1

Introduction
The team began with the Teams Training seminar they received at MTA. Teams Training was
a two day seminar teaching the Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) problem-solving system. They learned how
it is used, and how to construct/apply the tools that go along with it. After receiving their training, the
teams were given a simulation to apply and strengthen their knowledge. Then the teams were sent to
host companies to apply the training to the real world.
Purpose
The purpose of the teams going out to companies was to apply the training and to gain some
industry experience. The team was asked to follow their training and take in as much information as
possible.
Define the Problem and State the Goal
Upon arrival at RJG, the team received a tour of the facility and was given a lot of information.
After gathering information from the initial tour, the team created several tools to start organizing it.
The first was a parking lot.
The Parking Lot was used to organize the information the team received on the tour of RJG as
well as the first round of data collection. It is used in the PDSA system to define the problem. It is a
living document that organizes thoughts of what is going well, what could be changed, and initial
questions and ideas. It is created by separating a sheet into the four categories. A plus represents
what is thought to be an asset to the company. The delta symbol represents what could possibly be
changed. The question mark represents questions, followed by an I for any ideas that could resolve
the problem.


Parking Lot
+
Condenses Sensors
Company is organized

One person design team
Individual wires
?
Market demand?
Is middle screw necessary?
Goal assembly time?
Is two boards necessary?
I
Use sub-assemblies
One circuit board
Base recommendations on time
data
2

As the team learned or gathered new information, notes were posted or removed from the
document. It showed that the team had a lot of questions. It also showed that the team needed to gather
more information on the company as a whole in order to understand the design of the Multichannel
Strain Gage better.

Next, to help get an understanding of the company and the Multichannel Strain Gage the team
decided to create a System Analysis. A System Analysis is an overview of the whole company. A
system analysis is created by obtaining information on the companys aim, suppliers, customers,
processes and responsibilities, and the systems measurements.





















Helping molders and their
customers succeed
DOW
GE
Plastics
Ashland
LNP
Development
Training
Manufacturing
sensors
EDart system

Nypro
Molex
Newell
Rubbermaid
Key automotive
Torro
Aim
Process and Responsibilities
System Measurements
Clients and
customers
Suppliers
System Analysis of RJG
Repeat customers
3

The System Analysis of RJG helped to give the team a better understanding of the company. It gave the
team an overview of the company and the team could see where the issues they are working on fit into
the operations of the company.



After the team had an introductory understanding of the company from their Systems Analysis
of RJG, they created this Affinity Diagram for Initial Conditions to help them keep a record of the
initial situation. The team chose four categories, then took turns writing issues on sticky notes, and
attached them to the chart under the appropriate category. This allowed the team to always look back
and see what tasks they were assigned to try to improve.

















Affinity Diagrams are used to categorize information; in this case it was used to group together what
the team had discovered while researching for their Systems Analysis. The diagram gave them an
Affinity Diagram for Initial Conditions
Time Process Material Design
Process is
undefined
Current type
of wire is
difficult to
attach
4

introductory understanding of some of the problems with the Multichannel Strain Gages design,
showing them what they still needed to gather from RJG via interviews.
The team had listed what they knew currently on the previous Affinity Diagram, so they
knew what information still needed to be found. The Affinity Diagram for Questions, shown below,
was the one the team used to categorize many of the questions they had for RJG. Team members wrote
possible questions on notes and pasted them to the diagram. When team members needed to get some
questions answered, they would take the notes down to be asked in an interview with an RJG
employee. This helped the team fill in the information gaps left from the creation of the previous chart,
serving as a data collection method for future charts.


























Affinity Diagram for Questions
Process
Does the design
require 2
boards?
5

Now that the initial information gathered from the tour was organized and understood, the team
went back to the Initial Problem Statement given to them in the Quality Teams Employer Sponsor
Worksheet found in the appendix. It was then transferred to chart so it could be referred to later in the
study.

By this time in the process there were already several terms being used by employees that
needed to be properly understood. An Operational Definitions was used to keep track of these terms.
The chart is used to record words used by a company that are unknown to the problem solvers. The
team created this tool by drawing a chart with as many columns as they need, and then they put some
titles on the top of each column and then they put the information under what column it fits with best.















This tool shows both pictures and words about either the part, the Harwin Connector, the
Fischer Connector, or the Board. This chart brought up questions on what company lingo meant and
what the company defined them as. This led the group to get to gain better understanding of
terminology used.
Initial Problem Statement
Current: We have not quantified current build time. This will be a good place to start.
Machined components are around $100 because of part complexity.
Impact: We expect that this product will generate over $400,000 in the first year of
release. If the current build time and parts is not reduced, it will reduce the profitability of
the product and will be problematic for our production people to build.
Desired: Reduce the number and complexity of components, and reduce the amount of
assembly time required.

6

Now that the initial conditions and problem statement were understood in the previous charts,
the team needed to think about the goal of the process. This was done by using a Bone Diagram. A
Bone Diagram provides ideas for the desired state and shows the difference between the current and
desired state. This tool is a brainstorming tool for the goals of some possible recommendations. This
tool is created by drawing and labeling one circle current and the other desired, and then drawing
an arrow and two lines between them to show what should be improved. After that, you then put down
the current state in the current circle and the desired state in the desired circle.

































