCONSISTENCY
DRYTIME
TYPE OFPUTTY
CHEMICAL REACTIONOF PUTTY TO
OTHER MATERIALS
WATER
CALCIUM
SULFURPALM OIL
SILICONEWAX
AIR KNIFE CONDENSATION
CONVEYORWASH
TOP COATWATER FALL
SIR LINES
CRAYON
CHLORINE
ROANOKEWATER
FOODSWEAT
SOLVENT
RETURN LINESOLVENT
FLUSH - ROUTING COLOR CHANGE /START-UP
COMPATIBILITY
SILICONELUBRICANT
RECIPROCATORGREASE
AIR KNIFE OIL
CONTAMINATION
EDGE COATOVERSPRAY
EDGE COATSPRAY BOOTH
NORTHREPAIR
EDGE COAT USEDTO COVER PUTTY
PERSONAL ITEMS
DUSTSANDING
OTHERDUST
OVENMAKE-UP
AIR
BLISTERS
FILMBUILD-UP
TOP COATBOOTH
LOOSEFITTINGS
INCOMPATIBLEFITTINGS
SPRAYGUN
AIR INFLUID LINES
LOWMATERIAL
OVERAGITATION
OVERSPRAY
PUMPS
FLUIDSUPPLY
AIRSUPPLY
REGULATORS
GUN TIPS /AIR CAPS
AIR FILTERSIN PRIMER
BOOTHFLUID
FILTERS
PRIMER
DAY TANK
AIR INPICK-UP TUBE
OTHERPIPING
PLASTIC LINERIN DAY TANK
AIR MOVEMENTIN FLASH TUNNEL
PRIMER BOOTH
PRIMER RECLAIMSYSTEM CONVEYOR
WASHER
VACUUMSYSTEM
WATERRECLAIM SYS.
OVEN(SEALER)
TIME &TEMP.
OVEN(TOP COAT)
TIME &TEMP.PRIMER FLASH
HUMIDITY
TEMP.TIME
OVERSPRAY FROMEDGE COAT
VARIATION INVISCOSITY
EXPIREDCATALYZEDMATERIAL
DEGREE OFCROSS-LINKING
OVER TIME
RE-SANDS
RE-RUNS
# OF COATSPRIOR TORE-RUN
SUBSTRATE TEMPBI-PASSING OVEN
PRIMER FLASH
LACK OF FORCEDFLASH ON PRIMER
LACK OFPRE-HEATING
WOOD
IMPROPER CATALIZATION
TOP COATAPPLIED TO COLDSUBSTRATE
SOLVENT
TYPE:SLOW / FAST
PUTTY
SANDING LOCATION
APPLIED OVERUNCURED PRIMER
LACK OF DOCUMENTEDPROCEDURES
IMPROPERPROCEDURES
WATERPRIMERTANKS
FILTERS
TOP COATFLASH
TIME &TEMP
WET(UNCURED)PRIMER
COOL DOWN AS ITDICTATES FORMULATIONS
TIME &TEMP.
VENTILATION
WOODVARIATION
POROUSWOOD
MINERALSTREAKS
SUBSTRATETEMP.
MOISTURECONTENT
DRUMISSUES
DRUMCONTAMINATION
TIME INSTORAGE
DRUM COATINGCONTAMINATION
CONDENSATION
WATER INDUCEDTHROUGH
BUNG HOLE
MATERIALISSUES
BLOCKINGAGENTS
AIRENTRAINMENT
PROCESS FILTERINGAT FILL
PROXIMITY TOEDGE COAT
VISCOSITYVARIATIONRESIN
VARIATION
CHEMICAL REACTIONBETWEEN MATERIALS
RoofLeak
Fig. 3-p113
TM 27
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Test of Theory X3
Analysis:
Normality Test: Ho: data is normalHa: data is not normal
Results: P values: .000; Reject null, data is not normal.
Test for Equal Variance:Ho: 2 = 2
Ha: 2 > 2
Results: P= .018; reject the null, variances are not equal.
