Six Sigma Implementation

SIX SIGMA AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION ON
THE PROJECT
Six Sigma
Six Sigma
6 sigma is used by individual and
organizations to:
•Drive and sustain improvements
•Provide rigorous alignment of actions
with strategy
•Guide decision making with facts and
data
•Meet customer needs through improved
products and processes
•Deliver bottom-line results
Six Sigma
Sigma Level Defect.10-6
± 1σ 697,700
± 2σ 308,700
± 3σ 66,810
± 4σ 6,210
± 5σ 233
± 6σ 3.4
Six Sigma
Six Sigma
Six Sigma Companies
The Six Sigma Evolutionary Timeline
1818: Gauss uses the normal curve 1924: Walter A. Shewhart introduces
to explore the mathematics of error the control chart and the distinction of
analysis for measurement, probability special vs. common cause variation as
analysis, and hypothesis testing. contributors to process problems.
1736: French 1896: Italian sociologist Vilfredo

mathematician Alfredo Pareto introduces the 80/20
Abraham de rule and the Pareto distribution in
Moivre publishes Cours d’Economie Politique.
an article
introducing the
normal curve.
1949: U. S. DOD issues Military
Procedure MIL-P-1629, Procedures
1960: Kaoru Ishikawa
for Performing a Failure Mode Effects
introduces his now famous
and Criticality Analysis.
cause-and-effect diagram.
1941: Alex Osborn, head of 1970s: Imai develop Dr.

BBDO Advertising, fathers a Deming concept called 14 keys
widely-adopted set of rules for of Deming or called kaizen in
“brainstorming”. Japanese.
1986: Bill Smith, a senior engineer

and scientist introduces the 1995: Jack Welch
concept of Six Sigma at Motorola launches Six Sigma at
GE.
1994: Larry Bossidy launches

Six Sigma at Allied Signal.
KEY BUSINESS CONCEPT OF SIX SIGMA
$ Cash
Cash!!!!
Company
Customer
Value
Profitability
Competitive Price Value!!!! Repeat Business
High Quality Products
Growth/Expansion
On-time Delivery, etc
Price to
Sell 1 1
Some
Some Profit 3
Cost to
Profit
2 Bigger
Bigger Profit
Profit 3
Produce
2
Price
Price-- Cost
Cost == Profit
Profit
Where can Six Sigma be applied?
Service
Design
Management
Purchase
Administration Six Sigma

Methods Production
IT
Quality
Depart.
HRM M&S
COPQ against sales revenue
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality)
Sigma Level DPMO COPQ as sales percentile
1-sigma 691.462 (very low competitive) N/A
2-sigma 308.538 (Average Indonesia’s Industry) N/A
3-sigma 66.807 25-40% of sales
4-sigma 6.210 (Average USA’s Industry) 15-25% of sales
5-sigma 233 (Average Japan’s Industry) 5-15% of sales
6-sigma 3,4 (World Class Industry) < 1% of sales

SUCCESS STORY IN SIX SIGMA
$3.0B
General Electric
6 Sigma Cost $0.5B
$2500 $2500
6 Sigma Productivity
Delighting Customers
$2.5B
$1200
$700 $600
$450 $500
$380
$200 $170
Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Dupont Chronology
Periode Description Sigma

Before six sigma Dupont Total Cost of Poor Quality About 3 sigma
= 20 -30 % of revenue
Implementing Cost of Implementing Six Sigma -
= $ 20 million
1999 Q1 Pilot Project Six Sigma on Specialty Chemicals started
-Revenues $ 1.5 Billions
-Target $ 80 million savings (5% dari revenues)
1999 Q2 40 Black Belts done for training and start for project
1999 Q4 Total saving $ 35 million (initial target $ 25 million) 2.3% of Revenue

17.7% COPQ
4 Sigma
2000 Q4 Total saving $ 100 million (initial target $ 80 million) 6.7% of Revenue
13.3% COPQ
5 sigma
6σ Basic Concept
Difficult-to-Reach Fruit
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS)
Middle Fruit
Six Sigma tools
Lower Fruit
7 Basic Tools of QC
Ground Fruit
Logic and Intuition
6σ Basic Concept
3 sigma level company 6 sigma level company
• <25∼40% of sales is failure cost. • 5% of the sales is failure cost.
• Having 66,807 defects per million. • 3.4 defects per million.
• Depends on the detect to find • Focusing on process not to produce

defect. defects.
• Believes that high quality is expensive. • Realizes that high quality creates
low cost.
• Not available of systematic • Uses know-how of measurement,

approach. analysis, improvement & control.
• Benchmarking against competing • Benchmarking to the best
companies. in the world.
• Believes 99% is good enough. • Believes 99% unacceptable.
• Define CTQ’s internally.
 4 sigma Level? 1misspelled word per 30pages of newspaper.

 5 sigma Level? 1misspelled word in a set of encyclopedias.
 6 sigma Level? 1misseplled word in all of the books contained in a small library.
Understanding Basic Concept of Statistics
The concept of sigma

• It is important to understand the difference between accuracy and precision
• Sigma is a measure of variation (the data spread)
• It is a statistical measure unit displaying a process capability and the
measured sigma value is expressed by DPU(Defect Per Unit), PPM
• It is said that the process with higher sigma value is the process having smaller
defects
• The more increase the sigma value, the more decrease the quality cost and
Cycle Time
Inflection : The size or a standard deviation

Point
shows the distances between
the inflection point and the mean.
1σ We could say the process has 3
sigma capability if 3 deviations
are fit table between the target
μ USL and the specification limit.
T 3σ
What does variation mean?
20
• Variation means that a 15
process does not produce 10
the same result (the “Y”) 5
every time. 0
-5
• Some variation will exist in

-10
all processes.
• Variation directly affects customer experiences.
Customers do not feel averages!

Measuring Process Performance
The pizza delivery example. . .
• Customers want their pizza

delivered fast!
• Guarantee = “30 minutes or less”
• What if we measured performance and found an

average delivery time of 23.5 minutes?
– On-time performance is great, right?
– Our customers must be happy with us, right?
The pizza delivery example. . .
How often are we delivering

on time? 30 min. or less
Answer: Look at
the variation!
s
x
0 10 20 30 40 50
• Managing by the average doesn’t tell the whole story.

The average and the variation together show what’s
happening.
Reduce Variation to Improve Performance
30 min. or less
How many standard
deviations can you
“fit” within
s
customer
expectations?
x
0 10 20 30 40 50
• Sigma level measures how often we meet (or fail to

meet) the requirement(s) of our customer(s).
SIX SIGMA Basic Concept
• All work occurs in a system of interconnected processes

• Variation exists in all processes
• Understanding and reducing variation are the keys to
improving customer satisfaction and reducing costs
 Y = f(χ)
Question 1), Which one should we focus on the Y or X?
•Y • X1 … Xn
• Dependent Variable • Independent Variable
• Output • Input
• Effect • Cause
• Symptom • Problem
• Monitor • Control object
Question 2), Is needed to test and audit Y continually if the X is good?
 6 Sigma activity is concerned about the problem happened(in the sector of

manufacturing and non manufacturing). They could be improved by focusing
the factor which causes the problem.
The Approach of 6 Sigma Step
Steps Activity Focus
1. Clarifying improvement target object.

Define
2. Forecasting improvement effect.
3. CTQ selection for products and process. Y
4. Understanding process capability for ‘Y’
Y
5. Clarifying measurement method of ‘Y’
Measurement Y
6. Specific description of Target object for improving
Y
against ‘Y’
7. Clarifying Target for improving ‘Y’ Y
Analysis
8. Clarifying factors which affect ‘Y’ X1 .... Xn
9. Extract the vital few factors through screening X1 .... Xn
Improvement 10. Understanding correlation of vital few factors Vital Few X1
11. Process optimization and confirmation experiment Vital Few X1
12. Confirm measurement system for ‘X’ Vital Few X1

Control 13. Selection method how to control vital few factors Vital Few X1
14. Build up process control system & audit for vital few Vital Few X1
 6 Sigma activity with 5 steps of D-M-A-I-C, will pass through the major 14 steps.
 6 Sigma activity have D-M-A-I-C process breaking down the problem through the condition analysis, finding
the potential causal factor , and improving the vital few factors
After the condition identification, we have the first action about the part being improved at first, and then we
proceed continually the improvement activity at the next step.
6 Sigma Roles
SIX SIGMA CHALLENGES
• Six sigma less suitable for innovation.