This helped the team focus on some potential areas to consider when working with future
charts. This Bone Diagram of Desired State then led the team to the Initial Flowchart they used to map
out the assembly of the Multichannel Strain Gage. This tool was used by the team on later charts as a
record of what the company wanted in the end of the study.





Current
Takes 45-60 minutes.
Parts are too complex.
Expensive
Desired
Reduced assembly time.
Reduce complexity.
Reduce number of
Components.
Reduce Price of Assembly.
Possible set assembly
process.
Bone Diagram of
Desired State
7

Study the Current Situation
After initial information was gathered by the team, they needed to further understand the part
and how it was made. To do this, they created a flowchart that specified the times of each step of
assembly.
Seeing how long it takes on the top board and connecting the two boards gave a good sense of
where changes could potentially be made. This tool showed that if the part could be redesigned by using
one board, then many of the assembly steps would be eliminated. The step-by-step flow chart is on the
following page.

Original Design




8


After the finalization of the previous Initial Assembly Flow Chart, the team needed a simple way
to clearly and quickly show the time each stage of the assembly took. They decided to use a modified
Bar Graph, to show how much time is put into each section of the assembly.

20-25 min
20-25 min
Initial Assembly Flowchart
Start
Strip one end of 20 wires
Thread wires through upper
board
Solder wires
Trim Soldered Ends
Cut wires according to bottom board width
Strip cut ends
Refit Insulation
Tin ends of wire
Attach ID Chip
Attach Fischer Connector
Solder upper board to
lower with wires
Fit Harwin Connectors
Wash/Silicon
End
5-10 min
Total Time:
45-60 min
9









































The team used this Bar Graph: Current time for Assembly alongside the Initial Assembly Flow
Chart so that the three sections listed here could be seen in more detail. This graph is different from
others like it because it shows the minimum (blue) and the maximum (red). The team used this graph
to further understand the current situation at RJG, but more in depth.

After stepping out the time of assembly, the team decided a Spider Diagram would be a great
tool to use next. The sections listed here were a combination of the sections described in detail in the
previous Bar Graph and Flow Chart. A Spider Diagram is a tool used to show ideas in a specific way
and how they relate to each other. You start with a topic, then branch off with general ideas that relate
to the topic. You can then branch off those ideas with more specific questions or ideas.



Bar Graph: Current Time for Assembly
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Upper Board Connect Upper to Lower Finish Lower
Maximum Time
Minimum Time
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

10


































The team color coded this diagram to make it easier to see the differences between problems,
questions, and ideas. Problems are black, questions are blue, and ideas are red. They used this diagram
to help us visualize the relationships between these categories, and list out potential recommendations
to fix the listed problems. This tool was used to reference back to when writing future charts, such as
the following Revised Problem Statement.

Define and Restate the Problem

The problem is that the original design of the Multichannel Strain Gage is too inefficient and
time consuming to assemble. In order for this part to bring in more revenue, the build time needs to be
reduced. The Initial Problem Statement was revised to include more data now that the problem was
better understood.


Machine Vibration
O
n
e

B
o
a
r
d

Implement Line
N
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

Ribbon Wire
Time
S
t
r
i
p

M
o
r
e

I
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n


A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

l
i
n
e

M
a
s
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
i
e
s


Sub-Assemblies
DESIGN
Spider Diagram of: Problems, Questions, and Ideas.
B
r
e
a
k

A
p
a
r
t

11



This tool shows what the specific goal is and it brought up new questions on how to meet this
new goal. This led the team to come up with some possible recommendations and for improvement in
the design of the sensor array.

Analyze the Causes

The list below were the five problems that the team saw as potentially the most influential
problems. They identified these problems simply by brainstorming, and they revolved around the time
data the team collected. They saw excess wire as one of the most influential problems because with the
amount of wire required in the part, it simply was the biggest step in assembly that dictated how long
the part took to make. Having two boards in assembly created, by far, a majority of the steps in the
assembly process. Using individual wires is tedious and requires a lot of time, but could be eliminated
with ribbon wires. Complexity referred to the overall work required for the product, while excess
assembly refers to the steps required to assemble the product. These problems led the team to create an
Interrelationship Diagram to see how if they were or were not related.


















Excess Wire
Second Board
Using Individual Wires
Complexity
Excess Assembly
List of Potential Causes
Revised Problem Statement

Current
Current assembly can take between 50-60 minutes. Machined components are around $100
because of part complexity.

Impact
Profitability and efficiency will go down, along with the ability to meet demand if build time
and complexity is not reduced.

Desired
Reduce assembly time to 30 minutes or less while reducing part complexity.
12









































After the team had the possible causes, they needed to distinguish which problem they had to
focus on fixing. The team had their list of possible causes, but this did not show how each cause did or
did not relate to each other. The team chose this Interrelationship Diagram above to help them with
that. They listed the possible causes on sticky notes, then went through and drew arrows leading to a
cause if they were related. The top problems were the second board on the design and using individual
wires. The relationships between these major problems led the team to their final recommendations.