Compare Medians – Mann WhitneyHo: medians are equalHa: Medians are not equal
Results: P= .003; Reject the Null, Medians are not equal.
Conclusion: Gram Weight level does effect blister ratios.
Theory: Variation in gram weight for film build affects the occurrences of blisters.Ho: Median Blister ratio @ Gram Wt. level 1 is = to Median Blister Ratio @ gram wt. 2
151050
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas
h
l
151050
Boxplots of Raw Data
Blister Rati
P-Value : 0.018
Test Statistic: 5.765
Levene's Test
P-Value : 0.000
Test Statistic: 8.066
F-Test
Factor Levels
l
h
Test for Equal Variances for Blister Ratio
Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Blister Ratio_h, Blister Ratio_lBlister N = 6 Median = 3.750
Blister N = 133 Median = 1.100Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 2.400
95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (0.903,3.901)W = 704.0
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0033The test is significant at 0.0032 (adjusted for ties)
Fig. 3-p116
TM 28
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Test of Theory X6
Analysis:
Theory: Blisters occur more frequently right after solvent flush than during normal run.Ho: The occurrence of blisters is independent of solvent flush.
Conclusion: Fail to reject Ho, Blister occurrence is independent of production before solvent flush vs right after solvent flush.
Chi-Square Test: Before Flush, After Flush
Expected counts are printed below observed counts
Before F After Fl Total 1 14021 931 1495
14015.23 936.77
2 252 23 275 257.77 17.23
Total 14273 954 15227
Chi-Sq = 0.002 + 0.036 + 0.129 + 1.933 = 2.100
DF = 1, P-Value = 0.147
Fig. 3-p116
TM 29
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Improvement StrategyBlisters D.O.E.:• 24 Factorial, Half Fractional, 8 Runs
• Develop method to Apply Forced Air through Flash Tunnel
Description/Data TypeSample Size,
Number of Samples
Where To Collect Data
Who Will Collect Data
How Will Data Be Recorded
Remarks
1 On 12 13.8 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135
2 On 13.8 12 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135
3 Off 13.8 12 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 145
4 Off 12 13.8 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 145
5 Off 12 12 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135
6 On 13.8 13.8 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 145
7 Off 13.8 13.8 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors /Green Belts
Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135
8 On 12 12 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production
Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 145
D.O.E. Run #
Primer Flash Wind Setting (Fans)
Data To Be CollectedPrimer Gram Weight
SettingTop Coat Gram Weight
SettingTurn (Frame) Temp
Fig. 3-p117
TM 30
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Blisters Before vs After Improvements
Analysis:
Is the occurrence of blisters after improvements significantly better (lower) than blisters before improvements?Ho: Blister occurrence is independent of improvements made.
Conclusion: Occurrence of blisters is not independent of improvements made (after is lower)
P is <.05, Reject Ho.
Chi-Square Test: Blisters: Before, After ImprovementsExpected counts are printed below observed counts Before After Total Bad 16133 348 16481 14302.61 2178.39 Good 225176 36405 261581 2.27E+05 34574.61Total 241309 36753 278062 Chi-Sq =234.245 +1.5E+03 + 14.759 + 96.901 = 1883.883DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000
Fig. 3-p117
TM 31
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Contamination Before vs After Improvements
Analysis:
Is the occurrence of contamination after improvements significantly better (lower) than contamination before improvements?Ho: Contamination occurrence is independent of improvements made.
Conclusion: Occurrence of contamination is not independent of improvements made (after is lower).
P is <.05, Reject Ho.
Chi-Square Test: Contamination Before, AfterExpected counts are printed below observed counts Before After Total Bad 6695 1219 7914 6189.36 1724.64 Good 398862 111788 510650 3.99E+05 1.11E+05Total 405557 113007 518564Chi-Sq = 41.309 +148.248 + 0.640 + 2.298 = 192.494DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000
p118
TM 32
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Project Results (Baseline vs. Target vs. Achieved)
BASE LINE COPQ:$ 2X per Yr.