• Six sigma emphasize process and cost,
while innovation constitutes something
new in which cost consuming.
• Six sigma only analyzing quantitative
data, qualitative data must be converted to
quantitative.
Six Sigma DMAIC Process
Develop Charter and

Institutionalize Improvement
Business Case
Control Deployment
Map Existing Process
Quantify Financial Results
Collect Voice of the
Present Final Project Results Customer
and Lessons Learned
Specify CTQs / Requirements
Close Project
Control Define
Improv Measure Measure CTQs / Requirements

Select Solution (Including e
Trade Studies, Determine Process Stability
Cost/Benefit Analysis) Analyze
Determine Process Capability
Design Solution Calculate Baseline Sigma
Pilot Solution Refine Problem Statement
Implement Solution
Identify Root Causes

Quantify Root Causes
Verify Root Causes
DMAIC = Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control

6σ Methodology
Define
Defining the “Project Y”
Translate the external CTQ’s into internal product requirements or “Project Y”.
Example:
Voice of the
CTQ Project Y
Customer
A thermostat setting of
The range must heat Calibration angle
350° must result in a
to the setting chosen of the thermostat
350° oven cavity
Call-takers must answer Answer rate

Call-takers must be 95% of all incoming calls (% of incoming calls
available to answer calls within 20 seconds answered within
(telephone promptness) 20 seconds)
The refrigerator must

No sweat Foam density
stay dry
Process Mapping
Add the operating specification and process targets
For the controllable variable input
Start Finish
1 2
Y = f (X)
Process Targets and Specifications
Experimental Target Upper Spec. Lower Spec. (SOP ) = Standard Operating
Input Parameters
Parameters
( N ) = Noise Parameters
( X ) = Controllable Process
Parameters
Structure Tree
Losses
Example Electromagnetic
Inductance
Lamination
OD
ROTOR Mechanical
Core length
RPM Area A
Endrings
Area B
STATOR
ASSEMBLY
Continue to ask “Why?” until you Reach the Root Cause…...
Courtesy of Daraius Patell

Cause & Effect Diagram
•The final diagram will look like a fishbone with the backbone displaying every known
variable (Measurement, Method, Machine, People, Materials, Environment).
Measurement Method Machine
People Materials Environment

Why-
why
Diagram
33
Measurement
Determine Process Capability for
Project Y
Determining process capability for your "Project Y" allows you to do several important things.
– Establish a baseline for comparing the improvement of your product or process.
– Quantify the ability of your process to produce output that meets the performance
standard.
– Determine if there is a technology or control problem.
– Understand process capabilities for the design of future processes for DFSS (Design
for Six Sigma) projects.
– Compare your process with others (internally and externally) to judge relative
performance.
• Define the problem in

mathematical terms
• Predict probability of
producing defects
Measurement
Determine Current Sigma Level
Structure Tree
Used to break down problem into manageable groups to identify root cause
or area of focus.
Process for creating a Structure Tree:

• List your problem statement on the left hand side of the page.
• Break the problem down into causes by asking ‘Why?’ and record on
tree branches. Typical categories of causes include:
Technical Transactional
Manpower People
Machine Price
Material Product
Method Promotion
Measurement Physical Distribution
• Assign a High, Medium or Low impact to each branch and select the
highest impact branch.
• Continue breaking down by asking ‘Why?’ until you reach the root cause.
More Frequently Asked Questions
About Measurement Data
What is a “Measurement System”?
- Everything associated with taking measurements:

the people, measurement tool, material, method
and environment is known as --
-- The “Measurement System”.

Parts
Observations
Measurements
Data
Inputs Outputs Inputs Outputs
Think of the “Measurement System” as a sub-process that

can add additional variation to measurement data. The goal
is to use a measurement process that has the smallest
amount of measurement error as possible.
Sources of Measurement System Variation
Observed
Process
Variation
Actual Process Measurement

Variation Variation
Long Term Short Term Variation due

Process Process Within to Variation
Variation Variation Sample Measurement due to
σ lt σ st Variation Equipment Operators
Accuracy Repeatability Stability Linearity Reproducibility
The Gage R&R methods we will study in this class will provide estimates of the total
measurement variation, the variation attributed to measurement equipment repeatability
and the variation attributed to the appraisers.
Evaluation Criteria for
%GR&R and %Study Variation
σ 2gage = σ 2repeatability + σ 2reproducibility

Repeatability: The variation in measurements taken by a single person or
instrument on the same or replicate item and under the same conditions.
Reproducibility: the variation induced when different operators, instruments, or
laboratories measure the same or replicate specimen.
Acceptable if less than 20%

Conditional if between 20% to 30%
Unacceptable if greater than 30%
Beware
Bewareofofthe
therisk
riskassociated
associatedwith
withusing
using
data
dataacquired
acquiredfrom
froman
anunacceptable
unacceptable
measurement
measurementprocess.
process.
Analyze
Hypothesis Test (for variables)
Hypothesis Test (for attributes)

*Ho(Null Hypothesis) is assumed to be true.
This is like the defendant being assumed
to be innocent.
Ha(Alternative Hypothesis is alternatives

the Null Hypothesis.
Ha is the one that must be proved.
True
Ho Ha
The ratio which is
Correct Type 2 being “Ha” even if it’s false.
Ho Where “β” is usually
Decision Error
set up at 10%.
β
Accept
The ratio which is
being rejected Ho even
Type 1 Correct
Ha
though certain thing is true Error Decision
where “ α” is α error. α
(usually 5%)
Data Types
Variable Discrete
◎ t-Test ◎ Chi Square

(Compares means less than 2 population) (Compares counts and
frequencies.)
◎ ANOVA
(Compares variances more than 2 population)
Before t-Test/ANOVA, confirm the

homogeneity of variance conducting
F-Test
T
◎ F-Test
(Compares variances of two population)
the gap delta(δ)
The larger Means and expected gap is getting,
the more different two variances of average in population.
• The tool depends on the data type. We use ANOVA when
we have categorical input(s) and a continuous response.
Dependent Variable (Y)
Continuous Categorical
Independent Variable (X)
Categorical Continuous
Regression Logistic
Regression
ANOVA Chi-Square (χ 2)
Test
The type of Hypothesis
Variance Homogeneity Testing Means Testing
1.One population variance Chi Square 1.One population Mean

testing testing
1) When we know σ of the Normal distribution

population ( 1 - Sample Z )
2.Two population variances F
testing 2) When we know σ of the T distribution
population ( 1 - Sample t )
Homogeneity of
3.Testing of population Variance 2.Two population Mean
variances for more than two ▶Bartlett’s Test testing
(Normal distribution)
1) When they know Normal distribution
σ1 and σ2
2) When they don’t know T distribution

Homogeneity of
4. Testing of population σ1 and σ2 ( 2 - Sample t )
Variance
variances for more than two ① σ1 = σ2
▶Levene’s Test
(Non-Normal distribution)
② σ1 ≠ σ2
Improvement
What is DOE ?
• DOE is more than just a statistical

technique.
• It is the combination of effective planning,

discipline, subject matter knowledge and
statistical methods that make the
experiment a success.
DOE Steps
1. Define the objective of the experiment.
Good
2. Select the response and input factors.
planning is
3. Determine the resources required. critical to
4. Select suitable experiment design success!
matrix and analysis strategy.
5. Perform the experiment and record
data.
6. Analyse the data, draw conclusions,
and perform confirmation runs.
Basic Concepts in DOE
Pressure
Process Quality Characteristic (Y)
Process
Speed
Pr
Run Pr Spd Pr Spd x Spd Y
DOE
1 5 70 - - + 10
2 5 90 - + - 4
3 10 70 + - - 6
4 10 90 + + + 12
Ave - 7 8 5
Y=8
Ave 9 8 11
+ 2 0 6
Process
Model ^ = 8 + Pr + 3 x ( Pr Spd)
y
FMEA
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis is a systematic method for identifying,
analyzing, prioritizing, and documenting potential failure modes and their
effects on a system, product, or process.
Control
The Logic of SPC(Statistical Process Control)?
Desired Process
Output Capability
α/2 Upper Control Limit
Controller α/2 Lower Control Limit
SAMPLES
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Xbar/R Chart for Sealing Angle Line #2
L M N O P
0.5
A B C D E UCL=0.4384
S a m p le M e a n
· Controllable factors · Uncontrollable factors 0.0 Mean=0.001188
- Assignable causes - Common causes -0.5

LCL=-0.4360
Subgroup 0 50 100
- Adjustable - Noise
1.0
1
- Special - Inherent causes 1 1
S a m p le R a n g e
UCL=0.7596
0.5
• SPC has been traditionally used to monitor and control the output of processes. R=0.2325
0.0 LCL=0
In this application, we are measuring the dimensions of finished parts or

characteristics of finished assemblies.
• Six Sigma Quality focuses on moving control upstream to the leverage input characteristic for Y. If we can
measure and control the vital few X’s, control of Y should be assured.
Types of Control Charts Types of Control Charts
Variables Charts for Attributes Charts for

monitoring continuous X’s monitoring discrete X’s
• Average & Range • Fraction Defective

X bar & R P Chart
n ＜ 10 typically n ≥ 50
typically 3~5 tracks DPU/DPU
• Averages & Std Deviation • Number Defective

X bar & σ np Chart
n ≥ 50 (constant)
n ≥ 10
tracks # def
• Median & Range • Number of Defects
X&R
c Chart
n ＜ 10
c ＞ 5
typically 3~5
• Individual & • Number of Def/Unit
Moving Range
U Chart
XmR
n variable
n=1
• In order to select the appropriate control chart for monitoring your process, first
determine if your key process variables (X’s) are continuous or discrete. There are
control charts for both continuous data and discrete data.
Control Chart
14
Upper Control Limit = Ave + 3 x Std Dev
13
• • •
12 • • •
• Central
10 • • • • • • Line =
8 • • • • Average
• • •
7
Lower Control Limit = Ave - 3 x Std Dev
6 Week
Note: Control limits should be established using subgroup standard deviation

Six Sigma DMAIC
Implementation Project
Example
G Manager Director Pres. Dir.
Project title
6σ Champion Review
Mgr.
Contents
Final Report
1. Define Step
2. Measure Step
3. Analysis Step
4. Improvement Step
5. Control Step
-Attachment
Date …………………
Department / Team
Prepared : …………..
Define Step
Engineer Ka Part Ka Group
Project Registration
l
Approva
Team
Period
Div./Dept: PJT Name Name
Main Improvement Object Breakthrough New Idea for Target Achievement

KPI Current World Best Target
Team Formation (Related Department Involved)

Why ? How to do ?
(* Selection Background) Name Dept. Level Role
Expected Qualitative Neck Point

Results
Quantitative
D
M A I C
General Background
Background Expected result

Energy Usage Price
0.5 100
0.4 80 11%
Percent
0.3 60
Count
0.2 40
5000
0.1 20
0.0 0 4500
ic ers
Defect LN
G N2 O2 c tr
Ele Oth
Count 0.1650 0.1309 0.1290 0.0605 0.0070

