1

A1) Evaluate the quality control program at Polaroid prior to Project Greenlight.
Prior to Project Greenlight, Polaroid had a plan to shift its quality control efforts from a
traditionally QC inspection process to an operator-based quality control process. While
it was easy to convince upper management of the cost savings that would be achieved
through reduced sampling, it was more difficult to prove that Project Greenlight would
not give up quality.

Following the implementation of Project Greenlight, audits revealed that the defect rate
had increased by 10 times their historical levels, from 1% to 10%. On the other hand,
defect rates measured by production operators told a different story. Their results
indicated that defect rates had declined to only half of their historical level, from 1.0% to
0.5%. This conflict of information can only be attributed to the statistical analysis used
by the two different audit groups.

A2) Develop the appropriate control charts.

In order accurately assess the effects of Project Greenlight on the quality of the film
being produced, statistical process control charts were utilized. Based on the data
provided by the Harvard case Exhibits, 3, 5 and 6, Pareto charts, histograms and run
charts were created to identify trends in the efficiency of film production of Polaroid.
Specifically, Exhibit 3 represents base-line data collected at the beginning of Project
Greenlight and is used to set the mean and values of the centerline for finger height and
pod weight. The mean of the centerline data in Exhibit 3 is as follows:

Descriptive Statistics for Centerline Data
Pod Weight Finger Height
Mean 2.80 2.06
Standard Deviation .02 .13

Pareto Chart
A Pareto chart (Figure 1 of the Appendix) was compiled based on the data from August
6
th
and 7
th
that is provided in Exhibit 5. By counting the defects that both the auditors
and assembly operators counted, by type, we can determine which area of film
production may be in need of quality control improvements. As illustrated in Figure 1,
2

both the assembly operators and the internal auditors identified excess reagent to be the
most frequent defect.


Histograms
Exhibit 6 provides the pod weights of observed samples of pod weights for pods coming
off of the machines as well as finger heights of the tab that controls the advance and
ejection of the frames in the cartridge. Figures 2 and 3 of the Appendix were created to
display the frequency distribution of the observed heights and weights in the samples.

Run Charts
In order to track the variability in the pod weights and finger heights over time, run charts
were plotted using the data in Exhibit 6. These results are shown in Figures 4 and 5 of
the Appendix. The Blue line represents the data collected before Project Greenlight and
the Pink line represents the data collected after implementation of the project.

The run charts in Figure 4 and 5 plot the variability of the weights and heights of the film
at Polaroid. Figure 4 indicates that post-Greenlight weight observations contain more
variability, which would indicate that there has been an increase in defects. Ultimately,
this data supports the hypothesis that Project Greenlight has decreased quality.

On the other hand, the run chart for finger heights (Figure 5) indicates that the post-
Greenlight data contains less variability in the observations used. This would indicate
that the new QC process has been effective in increasing the quality and consistency of
the film.

Upper and Lower Control Limits
In order to determine if the quality of film at Polaroid has improved after the
implementation of Project Greenlight, we analyzed the limits of acceptable process
variation. Because the quality control process that existed prior to Project Greenlight
controlled the process to approximately 1% defect rate, we will evaluate the new defect
rate against this value. Therefore, we calculated the z-score based on a 99%
confidence level, or z-score of 2.33.
LCL = Overall Averages z (standard deviation of all observations) / (Sqrt n)
UCL = Overall Averages + z (standard deviation of all observations) / (Sqrt n)
3


Descriptive Statistics for Centerline Data - Before
Pod Weight Finger Height
Mean 2.805 2.06
Standard Deviation .02 .13
LCL Before 2.78 1.96
UCL Before 2.82 2.15


In order to compare the variability in the defects before and after the implementation of
Project Greenlight, we must now calculate the standard deviation of the data collected in
Exhibit 6.