First Run Yield: 85%
Capability: PPK = .35
DPMO: 146247
Sigma Level: 2.6 (Finish Defects)
TARGET COPQ: $ X per Yr.
First Run Yield: 90%
Capability: PPK = .44
DPMO: 91293
Sigma Level: 2.8(Finish Defects)
ACHEIVED COPQ: Saved more than target savingsFirst Run Yield: 92.5%
Capability: PPK = .48
DPMO: 75368
Sigma Level: 2.9(Finish Defects)
Fig. 3-p118
TM 33
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 4-3
TM 34
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 4-4
TM 35
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Fig. 4-6
TM 36
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN
Product/Process Design Concept Idea
Critical-to-Quality (CTQ)Requirements
CTQ
Identify Product/ServiceFunctions and Processes
Develop Functional/Process Requirements
DevelopAlternative Design
1
3
2
AssessDesign Alternatives
Criteria
Alternatives
SelectOptimum Alternative
Develop High-Level Design
Product Service Process Facilities Human Information Equipment Materials
Measure Target Spec Limits
DesignRequirements
Product/DetailedService DesignRequirements
Product/DetailedService DesignRequirements
DetailedProduct/ServiceDesignPhase
Assess Capability of DesignFinalize
Requirements
GO
RedesignNO GO
DesignReview
DesignReview
Develop Best-fit Design
Develop Best-fit Design
Fig. 4-7
TM 37
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGNOptimum Design
Functions/Processes
Product/Process Concept
Alternative#1
Alternative#2
Alternative#3
Generate/Evaluate
CapabilityAnalysis
OptimumAlternative
Alternative#4
Fig. 4-8
TM 38
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
HOW DESIGN MATRICES ARE USED IN THE THE
HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN PROCESS
Critical-to-ProcessVariables (HOWS)
Des
ign
Req
uire
men
ts(W
HA
TS
)
Design Req’ments(HOWS)
Fun
ctio
nal R
equi
rem
ents
(WH
AT
S)
FunctionalReq’ments (HOWS)
CT
Qs
(WH
AT
S)
Identifyproduct/service orprocess to bedesigned/redesigned (customer requirements)
Functional analysis
Functions identified and orderof functions established
Function
Develop design alternatives,choose the optimum alternative, choose best fit, andallocate functional requirements
Develop detaileddesign requirements
Function
CTQs(HOWS)
Cus
tom
er R
equi
rem
ents
(WH
AT
S)
Fig. 4-9
TM 39
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
SPREADSHEETS IN HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN
Functional Block DiagramFunctional Block Diagram
Cu
sto
me
r N
ee
ds
Cu
sto
me
r N
ee
ds
CTQ’sCTQ’s
CTQ TargetsCTQ Targets CT
Q’s
CT
Q’s
Customer Sat. Customer Sat. Features (Functional Features (Functional
CharacteristicsCharacteristics))
Functional Functional TargetsTargets
Cu
sto
me
r C
us
tom
er
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Fe
atu
res
Fe
atu
res
Design Design AlternativesAlternatives
Design Design Alternative Alternative
TargetsTargets
Des
ign
D
esig
n
Alt
ern
ativ
es
Alt
ern
ativ
es
Key Product Key Product Processes Processes
Process Output Process Output (KPOV)(KPOV)
Process Flow DiagramProcess Flow Diagram
Process FMEAProcess FMEA
Optimum Alternative Optimum Alternative (High-Level Design)(High-Level Design)
Selection Matrix
Design AlternativesDesign AlternativesSelection Selection CriteriaCriteria
Fig. 4-10
TM 40
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Process/Step/
Output
Process CTQ/Design Requirements
LSL
USL MeanStd. Dev.