Percent 33.5 26.6 26.2 12.3 1.4
Cum % 33.5 60.1 86.3 98.6 100.0
Current Target Unit:

(Nm3/day)
How to do:
Target Saving cost:
D
M A I C
Process Mapping
Add the operating specification and process targets
For the controllable variable input
Start Finish
1 2
Y = f (X)
Process Targets and Specifications
Experimental Target Upper Spec. Lower Spec. (SOP ) = Standard Operating
Input Parameters
Parameters
( N ) = Noise Parameters
( X ) = Controllable Process
Parameters
D
M A I C
SIPOC – Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers

You obtain inputs from suppliers, add value through your process, and
provide an output that meets or exceeds your customer's requirements.
Process Understanding
Measure Step
M
D A I C
Brainstorming Potential X’s List
Big Y X1 X2 X3
F(x) Machine
Material
Material
Man
M
D A I C
Gage R & R
Date:……… To determine if the measurement error is

small and acceptable relative to the
Sampling Collected 12 ea Sampling process variation, we can
use Gage R&R study.
Conduct a training……
How to see what kind …….. Observed Process
Training Defect that happened in process. Variation
Purpose : find out the operator ability.
Conduct Gage R&R for 4 men to know the Measurement Process Variation
judgment capability (in different times & do
not know the inspection result of each other) Man
Gage R&R --> Repeat 2 times for each persons Machine
Sample Man
Method
Material
% Gage R&R : 0 %
Result acceptable
M
D A I C
Process Capability
Current Condition
Four Block Diagram

Poor
2.5
Block A Block B
Smooth curve 2.0
Process Control
interconnecting the
Z Shift
center of each bar
Center of the bar
1.5
1.0 Block C Block D

0.5 Current Target
Good
µµ Units of Measure
1 2 3 4 5 6
Z Shift Good
Poor
Technology
A : Poor control, inadequate technology
B : Must control the process better, technology is fine
C : Process control is good, inadequate technology
D : World class
M
D A I C
Analysis Plan
Schedule
Factor Detail Analysis Plan Mar 2nd Week Mar 3rd Week Mar 4th Week
X1.1 Inspect correlation between “Y” and inspector

for each group
X1.2 Analysis khole / dimension

Height, diameter, angle etc,
X1.3
X1.4
Analyze Step
A
D M I C
Use regression is to express and analyze a mathematical equation of describing a relationship.

That is, it is to fit a mathematical equation of describing a relationship between the “ Y” and “X’s”.
X’s
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
(response is Angle Va)
Regression
RegressionAnalysis:
Analysis:Angle
AngleValue
Valueversus
versusRotate
RotateGear
Gear 2
The
Theregression
regressionequation
equationisis
1
Angle
AngleValue
Value==--0,380
0,380++3,74
3,74Rotate
RotateGear
Gear
Normal Score
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SECoef
Coef TT PP
0
Constant
Constant -0,3796
-0,3796 0,1693
0,1693 -2,24
-2,24 0,042
0,042
Rotate
RotateGG 3,744
3,744 1,153
1,153 3,25
3,25 0,006
0,006
-1
-0,2 -0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
SS==0,1510
0,1510 R-Sq
R-Sq==43,0%
43,0% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj)==38,9%
38,9%
Residual
Analysis
Analysisof
ofVariance
Variance Gear Rotation
Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
Regression
Regression 11 0,24032
0,24032 0,24032
0,24032 10,55
10,55 0,006
0,006
Residual
ResidualError
Error 14
14 0,31905
0,31905 0,02279
0,02279
Total
Total 15
15 0,55937
0,55937
Unusual
UnusualObservations
Observations
Obs
Obs Rotate
RotateGG Angle
AngleVa
Va Fit
Fit SE
SEFit
Fit Residual
Residual St
StResid
Resid
22 0,230
0,230 0,4000
0,4000 0,4815
0,4815 0,1070
0,1070 -0,0815
-0,0815 -0,77
-0,77XX
77 0,130 0,5000 0,1071 0,0407 0,3929 2,70R Motor
0,130 0,5000 0,1071 0,0407 0,3929 2,70R
A
D M I C
We represent characterized variation “Y” by the total sum of square, then this method is to find
what the factor’s level which influence enormously is, comparing both of them.
Boxplots of Gr.A - 3 - Gr.C - 4
(means are indicated by solid circles)
One-way ANOVA: Gr.A - 3, Gr.A - 4, Gr.B - 3, Gr.B - 4, Gr.C - 3, Gr.C - 4 UCL
0.5
Analysis of Variance
Since p-value < 0.05; Target Line
Source DF SS MS F P
Ho (reject), Ha (accept).
Factor 5 0.8761 0.1752 2.59 0.030 That is we can claim there’s 0.0
a difference between the level

Error 102 6.8897 0.0675
Of adhesive
Total 107 7.7659
-0.5
Individual 95% CIs For Mean LCL
G r.C - 3
G r.C - 4
G r.A - 3
G r.A - 4
G r.B - 3
G r.B - 4
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -------+---------+---------+---------
Gr.A - 3 18 0.0572 0.3029 (-------*-------) Operator Adjustment
Gr.A - 4 18 -0.1217 0.2427 (-------*-------) Manual Adjustment
Screen
Gr.B - 3 18 0.0839 0.2231 (--------*-------)
Normal Probability Plot
Gr.B - 4 18 -0.1183 0.2403 (-------*-------) .999

.99
Gr.C - 3 18 0.0156 0.2796 (-------*-------) .95
Probability
.80
Gr.C - 4 18 0.0967 0.2626 (-------*--------)

.50
.20
.05
-------+---------+---------+--------- .01
.001
Pooled StDev = 0.2599 -0.15 0.00 -0.5

0.15
0.0
Gr.A - 3
0.5
Average: 0.0572222 Anderson-Darling Normality Test

StDev: 0.302865 A-Squared: 0.452
See from sealing angle specifications there’s no problem, cause all operator adjustment
N: 18 P-Value: 0.242
Still in range (-0.5o ~ 0.5o). But there’s a significant effect both of them seeing by characte
ristic variation result, each operator have a different mean adjustment.
A
D M I C
Analysis Result
Factor Analysis Purpose Detail Analysis Content Result Conclusion
Find most effected Regression, to compare Dew Point and Selected as

X1.1 Purge Flow rate P = 0.000
to “ Y “ Vital “X”
X1.2 Find most effected ANOVA, to compare Dew Point and Selected as
P = 0.000 Vital “X”
to “ Y “ Heating Time
X1.3 Find most effected ANOVA, to compare Dew Point and Selected as
Drying Time P = 0.003 Vital “X”
to “ Y “
X1.4 Find most effected Regression, to compare Dew Point P = 0.000 Bottle Neck
to “ Y “ and Out Air Temperature
Improve Step
I
D M A C
Design of Experiment
The Improve phase identifies a solution and confirms that the proposed
Solution will meet or exceed the improvement goals of the project.
StdOrder RunOrder CenterPt Blocks Flow rate Heating Time Drying Time Result
8 1 1 1 810 6 12 -90.2
5 2 1 1 600 4 12 -52.6
1 3 1 1 600 4 10 -56.4
7 4 1 1 600 6 12 -57.6
2 5 1 1 810 4 10 -89.2
3 6 1 1 600 6 10 -68.1
6 7 1 1 810 4 12 -85.3
4 8 1 1 810 6 10 91.3
Factors Level 1 Level 2

Full Factorial Design
Heating Time 4 hour 6 hour
Factors: 3 Base Design: 3, 8
Runs: 8 Replicates: 1 Drying TIme 10 hour 12 hour
Blocks: 1 Center pts (total): 0
Flow rate 520 m3/hr 810 m3/hr
I
D M A C
Optimize Condition:
 Heating Time : 4 hour

 Drying Time : 10 hour
 Flow rate : 520 m3/hour
I
D M A C
Improvement Result
Pr ocess Capabil ity of Dew Poi nt Four Block Diagram

Process Data
LSL USL
Within
Poor
LSL
Target
-80.00000
*
Overall
Potential (Within) Capability
2.5
A
USL -40.00000
B
Sample Mean -64.18750 Z.Bench 3.68
Z.LSL 3.68
Sample N 24
Z.USL 5.63
Block
Block
Pr ocess Capabilit y of Dew Point
StDev (Within) 4.29772
2.0
StDev (Ov erall) 8.60376 Cpk 1.23
Process Control
CCpk 1.55
O v erall Capability
Z Shift
LSL USL Z.Bench 1.81
Process Data Within Z.LSL 1.84
LSL -80.00000 Overall Z.USL 2.81
Target * Ppk 0.61
USL -40.00000 Potential (Within) Capability
Z.Bench 4.51
Cpm *
1.5
Sample Mean -60.00000
Sample N 24 Z.LSL 4.65
C D
StDev (Within) 4.29772 Z.USL 4.65
-80 -70 -60 Cpk-50 1.55-40
StDev (O v erall) 8.60376 Block
Block
Observ ed Performance
% < LSL 0.00
Exp. Within Performance
% < LSL 0.01
CCpk
Exp. O v erall Performance
% < LSL Ov3.30
1.55
erall Capability
1.0
% > USL 0.00 % > USL 0.00 % > USL 0.25
Z.Bench 2.05
% Total 0.00 % Total 0.01 % Total 3.55
Z.LSL 2.32
Z.USL
Ppk
2.32
0.77 0.5 Current Target
Cpm *
Good
1 2 3 4 5 6
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40
Z Shift Good
Observ ed Performance
% < LSL 0.00
Exp. Within Performance
% < LSL 0.00
Exp. Ov erall Performance
% < LSL 1.00
Poor
% > USL 0.00
% Total 0.00
% > USL 0.00
% Total 0.00
% > USL 1.00
% Total 2.01
Technology
I
D M A C
Improvement Result
Result
8%
92%
5000 Cost Saving: US$

