Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
":'f'~
,
"
...... .
..............
;"
~/'/
"
'';;'
1. Cost of Quality
2. Time Series Graph
3. Control Chart
4. Process Capability
5. Taguchi's Loss Function
6. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
,d
:..
~.-
_T~
.but\on
l'
"
16
g?
'
12
8
0>
Product A
'E
8c 4
o
Z
ttela\
----.
---,---.-,..--,--.--.,---...,-..---,
2
3
Quarters
'le pre
the o'
or e
is e(
nple P
.1t
'j
0.08
2..
~
0.06
s freq'
)'/ usir
0.04
al coni
.r '}
0.Q2
LCL
f~ ,'~
>
t. Tal
) I 1-'
.f" . .,'
2. CJ
"t
3. C:
4. C
5
Subgroup number
wh~
y.
LSL
USL
('f
~A
......
:2
.3
o
............ ,
1:~A
'""'!""":
.,.
1:
\..
".-
:.t
U~r
speciticmion
(optional location) - - - - - - - ,
veL
I ---
X;-,--I- - - : : -
"~~
LCL
(a) Seven consecutive
poinrs above
or below
~:t=.L
u~c ~==;zs=:
LCL
LCL
~~--~--
Xo
\:..---
.I
Distribwio-
__ ~:fT~yem:~
"
~-----~-
Control
po,nts in outer
quarter
3(7,(
I
!'roc.55
I,
I '
limits
capability
3(7
_l
Di:otribulion of
individuil! values
-t------1~-1l
There are some common q~o ask when investigating an out-of-control process:
Lower specirication
(optional location) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LSL
The true process capability cannot be determined until the X and R charts have
achieved the optimal quality improvement without a substantial investment for new
equipment or equipment modification, When the process is in statistical control. process
capability is equal to 60', where 0' = Rold 2 and d1 is a factor from Appendix Table A. In
the example problem. it is
It is advisable to develop a checklist for each process using these common questions
as a guide.
V
--------'
Process Capability
--
Control limits are established as a function of the avera es-in other words. control lim
i;;efor average;;. Sp,!;CI Icauons. on the ot er and. are the permissible variation in the
size of the part and are, therefore. for individual values. The specificallon or tolerance
limits are established by design engineers to meet a particular function. Figure 18-23
shows that the location of the specifications is optional and is not related to any of the
other features in the figure. The control limits, process spread (process capability), dis
tribution of averages, and distribution of individual values are interdependent. They are
determined by the process, whereas the speCifications have an optional location. Control
charts cannot determine if the process is meeting specifications.
R=
2:
= Rid,
4.
J:::=
nD.
of
)'O\J~
l.,
,;5
USl
LSL
20t
Tolerance
Capabiliry
I I
101
STATISTICAL PROCESS CO
---01 Be-t-)
_ Min {(USL
A Cpk value of 1.00 is the de facto standard. with some: orgunizutiolllllsln,ll value of
1.33. Figure 18-25 illustrates Cp and Cpk values for processes thlllnfe Cl!IItCfCI.! lind 0110
off center by Icr.
o f.-..---t
13.09
13.15
13.21
Hole location
13.27
~mm
LSL
CC]'
~~,
Xo
Cp =
Remember that !his technique does not give the true process capability and should be
used only if circumstances require its use. Also. more than 25 subgroups can be used to
improve accuracy.
The relationship of process capability and specifications is shown in Figure 18-24.
Tolerance is the difference between the upper specification limit (USL) and the lower
specification limit (LSL). Process capability and the tolerance are combined to form a
capability index. defined as
Cp
where
Cf' >1
,(p t.. I
X) or (X - LS,:ll
30
Cr, -
USL - LSL
6cr
,,~
LSL
Xu
1.33
Cpt'" 1.00
'"\1
I-
L/\J
Xo
LSl
USL
Cp '" 1.33
Cp' = 1.33
USL
I-
ro
=,
_
Xn
tSL
Cp '" 1.00
Cp' = 1.00
USl
~ro\1
USL
Cp '" 1.00
Cpi< '" 0.67
60'-1
~
If the capability index is greater than 1.00. the process is capable of meeting the spec
ifications; if the index is less than 1.00. the process is not capable of meeting the speci
fications. Because processes are continually shifting back and forth. a Cp value of 1.33
has become a de facto standard, and some organizations are using a 2.00 value. Using
the capability index concept. we can measure quality, provided the process is centered.
The larger the capability index. the better the quality. V(.e should stri ve to make the ca
p.:;?i1ity index as large as possible. This result is accomplished by b..aving realistic spec
ificatiws and continual striving to improve the process capability.