Short or Long-Term
DPMO# Times Applied
DPU
Short-Term Sigma (ZST)
Local/Long Distance Telephone Company
Service Availability 1 0.0003 4.9
Electric Utility
Service Availability 1 0.0001 5.2
Credit Service Bureau
Credit Checks
Cycle Time 45 min. 15 min. 10 min. 1 0.0014 4.5
Correct Information Provided
60,000 8 0.48 3.1
Appraisal Service
Collateral Check
Cycle Time 480 min. 460 min. 30 min. 1 0.25 2.2
Correct Collateral Assessment
80,000 6 0.48 2.9
Express Mail Service
Delivery Service
Cycle Time 24 hrs. 18 hrs. 2 hrs. 3 0.0014 4.5
Correct Delivery 1,000 3 0.003 4.6
Total Opportunities 2.4
Function DPU 1.22
Function DPMO 50,675
Function ZST 3,1
DESIGN SCORECARD EXAMPLE
Fig. 4-11
TM 41
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
MODEL
Detaileddesign
Control andverificationplan
Pilot buildand test
PrototypingPrototyping
Scale-up
ResultsOK?
DocumentationDocumentation
Transition PlanTransition Plan
ImplementationPlan
ImplementationPlan
Project “closure” for the design team may occur at various points in the Verify step:
Post-Pilot Testing—After the design has been validated via pilot testing.
Limited Implementation—After a full scale, but limited implementation of the product/process/service (i.e., one state, country or market region).
Full Implementation—Complete implementation of the product/process/service across all markets.
Project “closure” for the design team may occur at various points in the Verify step:
Post-Pilot Testing—After the design has been validated via pilot testing.
Limited Implementation—After a full scale, but limited implementation of the product/process/service (i.e., one state, country or market region).
Full Implementation—Complete implementation of the product/process/service across all markets.
Project “closure” for the design team may occur at various points in the Verify step:
Post-Pilot Testing—After the design has been validated via pilot testing.
Full-scale buildand implementation
DeployDeploy
Transition to ProcessManagement
CTQ
ResultsOK?
Redesign
Redesign
Yes
Yes
No
No
Fig. 4-12
TM 42
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
SIPOC (High Level Process Map)
SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER
Product Engineering Data- Component drawing- Models
- Subassembly structures
Print out • Plant QA Manager• Customer Care Support• Engineering
Retrieval
Retrieval Process is the focus of our
DFSS solution
Current Process (AS/400 MRP & AutoEDMS)
Question Locate DRW # View Drawing
Fig. 4-13
TM 43
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Weig
hte
d R
ank
Perc
ent
Customer Group
Count19.0 6.6 3.8
Cum % 45.1 70.5 89.6 96.2 100.0
341 192 144 50 29Percent 45.1 25.4
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Graphical Analysis of Customer Priority
Pareto of Customer Prioritization
Critical Customers
Fig. 4-14
TM 44
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Quality Function Deployment
CU
ST
OM
ER
NE
ED
S
(Ba
se
d o
n S
urv
ey
re
su
lts
)
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f In
form
ati
on
Sp
ee
d t
o R
etr
iev
e
Ea
se
of
Re
tre
via
l
Fo
rma
t
Need Weighting 592 343 275 260
Component Plant 341 201872 116963 93775 88660Product Engineering 192 113664 65856 52800 49920
Assembly Plant 144 85248 49392 39600 37440
Totals: 400784 232211 186175 176020
PRIORITIZED CUSTOMERS
(Based on # users in group & Frequency of
Need)Association Table
Customer Wt x Need Wt.Cu
sto
me
r W
eig
hti
ng
Fig. 4-15
TM 45
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Weig
hte
d R
ank
Perc
ent
Customer CTQ Need
Count17.7
Cum % 40.3 63.6 82.3 100.0
400784 232211 186175 176020Percent 40.3 23.3 18.7
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Graphical Analysis of CTQ Priority
The Vital Few CTQs
Critical CTQs
Fig. 4-16
TM 46
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Baseline CTQ Capability AnalysisDrawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim
Lookup)
Drawing Access
Perc
ent
151050-5
99
95
90
80
70
605040
30
20
10
5
1
Mean
<0.005
4.816StDev 4.138N 28AD 3.022P-Value
Probability Plot of Drawing AccessNormal
Alpha: 0.05
Ho: Data is Normal
Ha: Data is not Normal
P-value: <0.005, therefore reject Ho.