4600
4500
Current Target Result

Control Step
C
D M A I
Six Sigma Quality focuses on moving control upstream to the leverage input characteristic
for Y. If we can measure and control the vital few X’s, control of Y should be assured.
Desired Process Capability

Output
●
Upper Control Limit
Process Standard Change

X
Controller ●
Lower Control Limit
Output
Input Process Xbar/R Chart for Sealing Angle Line #2
0.5
UCL=0.4384
Samp le Mean
0.0 Mean=0.001188
Group Member
LCL=-0.4360
-0.5
Subgroup 0 50 100
1.0
1
1 1
Controllable factors:
Sam ple Ran ge

UCL=0.7596
0.5
- Miss adjust causes R=0.2325
- Adjustable check 0.0 LCL=0
- Pad control
- Education
C
D M A I
P Chart enables us to control our process using statistical method's to signal when
process adjustments are needed.
P Chart for Stem Crack
0.004
0.003
Proportion
UCL=0.002466
0.002
P=0.001198
0.001
0.000 LCL=0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sample Number
X-bar/R Chart use to control daily average for CTQ.
CTQ’s daily control data

Xbar/R Chart for Cullet Speed
10.2
1
UCL=10.13
Sample Mean
10.1
10.0
Mean=9.943
9.9
9.8
LCL=9.755
9.7
Subgroup 0 5 10 15
1.0 UCL=1.016
Sample Range
R=0.5594
0.5
LCL=0.1030
0.0
Six Sigma Project
Example
Optimalkan pemakaian Zinc Prod Mgr Work Mgr CEO
.
NG DC ISK
Pada Proses Galvanize
Contents
6σ Champion Review
1. Define Step
2. Measure Step
Final Report
3. Analysis Step
4. Improvement Step
5. Control Step
Date 20 MAY 2009

Team : Galvanize
Prepared by : Imam Mudawam

D
Project Registration M A I C
CEO Work Mgr Prod Mgr
Approval
ISK DC NG
Period
PJTName Optimalkan Pemakaian Zinc Tea Galvanize
Div./Dept: m
CONST./GALV. Nam
Breakthrough e
Main Improvement Object New Idea for Target Achievement
KPI Current World Best Target
Optimalkan Pemakaian Zinc
Reduce Galvanize Galvanize
cost 183.6 micr. 130 micron
Z Team Formation (Related Department Involved)
Why ? How to do ?
Shift: Schedule
(* Selection Background) - - Making Theme Reg. Name Dept. Level Role
- Analyzing Aging Root-Caused May – W5 Fab
Pr ocess Capabi l i t y of t 6 .5 mm +
(using 95.0% confidence)
1.86. D Imam M Spv Leader
LSL Target USL - Determine Potential X List Lukman Galv Supv Leader
LSL
Process Data
100
Within
Ov erall M - Find Current situation Junl – W5
Target 130
USL 150
Sample Mean 183.649
Z.Bench -1.86
Low er CL -2.59 - Find Vital X by analyzing Banbang Qc Form Member
Jul –W5
Sample N 35
A Potential X
StDev (Within) 18.0955 Z.LSL 4.62
Z.USL -1.86
StDev (O v erall) 31.8811
Cpk -0.62
Low er CL -0.80
Amin Galv Form Member
Upper CL -0.44
- Find Improvement idea
O v erall Capability
Z.Bench
Low er CL
-1.07
-2.11 I - Confirmation run Sept –W3 Slamet Galv Form Member
Z.LSL 2.62
Z.USL -1.06
120 160 200 240 280

Ppk -0.35
- Process Control by Sept –W5 Hans Ga Supv Member

C
Low er CL -0.49
Upper CL -0.21
O bserv ed Performance Exp. Within Performance Exp. Ov erall Performance
Monitoring Aging
PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM < LSL 1.89 PPM < LSL 4348.13 Cpm 0.11
PPM > USL 885714.29 PPM > USL 968521.55 PPM > USL 854388.04 Low er CL 0.09
Amount
PPM Total 885714.29 PPM Total 968523.44 PPM Total 858736.18
Worksheet: Worksheet 3; 11/ 13/ 2009
Expected Rp / kg Qualitative Neck Point

Results Rp / kg Saving Zinc • Ketebalan Galvanize
Quantitative Rp. 295 Juta /Tahun sesuai standard.
D
M A I C
General Background
• Hasil proses Galvanize ketebalannya melebihi standar yang

ditentukan dalam ASTM- A123 / A123M.
• Tujuan Proyek ini untuk dapat mengoptimalkan ketebalan lapisan zinc
pada hasil proses galvanize.
Par et o Char t of Ket ebal an mat er i al

400
sample mea n micr o n

100
300
80
Pe r cen t
200 60
40
100
20
0 0
Ketebalan material m m m
.. m 0m 0m
d
. 6. 3.
s/ s /d s /d
.5 .5 .5
t.6 .3 lt
.1
ia
l lt i a
er ia er
at er at
M at M
M
sample mean micron 183.6 84.2 83.6
Percent 52.3 24.0 23.8
Cum % 52.3 76.2 100.0
Worksheet: Worksheet 3; 10/14/2009
Produk tebal 6.0s/d….mm

M
Brainstorming Potential X’s List D A I C
Big Y X1 X2 X3
Material Base Metal Ketebalan
Komposisi kimia
Konsentrasi Basa
Optimalkan pemakaian Zinc Degrising Caustic Soda
Temperatur
Konsentrasi Keasaman
Pickling 1 & 2 Hcl
Waktu Pencelupan
1
M
Brainstorming Potential X’s List D A I C
Big Y X1 X2 X3
1
Zinc Amunium Chloride Konsentrasi Keasaman
Fluxing
Temperatur
Optimalkan Pemakaian Zinc

Pada proses Galvanize
Temperatur
Aluminium Alloy
Dipping Komposisi Campuran
Zinc Ingot
Waktu pencelupan
M
D A I C
Measure Step - GAGE R&R
Decide
operator Gage R&R take
who take Gage from 2 Inspector
R&R who check this
sample of
Do Gage
Galvanize coating
R&R
thickness in 10
chek point
Change
Method,measurement, etc
Analyze
Result In doing gage R&R
Gage NG ;
R&R Total Gage we take 2 times
R&R > 20% repeat in check
OK ;
Total Gage
R&R < 20%
Next Step
M
Gage R&R D A I C
Sample pengukuran ketebalan galvanize sebanyak 2 sample dengan 30 titik pengukuran , tiap sampel diambil 15 titik
pengukuran
Diukur secara berurutan dan secara acak oleh dua orang operator .
OPERATOR PENGUKURAN KETEBALAN GALVANI ZE
Gage R&R < 20% Reported by :
Gage name: Tolerance:
Acceptable Date of study : Misc:
Com ponents of Variation m easure by part no

100 % Cont ribut ion
% St udy Var
110
Study Var %Study Var
P er c ent
100
50
Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) 90
(%SV) 0
1 2 3
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part
Total Gage R&R 2.0064 12.0384 part no
R Chart by oprtr
14.67 A B m easure by oprtr
Repeatability 2.0064 12.0384 8
UCL= 8.604
110
Sam ple Range

14.67 100
Reproducibility 0.0000 0.0000 4 _
R= 2.633 90
0.00 0 LCL= 0
A B
oprtr 0.0000 0.0000 oprt r
Xbar Chart by oprtr
0.00 A B oprtr * part no I nteraction
Part-To-Part 13.5243 81.1460 110 110 oprt r
98.92
Sam ple Mean
A
A v er age
100 UCL=
__ 101.62 100 B
Total Variation 13.6724 82.0341 X= 96.67
90
100.00 90
LCL= 91.71
1 2 3
part no
Worksheet: Worksheet 3; 9/ 9/ 2009
The result of Gage R&R total is 14.67 % the acceptance percentage is

bellow 20% (< 20 % ) ,
meanwhile the result of measurement between < 20 %, it accepted.
M
Current Condition D A I C
Rata rata ketebalan Galvanize pada produk dengan ketebalan > 6.0 mm saat ini mencapai 183.6 micron , berdasarkan data
dari tgl.20 Juni 09 Sampai 27 Juni 09 ,jumlah sample 35 , alat ukur menggunakan COATING THICKNESS DIGITAL merek
TIME - TYPE TT 220 .
Untuk mendapatkan ketebalan sesuai target yang diinginkan grafik harus bergeser kekiri , dan harus mengurangi keteba-
Pelapisan Galvanize yang sesuai standard ASTM A 123/A 123M antara ( 100 s/d 150 ) micron .
Pr ocess Capabi li t y of t 6 .5 mm + Pr obabi li t y Plot Ket ebalan Gal vani ze mat er i al 6.5mm s/ d .......dst
(using 95.0% confidence) Normal - 95% CI
99
Mean 183.6
LSL Target USL
StDev 31.88
Process Data Within
95 N 35
LSL 100 O v erall
AD 1.706
Target 130 90
USL 150 Potential (Within) Capability P-Value < 0.005
Sample Mean 183.649 Z.Bench -1.86 80
Sample N 35 Low er CL -2.59 70
Z.LSL 4.62
Pe r ce n t
StDev (Within) 18.0955 60
StDev (Ov erall) 31.8811 Z.USL -1.86 50
Cpk -0.62 40
Low er CL -0.80
30
Upper CL -0.44
20
Ov erall Capability
Z.Bench -1.07 10
Low er CL -2.11
5
Z.LSL 2.62
Z.USL -1.06
Ppk -0.35 1
120 160 200 240 280 Low er CL -0.49 100 150 200 250 300
Upper CL -0.21 t 6.5mm +
Observ ed Performance Exp. Within Performance Exp. Ov erall Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM < LSL 1.89 PPM < LSL 4348.13 Cpm 0.11
PPM > USL 885714.29 PPM > USL 968521.55 PPM > USL 854388.04 Low er CL 0.09 Worksheet: Worksheet 3; 7/1/ 2009
PPM Total 885714.29 PPM Total 968523.44 PPM Total 858736.18
Worksheet: Worksheet 3; 11/13/ 2009
KETEBALAN GALVANIZE
M
D A I C
Four Block Diagram
Nilai sigma level saat ini adalah – 1.86 σ, target yang ingin
dicapai 4.5 σ SIGMA TARGET
EXPLANATION
Poor
2.5
Position of Current Condition was

