Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Project
LYONEL PEARCE
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
Introduction
2.5 years with Cambrex Charles City
Bachelors of Science in Chemical Technology
University of Cincinnati
Outline
Project Premise
Team Composition
Define
Measure
Analyze
Improve
Control
Questions
Project Premise
Lovell Levelers, Inc. (LLI) a major manufacturer of specialized automotive
parts is receiving complaints from their biggest customer, Specific Motors
Level of quality relative to the leveler plate is unacceptable
Current rate of rejects 1,350 defects per million opportunities (DPMO)
Industry standard is Not More Than 50 DPMO
Level of quality must meet or exceed industry standard within in six months
or risk losing the business
Team Composition
Project Champion
Project Leader Black Belt
Machine Operator
Quality Control Analyst
Customer Liaison
Define
BUSINESS CASE
P R O B L E M S TAT E M E N T
G O A L S TAT E M E N T
PROJECT SCOPE
Business Case
Specific Motors, Lovell Levelers, Inc.'s largest customer, is dissatisfied with
the level of quality relative to the leveler plates. If we do not improve the
quality of the leveler plates, achieving the industry standard within the next
six months, Specific Motors will take its business elsewhere. Achieving the
industry standard will yield at least $246,518 in quarterly cost savings. This
project will focus on improving the quality of the leveler plates.
Problem Statement
Specific Motors expects the average rate of reject to adhere to the industry
standard of less than 50 DPMO. LLI's current average rate of reject is 1350
DPMO. The current reject rate is costing LLI just over $256,000 per quarter.
Through the reduction of LLI's leveler plate DPMO from 1350 to less than 50,
within the next six months, we will meet Specific Motor's expectation,
achieve the industry standard DPMO, and yield $246,518 in quarterly cost
savings.
Goal Statement(s)
Achieve the industry standard of Not More Than 50 DPMO, within six months
Reduce LLI quarterly costs associated with leveler plate defects by at least
96%, yielding $246,518 in cost savings
Project Scope
This project will focus upon the areas of manufacturing, design, and quality,
specifically the elements of these areas responsible for the leveler plate.
This project excludes all processes and parts not contained within leveler
plate manufacture, design, and quality.
Measure
BASELINE & TARGET SIGMA
Sigma Levels
Baseline sigma for current defect level 4.5
Baseline sigma for new target defect level 5.4
Analyze
P A R E T O A N A LY S I S
P R O D U C T PA RA M E T E R D I S T R I B U T I O N
L I M I T S O F E X P E C T E D VA R I AT I O N
T TEST
CHI SQUARE TEST
A N A LY S I S O F V A R I A T I O N
Pareto Analysis
The team executed a pareto analysis of the data
Determined three factors to be causing over 95% of the problems
Length of the plates
Width of the plates
Thickness of the Plates
Length
Length
14
12
10
8
Frequency
6
4
2
0
10.65
10.68
10.71
Measure
10.74
10.77
Width
Width
20
18
16
14
12
Frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
7.51
7.53
7.55
Measure
7.57
7.59
Thickness
Thickness
20
18
16
14
12
Frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.53800000000000003
0.54200000000000004
0.54600000000000004
Measure
0.55000000000000004
0.55400000000000005
Width
Thickness
Target
10.7500
7.5500
0.5500
Upper Limit
11.0000
7.6600
0.5600
Lower Limit
10.5000
7.4500
0.5400
10.6112
7.5018
0.5348
10.7945
7.5959
0.5565
T Test
Old method of manufacturing versus the new method
Determine if the differences in product thicknesses under each method is
statistically significant.
Null hypothesis stating that the mean for the thickness produced under the
new method is equivalent to the old method
Alternate hypothesis that the means are not equivalent
T Test (Continued)
T Test Statistic -3.1795
Critical Values 2.064, -2.064
Reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis.
New method average is not equal to old method average, with 95% confidence
New method average is not within 2.064 standard deviations either side of the old
method average
Analysis of Variation
Three machines are utilized in the manufacturing process
Execute one way analysis of variation to compare the machines
performance to determine whether any of the machines are significantly
affecting the means for material thickness
Improve
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
SCATTER DIAGRAM
Design of Experiments
Team brainstorms a list of reasons as to why thickness of the parts is not capable
Team settles upon five factors
Depth
Temperature
Pressure
Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)
Time
Determine a full factorial design is the most prudent means of identifying the
factor or factors responsible for the process lack of capability regarding thickness
Scatter Diagram
Positive Correlation between
Thickness and Temperature
o
0.550
Thickness 0.545
0.540
Recommendation temperature
controls on the machines
0.535
0.530
144
146
148
150
Temperature
152
154
156
Control
XMR CHART & CAPABILITY STUDY
Thank you
Questions?
Thickness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Sample