Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A team studied a molding operation supplying plastic switches to industrial customers for use
in assembled control pads. The operation has eight machines, each machine has two molds,
and each mold has four cavities. To investigate the process capability, the team took a sample
of size 5 from the output of one machine every 4 hours. The following control chart displays
the results for a critical dimension.
The process is in control, and the range chart supported
this conclusion. But the variation is large. Next the
team investigated the effect of the cavities and molds on
the measured dimension. To do this, they sampled one
part from each of the four cavities of the two molds on
one machine. Breaking down the data by cavity and
mold is an example of stratification. Control charts for
the individual cavities and molds showed that
all cavities and molds appear to be in control. However,
mold 2 cavities have larger averages than mold 1 cavities, and the averages for the cavities
increases with cavity number. The following
figure clearly shows this pattern.
The figure leads us to identify mold and
cavities numbers as KPIVs. The exploratory
data analysis produced a clue which generated
a search for the reasons that molds and cavities
produced different average dimensions. The team can proceed to reduce the variability in the
measured dimension by reducing the differences in averages for the molds and cavities.
References
1. Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
2. De Mast, Jeroen and Albert Trip (2007). Exploratory Data Analysis in QualityImprovement Projects, Journal of Quality Technology, 39(4): 301-311.
3. Leitnaker, M. G. (2000). Using the Power of Statistical Thinking, Special Publication
of the ASQ Statistics Division, Summer 2000.
Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Figure 3
The team responded by developing an improvement policy. They determined that one could
predict the weekly work load given the state of orders on Wednesday. The improvement
policy provided for overtime hours based on the orders received and remaining work on
Wednesday. Figure 4 shows the result. The average on-time percentage rose to 98.5%.
The new LCL became 97%. However, subsequent results showed two weeks, Special-Cause
weeks, where the volume was so heavy even the improvement policy could not handle the
heavy demand. These were end-of-quarter weeks. Figure 4 shows them as weeks 39 and 52.
Figure 4
These end-of-quarter weeks shown in Figure 4 are examples of Structural variation.
Structural variation is a blend of common and predictable special causes. Structural variation
is due to causes that operate as an inherent part of the system as common causes do.
However, on a control chart, they appear to be due to special causes. But their occurrence is
predictable.
The four types of variation defined by Britz, Emerling et al (2000, p. 34) are:
Off-Target variation occurs when the process average is not equal to its target value.
Common-Cause variation is the variation exhibited by the process while operating in its
best manner.
Special-Cause variation results from the intervention of causes that are unplanned and
undesirable.
Structural variation is variation inherent in the system but appears to be due to special
causes on a control chart. However, the causes of Structural variation are predictable.
References
1. Britz, G. C., D. W. Emerling, et al. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical
Thinking. Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.
In order to categorize the causes, the company asked the customer for usage data so the team
could calculate defect rates. The company explained Statistical Thinking concepts to their
customers to convince them to supply usage data. The team plotted using the control chart
shown in the following figure. The high defect rate in October 91 indicated a special cause.
An investigation led to raw material. The raw material supplier used the wrong material.
However, discussions with the supplier and within the team motivated further analysis of the
raw material. The supplier and the company conducted a series of designed experiments
which identified an improved raw material composition. They changed their standard
operating procedure to use this new raw material specification. The control chart shows a
defect rate
improvement
from .023% to .
004%.
The significant reduction in the complaint rate required recognition of a process involving raw
material suppliers, the OEM manufacturer, and their customers. The team also used two
statistical methods: Statistical Process Control (SPC) and Designed Experiments. The team
used SPC to identify the special cause, and they used Designed Experiments to reduce the
common-cause variation.
References
1. Britz, G. C., D. W. Emerling, et al. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical
Thinking. Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.
2. Shewhart, W. A. (1931), Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product,
Milwaukee, WI, American Society for Quality.
Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)