2.0 A B column C , it was mean :
Process Control
PROCESS CONTROL IS GOOD,

1.5
Z shift
BUT TECHNOLOGY (METHOD)

IS BAD
C D
1.0
0.5
Good 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z st SIGMA TARGET
Poor Good
Technology
Sigma current – 1.86
A
Analysis D M I C
TEMPERATUR ZINC
F(x) x
Optimalkan pemakaian Zinc

Pada proses Galvanize
KETEBALAN GALVANIZE WAKTU PENCELUPAN

A
Analyze – Type of factor & Tools Using D M I C
Y Factor (x) Type Tools
Optimalkan
pemakaian CONTINUE
Waktu Pencelupan REGRESION
zinc pada
proses
Galvanize
(Continuous)
Analysis Waktu Fluxing A
D M I C
( Regresion )
Regression Analysis: Ketbln.Galva versus Wktu fluxing, Wktu.deeping, ...
* Wktu.deeping is (essentially) constant

* Wktu.deeping has been removed from the equation.
Nilai p-value < 0.05, maka
Ketebalan Galvanize VS * NOTE * All values in column are identical.
* Temp.deeping is (essentially) constant Ho ditolak, yang
Waktu Fluxing * Temp.deeping has been removed from the equation. menandakan variabel
waktu Fluxing
The regression equation is berpengaruh terhadap
Ketbln.Galvanize (micron ) = 110 - 1.17 Wktu fluxing ketebalan galvanize.
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF

Constant 109.667 3.658 29.98 0.000
Wktu fluxing -1.1668 0.4555 -2.56 0.034 1.000
S = 4.13685 R-Sq = 45.1% R-Sq(adj) = 38.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 112.32 112.32 6.56 0.034
Residual Error 8 136.91 17.11
Total 9 249.22
Unusual Observations
Wktu Ketbln.Galvanize
Obs fluxing (micron ) Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid
1 3.0 114.00 106.17 2.43 7.83 2.34R
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.
Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.69422

Analysis Temperatur A
D M I C
Dipping ( Regresion )
Ketebalan Galvanize VS Temperatur Zinc
Regression Analysis: Ktbl . Galva versus Tmprt deepin,
Wkt.deeping, ...
* Wkt.deeping is (essentially) constant

* Wkt.deeping has been removed from the equation.
* NOTE * All values in column are identical.
* Wkt.fluxing is (essentially) constant

* Wkt.fluxing has been removed from the equation.
The regression equation is

Ktbl . Galvanize (micron ) = - 98 + 0.443 Tmprt deeping
Nilai p-value > 0.05, maka
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF Ho diterima, yang
Constant -98.4 157.1 -0.63 0.548 menandakan variabel
Tmprt deeping 0.4428 0.3562 1.24 0.249 1.000
temperatur tidak
berpengaruh terhadap
S = 6.47038 R-Sq = 16.2% R-Sq(adj) = 5.7% ketebalan galvanize.
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 64.70 64.70 1.55 0.249
Residual Error 8 334.93 41.87
Total 9 399.63

Analysis Waktu Dipping A
D M I C
( Regresion )
Waktu Dipping VS Ketebalan Galvanize
Regression Analysis: Ktbalan Galvanize micron versus Waktu

deeping
The regression equation is

Ktbalan Galvanize micron = 43.7 + 19.9 Waktu deeping
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF

Constant 43.674 5.279 8.27 0.000
Waktu deeping 19.9082 0.6573 30.29 0.000 1.000
S = 5.96979 R-Sq = 99.1% R-Sq(adj) = 99.0%

Nilai p-value < 0.05, maka
Ho ditolak, yang
Analysis of Variance menandakan variabel
Source DF SS MS F P
waktu dipping
Regression 1 32698 32698 917.49 0.000 berpengaruh terhadap
Residual Error 8 285 36 ketebalan galvanize.
Total 9 32983

A
Analysis Result ( Regression ) D M I C
Item Content Result Remarks

Waktu Fluxing P = 0.034 Selected not Vital View
Galvanizing Temperatur Dipping P = 0.024 Selected not Vital View
Waktu Dipping P = 0.000 Selected as Vital View
Berdasarkan data diatas variabel waktu Dipping paling berpengaruh terhadap hasil ketebalan pada proses galvanize (99%)
Improvement D M A I C
HUBUNGAN WAKTU PENCELUPAN DAN KETEBALAN GALVANIZE • Berdasarkan hasil analisa, untuk
PADA PRODUK DENGAN KETEBALAN 6 mm
produk dengan ketebalan 6 mm
260
250
didapatkan hubungan linier antara
240
230
lamanya waktu pencelupan dengan
220
210
hasil ketebalan galvanize.
200
190
• Grafik di bawah ini dapat dijadikan
Ketebalan Galvanis (micron)
180
170
acuan untuk menentukan tebal
160
150
galvanize yang diinginkan.
140 Standar 6mm
130
120
Y = 43.7 + 19.9 x
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Waktu Pencelupan (menit)

Improvement D M A I C
Catatan : Proses improvement masih sedang berjalan dan akan dilaporkan

kemudian hari.
94
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Main Schedule
Measurement Analysis Improvement Control
Session Start : 23.01.02 Session Start : Session Start : Session Start :
□○ Theme Register □○ Brainstorming □○ Factor Level Decision □○ Control Chart

□○ Team Organization □○ Logic Tree Analysis □○ DOE □○ Rational Tolerance
□○ Process Map □○ Analysis by Minitab □○ Statistical Interpretation selection
□○ Cpk Analysis(Current) □○ Process Benchmarking □○ Data Gathering & Analysis □○ Document Control plan
□○ Problem Description □○ CTQ Selection □○ Main Factor Analysis □○ Training Process Controller
□○ CTQ Selection □○ Process Map □○ Hypothesis Test □○ CTQ Process Monitoring
□○ Measurable Y Value □○ ANOVA □○ ANOVA System set up
Selection □○ Regression Analysis
□○ 4 Block Diagram
Session Finished : Session Finished : Session Finished : Session Finished :
□○ Y Identification □○ Statistical skill of Y □○ Conclusion(the fixed X □○ Control Plan

□○ Gauge R&R □○ Graphical skill of Y factor) Implementation
□○ 4 Block Focus(Zst & Zshift) □○ Gap Analysis □○ Test plan □○ CTQ Process Monitoring
□○ Problem analysis
□○ The 1st improvement of System Build-Up
reaffirmation
X(Factor) □○ Double check of all the
problems
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Definition Of Defect
A period of time taken off by an employee which is neither

DEFINITION
planned or authorised
Sickness
DEFECT TYPES Unauthorised absence
Lateness
Payment for overtime to cover absence = £800,000:00 pa

Loss in revenue due to lost production = £700,000:00 pa (est)
VALUE Adverse morale issues
Deterioration in productivity and quality
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Absence Logic Tree
Accidents
Morale issues
Environment
Cleanliness
Repetitive Work
Age
Employee Sex
Time With Company
Absence
Use Of Policy
Management Section
Style
Team Leader
Consistent Approach
Target Setting
Method Guidelines
=CTQ’s Shift Pattern

Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Sigma Level Calculation
Graph shows reduction in absence, since the beginning of the project (DEC) spotlight effect has
reduced absence. One problem we do have is the calculation of absence data there is a difference
between the HR data collection method and the tube plant data collection method.
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Tube 4.27 4.66 5.23 4.7 5.01 5.34 3.86 3.13 2.75
HR 4.31 5.22 5.86 4.56 5.09 5.02 3.97 3.45 2.72
Variance -0.04 -0.56 -0.63 0.14 -0.08 0.32 -0.11 -0.32 0.03
Using The Percentage Defective (4.605%) We Calculated The DPMO Since Merger
DPMO = 46050
Using statistical tables the SIGMA LEVEL = 3.21
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
VOC - Harp Questionnaire
219 People Questioned Across The Tube Plant
Answered by all employees.

Name Marital Status
Clock Number Age
Department Children
Shift Home
Time with Company Job position
Time in current job
Have you taken any unauthorised time off since 5 th July 2001? YES / NO
Do you currently have any warnings that relate to sickness or absence? YES / NO
Do you understand LGPDW's absence and sickness policy? YES / NO
Do you understand the affect of absence on our business? (e.g. cost, pressure on colleagues)
Only to be answered by employees with no absence history

How do you think high absence levels affects your ability to do your job?
What do you think of LG. PHILIPS Displays as an employer?
Are you happy working for LGPDW?
Ask employee all questions below, and mark the score they give ie strongly agree
= 10, agree = 5 and strongly disagree = 0.
Do you think absence is due to Management style?
Do you think absence is due to accidents in work?
Do you think absence is due to the current shift pattern?
Do you think absence is due to your working environment?
If I was late for work, I would take the rest of the shift off because it still counts as an absence
Are there any other reasons that you think contribute to absence that are not listed above?
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Catchment Area Of People Questioned
Overall
catchment area
Main catchment
area
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Pareto’s Of Absence Data
How would y ou tackle high absence? How would y ou tackle absence?