The ;;;;'pability index. does not measure process performance in terms of the nominal
or target value. This measure is accomplished using Cpk' which is
I~
LSI:.
Xo
USL
~6cr
~L/)J
LSL
Cp =0.67
Cpt :0.67
Figure 18-25
Xu
USL
Cp =0.67
C". = 0.33
~~-"'--J
,.~
a,.
.
Comments concerning CI' and Cpk are as follows:
I. The Cp value does not change as the process center changes.
'2. Cp = Cpk when the process is centered.
fr:;
Replicate
<}
Taguchi's Quality
Engineering
16. Reduce the full fact rial experiment in Exer se 14 to a three-factor f ctional fac
lorial experiment y using your experien and personal judgmen For instance.
eliminate the fa r-factor interaction an some of the two- and ee-factor inter
.ct a table similar to T Ie 19-12.
i;
forth)
Introduction
Most of the body of knowledge associated with the quality sciences was developed in
the United Kingdom as design of experiments and in the United States as statistical qual
ity control. More recently, Dr. Genichi Taguchi, a mechanical engineer who has won
four Deming Awards, has added to this Jx>dy of knowledge_ In particular, he introduced
the loss function concept. which combines cost, target, and variation into one metric
with specifications being of secondary importance. Furthermore. he developed the con
cept of rob\1stness. which means that noise factors are taken into account to ensure that
the system functions correctly. Noise factors are uncontrollable variables that can cause
significant variability in the process or the product.
f.;.'
Loss Function
Taguchi has defined quality as the loss imparted to society from the time a product is
shipped. Societal losses include failure to meet customer requirements, failure to meet
ideal performance. and harn1ful side effepts. Many practitioners have included the losses
due to produCtion, such as raw material. energy. and labor consumed on unusable prod
uCts or toxic by-products.
1be loss-to-socieiy concept can be illustrated by an example associated with the pro
duction of large vinyl covers to protect materials from the elements. Figure 20-1 shows
three stages in the evolution of vinyl thickness. At (I), the process is just capable of
Producer's loss
+ Customer's loss
lSL
r----
14
-- luny -llpI"
_.~ ,sOnY-USA
I
LSL
USL
distribution was normal and centered .on the target. The distributien of the Sony-USA
was unifQrm between the specifications with no values .outside specificatiQns. It was
clear that custemers perceived quality as meeting the target (Japan) rather than just meet
ing the specificatiens (USA). Ferd MQtor Company had a similar experience with
transmissiQns.
,
Out of specification is the commQn measure of quality less. Although this concept
may be appropriate fer accQunting. it is a poor concept fer all other areas. It implies that
all products that meet specifications are good, whereas thQse that de nQt are bad. From
the customer's PQint .of view, the prQduct that barely meets specificatiQn is as geed (.or
bad) as t.. .le product that is barely .out of specificatiQn. It appears the wrQng measuring
system is being used. The less function CQrrects fQr the deficiency described abQve by
cembining CQst, target. and variatiQn into .one metric. /
meeting the specifications (USL and LSL); however, it is on the target tau, ... 1 After con
siderable effQrt, the productiQn p~ess was imprQved by reducing the variability about
the target, as shown at (2). In an effort to reduce its production costs, the organization
decided to shift the target closer to the LSL, as shown at (3). This action resulted in a
substantial improvement by lowering the cost to the organization; however, the vinyl
covers were not as strong as before. When farmers used the covers to protect wheat from
the elements, they tore and a substantial IQSS occurred tQ the farmers. In additiQn, the
CQst .of wheat increased as a result of supply-and-demand factors, thereby causing an in
crease in wheat prices and a further loss to society. The company's reputation suffered,
which created a JQSS of market share with its unfavorable loss aspects.
Assuming the target is correct, Josses of concern are those caused by a product's crit
ical performance characteristics deviating from the target. The importance .of CQncen
trating .on "hitting the target" is documented by Sony. In spite .of the fact that the design
and specificatiQns were identical, U.S. customers preferred the c.olor density of shipped
TV sets produced by Seny-Japan .over those preduced by SQny-USA. Investigatien .of
this situ'ation revealed that the frequency distributions were' markedly different. as
shewn in Figure 20-2. Even theugh SQny-Japan h~d 0.3% .outside the specificatiQns, the
Color
density
T
5
Figure 20-2 Distribution of Color Density 10r Sony-USA and Sony-Japan
Source: The Asahi. April 17, 1979.
Vinyl thickness
.----~
Nominal-the-Best
-----.-----. - - - .---.- - . " AlthQugh Taguchi developed mQre than 68 loss functiens, many situations are ap
prQximated by the quadratic functien which is called the neininal-the-best type.
