D M A I C

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

D
Define
M
Measure
A
Analyze
I
Improve
C
Control
Implementing Six Sigma Quality
at Better Body Manufacturing
2
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Dimension DPM
ASM_7Y 172475
ASM_8Y 85824
ASM_3Y 19786
ASM_9Y 3874
ASM_10Y 776
ASM_6Y 4
Overview
ABC Incorporated (ABC) is not achieving Six Sigma quality levels for all critical
Body-Side Sub-Assembly dimensions as requested by their customers.
Ensure that all critical body-side subassembly dimensions are within Six Sigma
quality levels of < 3.4 DPM. C
p
2.0 and C
pk
1.67.
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
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.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
A
S
M
_
7
Y
A
S
M
_
8
Y
A
S
M
_
3
Y
A
S
M
_
9
Y
A
S
M
_
1
0
Y
A
S
M
_
6
Y
DPM
3
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Problem Statement & The Goal
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
B - Pillar
Reinforcement
Body Side Outer
+
+
A - Pillar
Reinforcement
B - Pillar
Reinforcement
Body Side Outer
D
Define
4
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Measure Phase
Key Variables:
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
M
Measure
4
776
172475
85824
19786
3874
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_3Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y ASM_6Y
DPM
Assembly Dimensions with Highest Defects
5
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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

Target Performance Level:
All ten critical assembly dimensions at Six Sigma quality level of 3.4 DPM.
C
p
2.0 and C
pk
1.67

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
A
Analyze
6
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
For our analysis we will do a DOE to check
for levels that contribute to better quality
product.
Weld Pattern
(density)
Clamp
Location
Operator
Machine Materials
Methods
Clamp Weld
Pressure
Press
Tonnage
Die Cushion
Pressure
Material
Thickness
Training
Yield
Strength
Elastic
Limit
Environment
Temperature
Humidity
Quality
Component
Variability
Inspection
Process
Gage R&R
Body
Assembly
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
Body Side Sub-Assembly
Stamping Process
Outputs
Body Side Sub-Assemblies at
Six Sigma quality levels
Control Variables
Clamp Location Press Tonnage
Weld Density Die Pressure
Clamp Pressure
Error
States
Dimensional
defects
Noise Variables
Environment
Inherent Variation
Inputs
Material Thickness
Yield Strength
7
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y
2 7 12
0.0
0.5
1.0
Subgroup Number
A
S
M
_
7
Y
Number of runs about median:
Expected number of runs:
Longest run about median:
Approx P-Value for Clustering:
Approx P-Value for Mixtures:
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:
4.00000
7.00000
5.00000
0.03464
0.96536
6.00000
7.66667
3.00000
0.10778
0.89222
Run Chart for ASM_7Y
2 7 12
0.0
0.5
1.0
Subgroup Number
A
S
M
_
8
Y
Number of runs about median:
Expected number of runs:
Longest run about median:
Approx P-Value for Clustering:
Approx P-Value for Mixtures:
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:
4.00000
7.00000
5.00000
0.03464
0.96536
8.00000
7.66667
2.00000
0.59781
0.40219
Run Chart for ASM_8Y
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
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).
0.0 0.5 1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
ASM_8Y
A
S
M
_
7
Y
XY Plot of ASM_8Y and ASM_7Y
8
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of B_7Y
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
0.70
*
-0.70
0.11
36
0.0788122
0.0791215
2.96
2.50
3.43
2.50
*
2.95
2.49
3.41
2.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
Capability of B_7Y
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of BS_7Y
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
0.700000
*
-0.700000
0.899444
36
0.149640
0.383691
1.56
-0.44
3.56
-0.44
*
0.61
-0.17
1.39
-0.17
0.00
666666.67
666666.67
0.00
908706.09
908706.09
15.33
698400.06
698415.39
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
698416 DPM 0 DPM
0.5 1.0 1.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
ASM_7Y
B
S
_
7
Y
XY Plot of ASM_7Y and 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).
Capability of BS_7Y
9
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
905 915 925 935 945
0.5
1.0
1.5
Tonnage
B
S
_
7
Y
XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y
XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y
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
A
Analyze
10
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of ASM_7Y at Tonnage > 935
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
1.00
*
-1.00
0.09
12
0.163174
0.147855
2.04
1.86
2.23
1.86
*
2.25
2.05
2.46
2.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of ASM_8Y at Tonnage > 935
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
1.00000
*
-1.00000
-0.12833
12
0.101825
0.089161
3.27
3.69
2.85
2.85
*
3.74
4.22
3.26
3.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of ASM_9Y at Tonnage > 935
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
1.00000
*
-1.00000
0.52083
12
0.206010
0.177098
1.62
0.78
2.46
0.78
*
1.88
0.90
2.86
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10010.77
10010.77
0.00
3408.51
3408.51
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of ASM_10Y at Tonnage > 935
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
1.00
*
-1.00
0.39
12
0.215541
0.187663
1.55
0.94
2.15
0.94
*
1.78
1.08
2.47
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2326.72
2326.72
0.00
576.00
576.00
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
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.
Impact this has on ASM dimensions 7Y, 8Y, 9Y & 10Y on Tonnage
11
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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_9Y
Set Clamp Position to Location 2 (level 1)
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
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
Input Variable Proposed ASM_9Y Setting Proposed ASM_10Y Setting
Clamp Location Location 2 Location 2
Weld Density (welds per X inches) 1.33 1.33
Clamp Pressure 2100 psi 2100 psi
12
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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.
13
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
14
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Process Capability of BS_ 3Y and ASM_3Y at Tonnage < 920
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.
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
LSL USL
Capability Analysis of ASM_3Y
USL
Target
LSL
Mean
Sample N
StDev (Within)
StDev (Overall)
Cp
CPU
CPL
Cpk
Cpm
Pp
PPU
PPL
Ppk
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
PPM< LSL
PPM> USL
PPMTotal
1
*
-1
0
36
0.0851436
0.0971725
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
*
3.43
3.43
3.43
3.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Process Data
Potential (Within) Capability
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Within
Overall
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

Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
15
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Analyze Phase
A
Analyze
Conclusions
From the analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y we can conclude that:
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

16
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
With the recommended changes the process performance will improve significantly
Dimension Mean StDev
Overall
DPM_Obsv DPM_Within DPM_Exp P
p
P
pk
C
p
C
pk
ASM_1Y -0.035 0.165 0 0 0 2.01 1.94 2.47 2.39
ASM_2Y 0.259 0.152 0 0 1 2.20 1.63 2.31 1.71
ASM_3Y 0.000 0.097 0 0 0
ASM_4Y 0.009 0.115 0 0 0 2.90 2.87 3.53 3.50
ASM_5Y -0.330 0.145 0 0 2 2.30 1.54 3.72 2.50
ASM_6Y -0.284 0.160 0 1 4 2.08 1.49 2.24 1.60
ASM_7Y 0.090 0.148 0 0 0 2.25 2.05 2.04 1.86
ASM_8Y -0.128 0.089 0 0 0 3.74 3.26 3.27 2.85
ASM_9Y 0.521 0.180 0 0 0
ASM_10Y 0.395 0.191 0 0 0
A
Analyze
Analyze Phase
17
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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
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.

I
Improve
Improve Phase
18
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Control Phase
C
Control
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
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.


19
D M A I C
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
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.
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.
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
Bring the key process output variables within Six Sigma quality level of < 3.4 DPM.
C
p
2.0 and C
pk
1.67