This chart showed the team what the most influential cause of the excess assembly time. The
two the team determined were the Second Board and Using Individual Wires. The team later based
their recommendations around the information discovered here.



Interrelationship Diagram for
Possible Causes
Excess
Wire
Using
Individual
Wires
Complexity
Second
Board
Excess
Assembly
(2,2)
(3,0)
(0,4)
(1,3)
(3,0)
13

Making a Five Why chart starts with the most influential problem revealed in the
Interrelationship Diagram. Next, a question is asked about this problem: Why is this part/step
existent? The answer of this question is questioned by the same method. This is continued until the
root cause of the problem is found. Normally, the most influential problem found from the
Interrelationship Diagram is used for the first question.


However, the team found the root cause with fewer questions, so they elaborated their work
process by starting with a less direct problem to show why they used this problem. After finding the
root cause, it was a simpler task to develop a solution for the problem.
In this case the root cause was The Fischer Connecter Company recommended having two
boards. Although, after the team revised the structure of the part and asked more about the
recommendations made by the Fischer connector company, they found that the recommendation made
by the Fischer connector company was given based on their understanding that the board could easily
break if their connector was vibrating against it. However, this was irrelevant because the part is held
tightly in place, preventing it from moving or vibrating. This means the part could be made with one
board, eliminating a majority of the assembly time.



Theory of Improvement

Many ideas were gathered from the previous Five Why chart and Interrelationship Diagram, so
the team decided they were ready to create their recommendations. Imagineering is a document that is
used not only to organize, but brainstorm an idea. To create this document you place all possible ideas

Five Why
Product takes too long to produce.

Why 1: Why does product take too long to produce?
Product is too complex.

Why 2: Why is the product too complex?
Product has excess wire.

Why 3: Why does the product have excess wire?
Product has two boards.

Why 4: Why does the product have two boards?
The Fischer connecter company recommended having two boards.

14

for a recommendation to a problem and list or attach to a sheet. Then go through and weed out the
doubles and discuss what ideas are left. The team used chart to get closer to recommending final
solutions.




























This allowed the team get all the ideas from the previous charts on one sheet, and also put new
ideas out into the open for discussion. The team started by removing the duplicates and discussing the
others. After hashing out the ideas, the whole team was able to decide was the best possible
recommendations to report to the company.

The Recommended new board design on the next page is a rough sketch of what the team
recommended RJG should do to the design of the product. These changes were based around the
determined root causes from the previous Interrelationship Diagram and what was discovered on the
Imagineering Diagram. The two board designs shown on the next page were used next to each other
for comparison.
Use a section of cable to connect two
boards.
Use sub-assemblies
Implement assembly line with one
board design
Train more employees to build
boards
Set order of operations for assembly
Use single board
Use ribbon wire
Redesign case for one board and
more support for Fischer connector
Imagineering Possible Recommendations
15






After coming up with their recommendation, the group decided that a flow chart describing the
process from start to finish would be an easy way of relating the recommended design to the amount of
time to complete it. The following Bar Graph and Flow Chart are based around the assembly of this
recommended design. The diagram on the next page represents the Recommended Assembly Flowchart
for the teams Recommended One Board Design.
Recommended One-Board Design
16



Using this Recommended Assembly Flow Chart, the team believes it would be much faster than
the previous method of assembly. Also, by using this chart, the company could impliment an assembly
line with more ease, thus lowering assembly time even more. After creating this chart the team was
able to make another Bar Graph representing the amount of time taken during the new process.

The team made estimations on the times taken to complete each step, if their recommendations
were used. For this tool, data was based around the time discoveries from previous charts. Taking the
time measurements from the current assembly process and applying them to the teams recommend
assembly process, the team documented their estimations.

Recommended Assembly Flowchart
17



This Recommended Assembly Bar Graph for Time was a great tool for showing what the
assembly time would look like if the new assembly recommendations were used. Compared to the
current assembly process, it showed a huge reduction on assembly time, half of the hour it took before.
Also, unlike the current assembly process, the total time estimated was able to fit on this tool. Aside
from the time improvements, the revised estimation bar graph also shows the reduction in sub-
assembly parts required to make the part. This design ultimately reduces work time, but the redesigned
cover would make the price a little higher. The following charts data is based around this new design.

Conclusion
After the teams time at RJG, these were their final recommendations. Using a less intricate one
board design would lower the build time dramatically by removing half of the build process. Also, by
using this one board design the implication of an assembly line would be the next reasonable step to
drastically lowering the time taken to finish the part.



0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Attach ID Chip Attach Harwin
Connectors
Attach Fischer
Connector
Wash &
Silicone
Total Time
Maximum Time (Minutes)
Minimum Time (Minutes)
Recommended Assembly Bar
Graph for Time
18



Works Cited
Langford, David P. Tool Time for Education: Choosing and Implementing Quality Improvement
Tools. Molt, MT: Langford International, 2008. Print.


































19





Appendices
Employer Sponsor Worksheet

PDSA Probletunity Improvement Process

Fischer Connector Diagram

Plate Installation Drawing

Step by step installation Diagram

Current Assembly Drawing