Figure 20-3(a) shQWS the step functiQn that describes theSQny-USA situatiQn. When
the value fQr the performance characteristic, y, is within specificatiQns the Joss is $0,
and when it is outside the specificatiQns the loss is $A. The quadratic function is'
shQwn at 20-3(b) and describes the Sony-Japan situatiQn. In this situatIOn lQSS occurs
as soon as the perfermance characteristic, y, departs frQm the target, ...
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
USL
LSL
If Ihespecifications are 10:!:: 3 for a particular quality ~huncteri~tlc anti Iht Jvtru._ r,.
pair cost is $230, determine the loss function. Determine the lou At.V. 12.
=230/3 2 =25.6
k
Thus, L = 25.6 (y - 10)2 and at y = 12,
----+--.---+ Y
't
't-A
L = 25.6(y - 10)2
=25.6(12
$102.40
t+A
Perfomlance characteristic
(a) Step function (Sony - USA)
~ A ~.
LSL
USL
'\
3
---t----.,
't
't-A
't+A
Perfonnance charncterislic
(b) Quadratic function (Sony - Japan)
L=kfy
-li
=
=
The loss cqefficient is determineq. by setting A ::= fy 1:). the deviation from the tar
get. When A is at the USL or LSL, the loss to the customer of repairing or discarding the
product is SA.
.
~=A/(y -
=AltJ,?
.1
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
6. Should operating personnel be responsible for inspection. thus decreasing costs?
7. Is appraisal being used as a substitute for prevention?
6..
" . . . . . . . - - _
'W
'The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) is an annulIl award to recolnilC!
U.S. organizations for performance excellence. It was created by Puhlic Law 100-107 (In
August 20. 1987. 'The award promotes: understanding of the requirements for performnn.:e
excellence and competitiveness improvement. sharing of information on successful ~r.
fonnance strategies, and the benefits deriVed from using these strategies. 'There are five cat.
egories: manufacturing, service, small business, health care. and education. 'Three awards
may be given each year in each category. Competition for the awards is intense, and intermany organizations who are not interested in the award are, nevertheless, using the
categories as a technique to measure their TQM effort on an annual assessment basis.
--------~~---------.~-"----
..
-----.~ ""--".
The criteria for performance excellence are the basis for malejng awards and for giving
feedback to applicants. In addition, they (I) help improve performance practices and ca.
pabilities, (2) facilitate communication and sharing of best practices information among
U.S. organizations of all types, and (3) serve as a Working tool for understanding and
managing performance, planning. training. and assessment. The results-oriented goals
are designed to deliver ever-improving value to customers, resulting in marketplace sue
c~ss, and to improve overall organization performance and capability. 'The criteria are
derived from the set of core values and concepts described in Chapter 2, Leadership.
'The core values and concepts are embodied in seven categories, as shown in Figure 7-9.
'The seven categories shown in the figure are subdivided into 20 ex.amination item.;.
Each examination item consists of sets of areas to address. Information is submitted by
applicants in response to specific requirements of these areas.
, . - . , - - -
Adapted from U.S. Dep,artmentofComrnerce, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awanll998 Criteria. 1997.
'1
_ _ _'he:
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Baldrige Criteria for Perfomlanc. Exc.Hence Framework
A System, Perspecti..
The learning cycles have four clearly defined stages. similar to Shewharfs P-D-S-A.
~~
~_
Leade",hip
'---_ _ _
:i;
~~
~ .;:~?
:t
"-.~
~.
management
BUSIness
\/
",suits
to
--..,..----------_._---
Table 7-1 shows the seven award categories and the 20 items with their point values. It
is important to note that almost half of the total score is based on results.
The Leadership category examines the company's leadership system and senior lead
ers' personal leadership. It examines how senior leaders and the leadership system ad
dress values. company directions, penormance expectations, a focus on customers and
other stakeholders. learning, and innovation. Also examined is how the company ad
dresses its societal responsibilities and provides support to key communities.
The Strategic Planning c2.tegory examines how the company sets strategic directions
and how it develops the critical strategies and activn plans to support the directions. Also
examined are how plans ate deployed and how penormance is tracked.
The Clistomer and Market Focus category examines how the company determines
requirements. expectations, and preferences of customers and markets. Also examined i5
how the company builds relationships with customers and determines their satisfaction.
TIle Information and Analysis category examines the selection. management, and
effectiveness of lise of information and data to support key company processes and ac
tion plans, and the company's penormance management system.
The Human Resource Focus category examines how the company enables employ
ees to develop and utilize their full potential, aligned with the company's objectives.