Operators Section Leaders
250 100 10 100
200 80 80
Percent
Percent
150 60 60
Count
Count
5
100 40 40
50 20 20
0 0 0 0
s
tee
s en
s ion ab
nu at nt g ng
nus e n bo n ci ta nin ld i
ti tud is e tatio Defect
Defect A tt
Bo
Mg
tat
s ic
Mu Pa
yr
Jo
b ro O th
ers
te
nd
an
c e
C
om
m
u
on
p er
s is
x tr
am
an
Te
am
bu
i
A 1 E
1- n fo
ri
th e
Count 137 51 33 14 5 12 Count 4 2 ga 2 1 1
Percent 54.4 20.2 13.1 5.6 2.0 4.8 Percent 40.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0
Cum % 54.4 74.6 87.7 93.3 95.2 100.0 Cum % 40.0 60.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Conclusions Conclusions
Operators would like to be paid Section Leaders see the benefit
more to come to work in some form of attendance
Operators see a problem in the bonus, but more emphasis on
way they are treated by Mgt communication and data
Music might help?? collection
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Pareto’s Of Absence Data
Main Reasons For Absence On Y our Shif t Main issues af f ecting shif ts ability to meet output targets
100 100
20 20
80 80
Percent
Percent
60 60
Count
Count
10 10
40 40
20 20
0 0 0 0
ay
s ork ork
nc
e
ic ss fl oa
td ew ora
le de w blem
s
ths ning y na e ce
Defect dom
est flu
sic
k ne
i ble ry
ou tsid
lo
wm nts
insi
rpr
o dea O th
ers
Defect ol w
ma
n p pl
su m
aint
e
ab
sen
c
ex
pe
rien
Ot
hers
flex i nju c id
e ca
po
or
ac
Count 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 Count 11 5 3 2 1 1
Percent 17.4 17.4 17.4 13.0 8.7 8.7 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Percent 47.8 21.7 13.0 8.7 4.3 4.3
Cum % 17.4 34.8 52.2 65.2 73.9 82.6 87.0 91.3 95.7 100.0 Cum % 47.8 69.6 82.6 91.3 95.7 100.0
Conclusions
Conclusions
No significant patterns have
Absence is not a major issue
emerged
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis Using M System
NEXT STEP IS TO CARRY OUT ANALYSIS BY

EMPLOYEE TO ESTABLISH IF THERE ARE Age
ANY STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES Employee Sex
Time With Company
DATABASE WAS CREATED LOOKING AT THE

NINE MONTH PERIOD (5th July-4th April) PRIOR
TO AND DURING PROJECT
Employment Details Time with Company Personal Details Unauthorised Absence

empn dept Distance date_hir Age Count
Emp Name Dept Name Grade shift no Year/Month gender Age Abs Occ
o cd Details ed Group Absence
12345 A N OTHER1 81000 Tube Manufacturing Senior Engineer DT CF1 1AB 17/03/00 02/01 Male 34 D 0 0
12346 A N OTHER2 81000 Tube Manufacturing Senior Engineer DT CF1 1AB 06/10/99 02/06 Male 34 D 0 0
12347 A N OTHER3 81000 Tube Manufacturing Team Leader DT CF1 1AB 11/08/97 04/08 Male 33 D 3 1
12348 A N OTHER4 81100 Screen Production Section Leader T4 CF1 1AB 18/05/98 03/11 Male 51 H 0 0
12349 A N OTHER5 81100 Screen Production Section Leader T2 CF1 1AB 26/04/99 02/12 Male 42 F 1 1
12350 A N OTHER6 81100 Screen Production Section Leader T1 CF1 1AB 10/05/99 02/11 Male 41 F 0 0
12351 A N OTHER7 81100 Screen Production Section Leader DT CF1 1AB 20/04/98 03/12 Male 41 F 0 0
12352 A N OTHER8 81100 Screen Production Section Leader T2 CF1 1AB 06/10/97 04/06 Male 39 E 1 1
12353 A N OTHER9 81100 Screen Production Team Leader DT CF1 1AB 12/01/98 04/03 Male 39 E 0 0
12354 A N OTHER10 81100 Screen Production Technician DT CF1 1AB 06/10/97 04/06 Female 35 D 0 0
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis By Age
Created Age Groupings Analysed Percent Absent By Age Group
Age Group Age Range 19.35%

A 16-20 16.51%
B 21-25
13.27% 13.71%
C 26-30
11.74%
D 31-35 8.97% 8.82%
E 36-40
F 41+
Chi-Square Test: A, B, C, D, E, F
A B C D E F Grand
Expected counts are printed below observed counts
Total
A B C D E F Total
1 188 175 183 132 91 62 831
183.80 187.26 182.08 125.12 94.06 58.68 Conclusions
2 25
29.20
42
29.74
28
28.92
13
19.88
18
14.94
6
9.32
132 There is a significance showing that
Total 213 217 211 145 109 68 963 D = 31-35 and F = 41+ are more likely to
Chi-Sq = 0.096 + 0.802 + 0.005 + 0.378 + 0.099 + 0.188 +
0.603 + 5.050 + 0.029 + 2.378 + 0.626 + 1.183 = 11.438 not to take unauthorised absence and that
DF = 5,
B = 21-25 are more likely to take
P-Value = 0.043 unauthorised absence
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis By Gender
Split By Gender Analysed Percent Absent By Gender
Female Male Grand Total 15.51%

22.28% 30.88% 29.08% 13.71%
157 526 683
45 235 280
Chi-Square Test: F, M
Expected counts are printed below 6.93%

observed counts
F M Total
1 188 643 831
174.31 656.69
Female Male Grand Total
2 14 118 132
27.69 104.31
Conclusions
Total 202 761 963
There is significance showing that a
Chi-Sq = 1.075 + 0.285 + male person would more likely take
6.767 + 1.796 = 9.924
DF = 1, unauthorised absence
P-Value = 0.002
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis By Time Served
Analysed Percent Absent By Time Served

Created Time Served Groupings 21.99%
Group Range
A <1Year 15.64%
B 1-2 Years 12.24%
13.71%
C 2-3 Years 11.23%

10.69%
D 3-4 Years
E >4 Years
Chi-Square Test: A, B, C, D, E

A B C D E Grand
A B C D E Total Total
1 117 129 151 324 110 831
113.04 126.85 154.46 314.97 121.67
2 14 18 28 41 31 132
17.96 20.15 24.54 50.03 19.33
Total 131 147 179 365 141 963 Conclusions
Chi-Sq = 0.138 + 0.036 + 0.078 + 0.259 + 1.120 + There is a significance in that

0.872 + 0.229 + 0.489 + 1.630 + 7.050 =
11.902 E = 4 years +
DF = 4,
is more likely to take unauthorized
P-Value = 0.018
absence
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis By Department
Created Department Sub-Groups Percent Absent By Sub Group

Group dept_cd Dept Name Total Abs Never
A 83210 Tube Material Warehouse 46.15% 6 7 46.15%
B 81400 Design/Process Engineering 35.71% 5 9
C 81320 Sputter section 32.50% 13 27 35.71%
D 81310 Spin section 21.21% 7 26 32.50%
E 84120 Tube OQC section 16.13% 5 26
81140 Maintenance 1 section
F 14.55% 8 47
81510 Maintenance Section(2/3) 21.21%
81230 Gunseal and Exhaust section 16.13%14.55%
81330 I.T.C. section 13.68%
G 13.68% 45 284
81340 Outgoing section 10.29%
7.69%
81450 CS-Reinspection section 5.63% 5.45%
81210 Assembly Section 2.50%
H 10.29% 7 61
81220 Inner Dag section
I 84110 Tube IQC section 7.69% 1 12
J 81240 1st Inspection section 5.63% 4 67 A B C D E F G H I J K L
81110 Screen Coating section
K 5.45% 6 104
81120 Chemical section
L 81130 Shadow Mask Section 2.50% 2 78
Average 12.72% 109 748
Conclusions
This shows that there is a significance in departments
A = Tube Material Warehouse, B = Design/Process Engineering,
C = Sputter section.
In which all are more likely to take unauthorised absence
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Analysis By Shift
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Improvement Suggestions
Improvement Actions/Suggestions by CTQ.
CTQ Proved By Improvement Recommendation

Proved By Chi Square
Age Use best fit when recruiting.
Test
Gender Use best fit when recruiting.
Test
Length Of Service Use best fit when recruiting.
Test
Shift Pattern Build In More flexibility for day shift workers.
Test
Department Compare Management Styles
Test
Proved By HARP
Morale New Incentive Scheme (Ongoing)
Survey
Proved By HARP
Accidents New Health & Safety Structure In Place
Survey
Proved By HARP
Envirionment Music & Improved Rest Room Facilities
Survey
Proved By HARP Training Courses For Manager On Interpersonal Skills.
Management Style
Survey Management Attitude Improvement Plan Next Slide
Proved By HARP
Aggressive Target Setting Unable to improve due to the nature of our business.
Survey
Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Improvement Suggestions - Management Attitude
Morale Absence
Treat More Follow Correct

Operators As Information Procedures
Equal
Team Building Improved
More 1 To 1 Grading
Improved System
Communication
Interpersonal
Skills
HIGH MORALE = LOW ABSENCE

Define
Define Measure
Measure Analyse
Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Improvement Suggestions - Attendance Bonus

£100 Per
Year
Verbal -25% All

All Absence Deductions
Deductions? Resulting In Written - 50% For 1 Year
Warnings From Date Of
F Written - 100%
Warning
All Authorised
Non- Sickness
Absence
Paid Quarterly
Cash/Vouchers/Sa
vings Total
Decided By
Incentive Scheme Savings
Working Party
£1,086,000
Define
Define Measure Analyse
Measure Analyse Improve
Improve Control
Control
Output
Initial Current
σ level 3.21 3.43
PPM (Month) 46021 27300
Loss (£) £117000 £69405
Est. Monthly Saving of:

(Based on hours lost) £47595
Process Sterilization
Capability Up
6σ Champion Review
Contents:
Final Report
1. Define Step
2. Measure Step
3. Analysis Step
4. Improvement
5. Control
D
Background M A I C
Develop working efficiency and found 6 Sigma control for free

Salmonella in sterilization process.
Process Capability Current Condition
Process Capability Sixpack for Sealing Angle Line #2

Individual and MR Chart Capability Histogram
1.0
UCL=0.7674
2
Ind ivid ua l V a lue
0.5
0.0 Mean=-0.01707
-0.5 1.5
LCL=-0.8016
-0.5 0.0 0.5
Obser. 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cp
Normal Prob Plot
0.9
UCL=0.9638
Cpk
M o v.R a ng e
0.6
0.3 R=0.2950
0.65
0.51
0.0 LCL=0
-0.5 0.0 0.5
Last 25 Observations Within Capability Plot

StDev: 0.261507 Process Tolerance
0.3 Cp: 0.64 Within
Cpk: 0.62 I I I
V a lue s
0.0 Overall
Overall I I I
-0.3 StDev: 0.288617 Specifications Target Current
Pp: 0.58 I I
-0.6 Ppk: 0.56 -0.5 0.5
480 490 500
Observation Number
M
D A I C
Potential X’ List
Executing analysis with Logic Tree for sterile product.
Big Y X1 X2 X3
Sterile Product Machine Sterile Time Fixed
Rotate
Temp Warm
Hot > 97
Steam Supply Spec (6.5 ~ 9) bar
Material Pineapples Bracket Stand
Juice pH
Methods Automatic
Manual
M
D A I C
Gage R&R
Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction
Gage R&R Source DF SS MS F P
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp) Part 9 4.19852 0.466502 21530.8 0.00000
Operator 2 0.00004 0.000022 1.0 0.38742
Total Gage R&R 0.000020 0.03 Operator*Part 18 0.00039 0.000022 1.2 0.33365
Repeatability 0.000020 0.03 Repeatability 30 If significant,
0.00055 0.000018P-value < 0.05 indicates
Reproducibility 0.000000 0.00 Total that a part is having a variation for
59 4.19950
Operator 0.000000 0.00
Some measuringGage name: Sealing angle Line 2
Date of study: Mar 3rd,2006
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Measurement Reported by: novi m
Part-To-Part 0.077747 99.97 Tolerance: 0.05
Misc: 0.01
Total Variation 0.077767 100.00 Components of Variation By Part

100 0.4
%Contribution
0.3
%Study Var 0.2
P erc ent
0.1
50 0.0
-0.1
-0.2
StdDev Study Var %Study -0.3
0 -0.4
Var Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Source (SD) (5.15*SD) (%SV) R Chart by Operator By Operator

A B C 0.4
UCL=0.01198
0.3
S am ple R ange
0.010
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.005 -0.1
R=0.003667
-0.2
-0.3
0.000 LCL=0 -0.4
Total Gage R&R 0.004437 0.02285 1.59 0 Operator A B C
Xbar Chart by Operator Operator*Part Interaction

0.5 A B C Operator
0.4
Repeatability 0.004425 0.02279 1.59 0.3
A
B
S am ple Mean
0.2
C
Average
0.1
0.0 UCL=0.03706
Mean=0.03017
LCL=0.02327 0.0
Reproducibility 0.000323 Ok for0.12

0.00166 “product acceptance” -0.1
-0.2
considering a products-0.5 -0.3

-0.4
0.000323 0.00166 tolerance.

0 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Operator 0.12
M
Measurement D A I C
Through analysis of process capability , getting sigma level 1.85 σ
Four Block Diagram

Process
Processcapability for Sterile
Capability Analysis Product
for Sealing Poor
Angle Line #2 2.5
Process Data
LSL Target USL Block A Block B
2.0
Process Control
USL 0.500000
Within
Target 0.000000
Z Shift
LSL
Mean
-0.500000
-0.017074
Overall
Target
Sample N 499
StDev (Within) 0.261507 1.5
StDev (Overall) 0.288617

1.0 Block C Block D
1.85 σ
Z.Bench 1.59
Z.USL 1.98
Z.LSL 1.85
Cpk 0.62 0.5 4.5 σ
Cpm 0.58
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Good
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z.Bench 1.38 PPM < LSL 4008.02 PPM < LSL 32395.08 PPM < LSL 47140.05
Z Shift Good
Z.USL
Z.LSL
1.79
1.67
PPM > USL
PPM Total
0.00
4008.02
PPM > USL
PPM Total
24004.66
56399.74
PPM > USL
PPM Total
36602.01
83742.06
Poor
Ppk 0.56 Technology
D : World class
A
Analysis - Regression D M I C
Use regression is to express and analyze a mathematical equation of describing a relationship. That is, it is
to fit a mathematical equation of describing a relationship between the “Y” and “X’s”.
X’s
Regression
Regression Analysis:
Analysis: Sterile
Sterile product
product versus
versus time
time and
and temp
temp
The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
Sterile p-value < 0.05 :
Sterile =0.000303
=0.000303 ++ 0.00113
0.00113 time
time ++ 0.000060
0.000060 temp
temp
Significant factor
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Constant
Constant 0.0003033
0.0003033 0.0002999
0.0002999 1.01
1.01 0.345
0.345
Time
Time 0.00112859
0.00112859 0.00003939
0.00003939 28.65
28.65 0.000
0.000
Temp
Temp 0.00006005
0.00006005 0.00005694
0.00005694 1.05
1.05 0.327
0.327
SS == 0.0003891
0.0003891 R-Sq
R-Sq == 100.0%
100.0% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 100.0%
100.0%
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals
(response is Angle)
R and R -adj are over 90% :

2 2
Analysis which indicates a potentially good fit

Analysis of
of Variance
1
Variance
N o rm a l S c o re
Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
0
Regression
Regression 22 0.82500
0.82500 0.41250
0.41250 2.725E+06
2.725E+06 0.000
0.000
Residual
Residual Error
Error 77 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000
0.00000
-1
Total
Total 99 0.82500
0.82500 -0.0005 0.0000 0.0005
Residual
A
Analysis – Regression D M I C
Comparing of Sterile product and steam supply to find what the factor’ level’s which influence
enormously by represent characterized variation “Y” by the total sum of square.
Regression
Analysis: Sterile
Sterile product
product versus
versus Steam
Steam supply
supply
The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
Sterile
Sterile product
product == -- 0,380
0,380 ++ 3,74
3,74 Steam
Steam supply
supply
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Constant
Constant -0,3796
-0,3796 0,1693
0,1693 -2,24
-2,24 0,042
0,042
Steam
Steam Supply
Supply 3,744
3,744 1,153
1,153 3,25
3,25 0,006
0,006
SS == 0,1510
0,1510 R-Sq
R-Sq == 43,0%
43,0% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 38,9%
38,9%
Histogram of the Residuals

Analysis
Analysis of
of Variance
Variance (response is Cullet S)
Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP 4
Regression
Regression 11 0,24032
0,24032 0,24032
0,24032 10,55
10,55 0,006
0,006
3
Frequ enc y
Residual
Residual Error
Error 14
14 0,31905
0,31905 0,02279
0,02279The P-value < 0.05 2
Total
Total 15
15 0,55937
0,55937 Reject Ho ; Accept ha 1
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Residual
A
Analysis – Chi-square D M I C
This Chi-Square is used to Test hypotheses about the frequency of occurrence of some event
happening with equal probability.
Chi-Square Test: matang, Stngh matang,
juice Conclusion:
Chi-Square contributions are printed below ◆ At least no one region is different, because a
expected counts dependence exists. (P > 0.05)
Stngh ◆ It no appears that the dependence may exist with

matang matang juice Total Region 1 due to the large difference between the
OK 1000 995 1013 3008 observed and the expected values.(must
1000.01 993.03 1014.96 subtract the expected and observed values)
0.000 0.004 0.004
NG 3 1 5 9
2.99 2.97 3.04

0.000 1.308 1.269
Total 1003 996 1018 3017 Since P-Value >> 0.05; there’s no significant
Effect between product sterile and factor.
Chi-Sq = 2.585, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.275
3 cells with expected counts less than 5.
Analysis – A
D M I C
two sample T-test
Hypothesis tests help to determine if a difference is real, or if it could be due to
chance Boxplot of Automatic, Char t
19
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Automatic, Chart 18
17
Two-sample T for Automatic vs Chart
16
N Mean StDev SE Mean
Dat a
15
Automatic 12 14.70 1.47 0.42
14
Manual 12 14.13 2.19 0.63
13
12
Difference = mu (Automatic) - mu (Chart) 11
Estimate for difference: 0.562500 Automatic Chart
95% CI for difference: (-1.030754,

2.155754)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-
Value = 0.74 P-Value = 0.469 DF = 19
There is no statistically significant difference
if the confidence interval for m1 - m2 does
include 0.0.
Improvement – D M A
I
C
Response Surface Experiment
Main Effects Plots for Time, Temp & Steam supply Average and Standard Deviation of Residue.
Mai n Ef f ect s Pl ot ( dat a means) f or Sal monel l a Cube Pl ot ( dat a means) f or Sal monel l a
Time Temp
10.0 10 3
7.5
Mean of Salmonella
0 7
97
5.0
7.5 10.0 90 97
St eam
10.0
Temp 4 11
9
7.5
Steam
15 12
5.0 90 6.5
6.5 9.0 7.5 10
Time
From the Main Effects Plot for the average of residue we Best
conclude:
Condition:
• Temp has the greatest effect on average residue • Salmonella : 0
• Time has a lesser effect on average residue • Temp max : 97 oC
• Steam supply shows little or no effect (within the test range)
• Time : 7.5 min
• Steam : 6.5 bar
on the average residue
Improvement – D M A
I
C
Contour Plot
Contour Plot of Salmonella vs Temp, Time