Data is Not Normal.
Conclusion: Use 1 sample Wilcoxon for data statistical analysis
Conclusion: Baseline capability based on 500000 DPMO is 1.4 sigma
201612840
TargetUSLProcess Data
Sample N 28Mean 4.81571
LSL *
Target 1.70000USL 3.30000Sample Mean 4.81571
Overall CapabilityPp *
PPL *PPU -0.00Ppk -0.00
Observed PerformancePPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 535714PPM Total 535714
Exp. Overall PerformancePPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 503961PPM Total 503961
Baseline Capability - Drawing AccessCalculations Based on Exponential Distribution Model
Fig. 4-18
TM 47
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Baseline CTQ Capability Analysis Drawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim
Lookup)Customer Expectations are 1.70 minutes or faster to access and print a drawing, from CTQ Survey. Is the current system running at the customers expectations? This is the Primary CTQ on our design scorecard. See Appendix A for survey data analysis.
Conclusion: The current system is not meeting customer expectations
Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes
Ha = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes
Alpha = 0.05
Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes
Ha = Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes
Alpha = 0.05
P value = .000 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes
P value = .000 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes
Fig. 4-19
TM 48
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Design Scorecard
LSL USLInformation is Accurate
0 Errors (6 Sigma)
Fast Retrieval
0sec 3.3 min 4.82 min (1.4 Sigma)
Easy Retrieval (minimal inputs)
8 12 17 (0 Sigma)
Easy to Interpret Format (number of line weights)
2 4 1 (0 Sigma)
0 Errors (6 Sigma)
High Level Capability
Feature Capability (from Verification
Testing)
Spec/Target
CTQs
Description
Current Capability
Fig. 4-20
TM 49
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
Re
trie
ve
Sp
ec
s b
y P
art
n
um
be
r
Dra
win
gs
Re
trie
va
ble
by
L
ate
st
Re
vis
ion
Mu
ltip
le L
ine
We
igh
ts o
n
Dra
win
g H
igh
Pri
nt
Qu
ali
ty
Re
ad
ily
Ac
ce
ss
ible
Att
rib
ute
In
form
ati
on
on
D
raw
ing
(S
pe
cie
s/C
olo
r e
tc)
3D
Re
pre
se
nta
tio
n o
f C
ab
ine
t
Ca
pa
ble
of
Sto
rin
g L
eg
ac
y
Da
ta/D
raw
ing
s
Easy to Interpret (Format) c 2 c 1 g 3 c 1 g 3 c 2 c 1 13 g 3 Strong Relationship
Fast Retrieval g 3 c 1 c 1 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 2 12 c 2 Moderate Relationship
Minimal Number of Inputs From user
g 3 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 11 c 1 Weak Relationship
Information is Accurate g 3 c 2 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 10
11 7 6 6 6 5 5
Functions
KEYCTQs
QFD Flow Down
CTQs were derived and ranked from surveys; Functions developed by addressing complaints made by customers using the current system.
Fig. 4-21
TM 50
©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill
3D Representation 3D Representation of Cabinetof Cabinet
3D Representation 3D Representation of Cabinetof Cabinet
Multiple LineMultiple LineWeights on DrawingWeights on Drawing
Multiple LineMultiple LineWeights on DrawingWeights on Drawing
Easy to InterpretEasy to Interpret(Format)(Format)
Easy to InterpretEasy to Interpret(Format)(Format)
Attribute InformationAttribute InformationOn DrawingOn Drawing
Attribute InformationAttribute InformationOn DrawingOn Drawing
Dialog Boxes
Link to Component DRW
Web Based Access
Function / Feature Diagram – Easy to Interpret (Format)
3D Cabinet
Web Based Access
Link to Component DRW
Retrieve Specs by Retrieve Specs by Part NumberPart Number
Retrieve Specs by Retrieve Specs by Part NumberPart Number
Dialog Boxes
Web Based Access
Link to Component DRW
FunctionsFunctionsFunctionsFunctions Features
Viewer Customizable
Fig. 4-22