Also examined are the company's efforts to build and maintain a work environment and
work climate conducive to penonnance excellence. full partiCipation, and personal and
organizational growth.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Process Management category examines the key aspects of process manage
ment, including customer-focused design, product and service delivery, support, and
supplier and partnering processes involving all work units. The category examines how
key processes are designed, implemented. managed, and improved to achieve better
performance.
The Business Results category examines the company's perfoImance and im
provement in key business areas: customer satisfaction, financial and marketplace per
formance, human resource results, supplier and partner performance. and operational
performance_ Also examined are performance levels relative to competitors.
TABLE 7-.1
Leadership
............................80
Strategic Planning
2.1 Strategy Development Process .......................... .40
80
3
Customer and Market focus
3.1 Customer and Market Knowledge. ............ . ....... .40
80
Scoring System
The system for scoring applicant responses is based on three evaluation dimensions: (I)
approach, (2) deployment, and (3) results.
Approach refers to how the applicant addresses the item requirements. The factors
used to evaluate approaches include:
4
Information and Analysis
4.1 Selection and Use of Information and Data .................2 5
80
5
Human Resource Focus
5.1 Work Systems. . . . . . .
100
. ............................ .40
.....30
Process Management
6.1 Management of Product and Service Processes ...... , .......60
6.2
6.3
100
Deployment refers to the extent to which the applicant's approach is applied to all re
quirements of the item. The factors used to evaluate deployment include:
Use of the approach in addressing business and item requirements.
450
7 Business Results
7.1 Customer Satisfaction Results ..........................12 5
Results refer to outcomes in achieving the purposes given in the item. The factors
used to evaluate results include:
Current performance.
. . .. . ...............25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
1000
1l
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Use of the scoring system requires considerable training. Examiners receive more
than three days of training. with most of the time devoted to the scoring s~ stem. A
simpler system is given by the sample self-evaluation. which is shown in the next
section. This approach would be more appropriate for small and medium-sized
organizations.
~~rt1pl!_~el!:Evaluat~
The following self-evaluation consists of a series of statements. organized into the ma
jor categories of the Baldrige Award criteria. Use subjective judgment to grade how well
your organization conforms to the criteria by assigning a numerical rating from 1 to 10
to each statement, with 10 being high and 1 being low. Add the scores in each calegory
and normalize. For example. the five leadership items tOlallo 32; therefore the category
score is 32150 x 110 =70. Use the individual and total scores to monitor the status of the
quality management program. Use the first score as a baseline and subsequent scores to
monitor progress.
/. Leadership
___ Senior executives are actively and personally.involved in developing the
quality goals and standards for the organization. communicating these
goals. planning for quality, and supervising its implementation and
progress.
_ _ All levels of management demonstrate through their words and actions
that quality is the first priority within the organization.
_ _ There is a wiliingness to assist depanments and individual employees to
improve.
We operate in a matter consistent with a high sense ofethics, concern for
public health, and concern for the environment.
We have a system to evaluate the effectiveness of its leadership.
2. Slralegic Planning
._ _ We have an effective short-range (one to two years) plan for implement
ingTQM.
We have an effective long-range (three years or more) plan for leadership.
in quality and customer satisfaction.
24
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
7. Business Results
~\te can show quantifo:lble improvement in the follawing areas (rate each one):
_ _. Employee satisfactionfabsenteeisrnfturnover.
_ _ Grievances/strikes.
- - Satisfaction with our performance on the part of other parties with whom
we deal-i.e. architectsler.gineers. subcontractors. suppliers. government
agencies.
_ _ Punch (defect) lists.
_ _ On-time performance.
Reduced delivery times.
Financial return.
_ _ Rework.
_ _ Subcontractor quality.
_ _ Engineering processes.
6. Process Management
Logistical processes,
_ _ Administrative processes.
_ _ Construction processes.
Repe at business.
Market share.
Comments
.-~-.---------"--
The MBNQA provides a plar, to keep improving all operations continuously and a sys
tem to measure these improvements accurately. Benchmarks are used to compare the or
ganization's performance with the world's best and to establish stretch goals. A close
partnership with suppliers and customers that feeds improvements back into the opera
tion is required. There is a long-lasting relationship with customers, so that their wants
are translated into products and services that go beyond delivery. Management from top
10 bottom is committed to improving quality, Preventing mistakes and looking for im
provement opportunities is built into the culture. There is a major investment in human
resources by means of training. motivation, and empowerment.
According to Dr. J. M. Juran, who studied the winners of the a'Nard, the gains have
been stunning. The gains can be accomplished by large and small U.S. organizations and
by U.S. workers. The gains include quality, productivity, and cycle time.
13