Min Total 1.730 1.650 1.650 1.630 1.750 1.640
Max Total 2.510 2.410 2.540 2.440 2.540 2.450
Average Total 2.056 2.062 2.047 2.022 2.062 2.043
STDEV Total 0.208 0.177 0.193 0.205 0.197 0.188
STDEV A 0.198 0.149 0.155 0.183 0.155 0.119
B 0.157 0.153 0.184 0.182 0.177 0.160
C 0.174 0.145 0.165 0.152 0.120 0.137

Min Total 2.740 2.751 2.744 2.740 2.382 2.740
Max Total 2.851 2.854 2.850 2.937 2.913 2.840
Average Total 2.803 2.805 2.798 2.800 2.806 2.798
STDEV Total 0.035 0.022 0.028 0.035 0.070 0.021
STDEV A 0.036 0.020 0.024 0.025 0.018 0.013
B 0.030 0.028 0.032 0.029 0.116 0.029
C 0.041 0.018 0.028 0.047 0.032 0.016


Standard Deviation is important to Polaroid data, as it represents the normal variability in
the process performance; therefore any observations outside of the standard deviation
should be considered abnormal and should be addressed to prevent significant
deficiencies in the output from occurring.
Descriptive Statistics for Centerline Data - After
Pod Weight Finger Height
Mean 2.802 2.04
Standard Deviation 0.03 0.19
LCL After 1.98 2.03
UCL After 2.11 2.05

4

As illustrated by the control charts in Figure 6 - 9 of the Appendix, the data for the
centerline from exhibit 3 shows much less variability for the data, as most of the
observations fall within the upper and lower control limits. On the other hand exhibit 6
data from the case represents data collected after the implementation of Project
Greenlight and shows much more variability in the observations as they are significantly
farther outside of the control limits. Therefore, it can be concluded that the process
mean before the quality control change was more stable than after the change.
5

Appendix

Figure 1: Film Deficiency Pareto Chart


Figure 2: Finger Height Histogram
Pareto Chart - Film Deficiencies
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
E
x
c
e
s
s

R
e
a
g
e
n
t
F
r
a
m
e

F
e
e
d

F
a
i
l
u
r
e
D
i
r
t

F
r
o
m

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
I
n
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

R
e
a
g
e
n
t
D
o
u
b
l
e

F
e
e
d
D
a
m
a
g
e
d

S
p
r
i
n
g
M
a
l
f
o
r
m
e
d

B
o
x
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

S
h
e
e
t

D
e
f
e
c
t
E
x
c
e
s
s

F
l
a
s
h

O
n

B
o
x
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

S
h
e
e
t

D
e
f
e
c
t
M
i
s
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

o
n

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
y
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

L
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
e
f
e
c
t
s
Assembl y
Audi tor
Histogram
0
50
100
0
1
.
6
1
.
8 2
2
.
2
2
.
4
2
.
6
M
o
r
e
Finger Height (mm)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Frequency
6


Figure 3: Pod Weight Histogram

Figure 4: Average Pod Weight Run Chart


Figure 5: Average Finger Height Run Chart
Histogram
0
50
100
150
200
0
2
.
7
2
.
7
5
2
.
8
2
.
8
5
2
.
9
2
.
9
5
M
o
r
e
Pod Weight (g)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Frequency
Run Chart - Average Pod Weight
2.780
2.785
2.790
2.795
2.800
2.805
2.810
2.815
2.820
2.825
P
o
d

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
g
)
Run Chart - Average Finger Height
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
F
i
n
g
e
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
7



Figure 6: Average Pod Weight Control Chart Before


Figure 7: Average Finger Height Control Chart Before



Figure 8: Avg. Finger Height - Stat. Process Control
2.76
2.77
2.78
2.79
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
o
d

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
g
)
Day
UCL = 2.82
LCL = 2.78
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
i
n
g
e
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
Day
UCL = 2.15
LCL = 1.96
2.76
2.77
2.78
2.79
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
o
d

W
e
i
g
h
t

(
g
)
Day
UCL = 2.82
LCL = 2.78
8




Figure 9: Avg. Finger Height - Stat. Process Control
1.85
1.95
2.05
2.15
2.25
2.35
2.45
2.55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
i
n
g
e
r

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
m
)
Day
UCL = 2.15
LCL = 1.96