97
Salmonella
< 2.0 Lines of target
96 2.0 - 4.5
4.5 - 7.0 response for
7.0 - 9.5
95 9.5 - 12.0 “0” Salmonella
12.0 - 14.5
> 14.5
94
Hold Values
Te m p
Steam 6.5
93
1. Get to know the condition giving lower salmonella.
92 2. To get the regular response, we realize what variables

is important to control (temp & time)
91
3. Determine the level of independent variance needed for
90 getting salmonella 0 (When temp is approximately 97oC)
7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0
Time
Interpretation: to make sterile product (no salmonella) move towards the center corner of the
Contour Plot (samonella = 0). Read off potential “Time” and “Temp” values that will provide Salmonella
< 2.
I
D M A C
Improvement –
Generally, main effect is more important than interaction. If interaction is regarded as a important thing,
then interaction can be used as a factor of interaction and another interaction might be confounded.
Sur face Plot of Salmonella vs Temp, Time

Hold Values
Steam 6.5
15
10
Salm one lla
0 96
94
92 T em p
8
9 90
T im e 10
I
D M A C
Improvement –
Result
Improvement Result:
Process Capability Analysis for Sealing Four Block Diagram

Angle Line #2
Poor
Process Data
LSL Target USL 2.5
USL
Target
LSL
0.500000
0.000000
-0.500000
Within
Overall
Block A Block B
2.0
Process Control
Mean 0.014762
Sample N 84
Z Shift
1.5
C D
Z.Bench 3.94
Z.USL 4.01
Block Block
Z.LSL 4.25 1.0
Cpk 1.34
Cpm 1.34
-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 1.85 σ 4.25 σ
0.5
Overall Capability
Z.Bench 3.83
Observed Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00
Exp. "Within" Performance
PPM < LSL 10.69
Exp. "Overall" Performance
PPM < LSL 17.00
Good
Z.USL 3.91 PPM > USL 0.00 PPM > USL 30.86 PPM > USL 46.70 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z.LSL 4.14 PPM Total 0.00 PPM Total 41.55 PPM Total 63.70
Z Shift Good
Ppk 1.30
Poor
Technology
Saving Cost estimated: 2.7K U$/Year

C
D M A I
Control
Six Sigma Quality focuses on moving control upstream to the leverage input characteristic for Y.
If we can measure and control the vital few X’s, control of Y should be assured.
Desired Process Capability
Output
●
Upper Control Limit
Process Standard Change

X
Input
Controller ●
Lower Control Limit
Process Output
Xbar/R Chart for Sealing Angle Line #2
0.5
UCL=0.4384
Sample Mean
0.0 Mean=0.001188
Group Member
LCL=-0.4360
-0.5
Controllable factors:
Subgroup 0 50 100
1.0
- Miss adjust causes
1
1 1
Sample Range
UCL=0.7596
- Adjustable check 0.5
- Pad control 0.0

R=0.2325
LCL=0
- Education
Optimizing Material DIO
6σ Champion Review
DMAIC-Step Report
Contents
1. DEFINE
2. MEASURE
3. ANALYSIS
4. IMPROVEMENT
5. CONTROL
‘06 6σ Project Registration
Period
Optimizing Material D I O Team
PJT Name
Name
Main Improvement Object

Breakthrough New Idea for Target Achievement
(KPI) Current World Best Target
- Warehouse Inventory Amount DIO

( Days Inventory
Just In Time Purchasing
2.6 days 2.3 days
- Working In Process Inventory Amount Outstanding ) Vendor Managed Inventory
Why ? Team Formation, Related Department Involved

(* Selection Background) How to do ?
Name Dept. Position Main Role
1. D I O is one of key performance indicators in 1. JIT delivery system for press part
inventory management. 2. Door to door delivery for glass
2. Good level of inventory will support production
line in effective and efficient way. 3. Hub delivery system from Korea
3. Fluctuated material D I O 4. Raw material issue control to process
5. Weekly stock taking
Current Condition
6. Minimize NG and rework stock in process
Process Capability Analysis for C2
USL
USL : 2.9
Process Data
at end of the month

USL 2.90000
Within
Target *
LSL * Overall
LSL :-
Mean 2.58091
Sample N 14
7. PO issued based on the latest production

Means : 2.58091 Potential (Within) Capability

Z.Bench 1.03
plan
Z.USL 1.03
Sample N : 14
Z.LSL *
Cpk 0.34
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Cpm *
Z Bench : 1.03 Overall Capability

Z.Bench
Z.USL
Z.LSL
0.84
0.84
*
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
*
214285.71
214285.71
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
151989.40
151989.40
*
PPM < LSL
PPM > USL
PPM Total
200815.40
200815.40
*
Ppk 0.28
Expected 1,117 Qualitative

NECK POINT
K $ US
Results 1,050
- Reduced warehouse and WIP inventory amount 1NG and rework stock in the end of month
K 67 - All material used efficiently in production line
Quantitative 2. Fluctuate production schedule
Current Target - Continuous material supplies to production line
D
MA I C
Background
One of the material inventory management control is DIO (Days Inventory Outstanding) that
has the formula:
Inventory Amount
Material DIO = ------------------------- X total days of current month
Sales Amount
The elements of material DIO are:

1. Warehouse Inventory (Raw Material)
2. Working In Process inventory (Semi Finished Goods )
3. Material In Transit Inventory
Current Material Inventory Condition :

Average Amount : $ K 1,117
DIO : 2.6 days
This large amount and high DIO have some effects :
 Risk in obsolescence, expired, lost, and
defect
 High inventory carrying cost
Optimizing inventory amount and D I O will bring material inventory management in a more
efficient cost
D
Logic Tree MA I C
Y X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
Negotiation
Material Price
Net BOM Supply Condition
BOM Quantity
Glass
CPT Price Market Situation
Mask
M. RATIO Key Part
Press Part
Chemical
Material Loss Sub Mount
Others
Net Req. Material Production Qty Sales Target

Experience
Src. M. YIELD Beginning Stock Forecast Skill
Performance Education
Material Cost Amt Ending Stock Calculation Skill
Receive Amt Purchasing Qty
In Transit Inv.
Mat. Inv. Amt Warehouse Inv.

Process Part
W I P Inv.
Assy Part
M. DIO
Sales Amt Sales Qty.
Total Days Current Month

D MA I C
Logic Tree
Y X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
A
In Transit Inv Delivery Sched. TCL Prod.
B
Comp. Supply
Mat Inv Amt Graphite G 72 B
Warehouse Inv Experience
DY Simulation Skill
Education
Glass
Part Stock YS
W I P Inventory Sub Month
Stock
Assy Stock
Bulb
Material Sales Target
Sales Qty CMA
DIO
Production Capa M/Assy
Sales Amt
Marketing Nego
Price
Market Situation
Total Days Current Month

Brainstorming Potential X D MA I C
This project with potential X-List will be focused to control Warehouse Inventory and working In
Process Inventory
Big
BigYY XXLevel
Level XXLevel
Level XXLevel
Level XXLevel
Level
11 22 33 44
Phosphor
Phosphor
GG72
72BB
W/house
W/houseInv.
Inv.
DDYY
PPAADD
Material
MaterialDIO
DIO Material
MaterialInv.
Inv.Amt
Amt
Flat
FlatMask
Mask
Part
PartStock
Stock Glass
Glass
Sub
SubMount
Mount
WIP
WIPInv.
Inv.
good
good
Assy
AssyStock
Stock Assy
Assy
CMA
CMA
M
Gage R & R D A I C
To test validation of measurement , 3 (three) persons, twice inspection and 14 months calculation for
material D I O has carried out, and the result was acceptable. Gage name:
Date of study:
Gage R&R Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Measure Reported by:
Tolerance:
Misc:
StdDev Study Var %Study Components of Variation By Part

350 4
Var 300 %Contribution
250 %Study Var
%Tolerance
P e rc e n t
Source (SD) (5.15*SD) (%SV) 200 3
150
100
50
0 2
Total Gage R&R 0.109148 0.56211 16.58 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
R Chart by Operator By Operator

4
Repeatability 0.109046 0.56159 16.56 1.0
1 2 3
Reproducibility 0.004723 0.02432 0.72 3
0.5
Operator 0.004723 0.02432 0.72

UCL=0.07857
R=0.02405
0.0 LCL=0 2
Part-To-Part 0.649363 3.34422 98.62 0 Operator 1 2 3
Total Variation 0.658472 3.39113 100.00 Xbar Chart by Operator Operator*Part Interaction
4 1 2 3 4 Operator
1
Gage R&R 2
S a m p le M e a n
3
A v e ra g e
Number of Distinct Categories = 8 <20%
3 3
UCL=2.724
Mean=2.679
LCL=2.634
Acceptable 2 2
0 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
The result of Gage R&R total is 16.58, the acceptance percentage is below 20 (<20), meanwhile the
result of measurement between <20, it accepted.
M
Current Condition D A I C
Process Capability Analysis for C2
USL
Process Data
USL 2.90000
Within
Target *
LSL * Overall
Mean 2.58091
Sample N 14
Z-Bench :
Potential (Within) Capability 1.03
Z.Bench 1.03
Z.USL 1.03
Z.LSL *
Cpk 0.34
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Cpm *
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Z.Bench 0.84 PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL *
Z.USL 0.84 PPM > USL 214285.71 PPM > USL 151989.40 PPM > USL 200815.40
Z.LSL * PPM Total 214285.71 PPM Total 151989.40 PPM Total 200815.40
Ppk 0.28
A I C
DM
Block Diagram
Z shift has been identified , the Z shift will be 0.19, regarding this issue the target
of the project is 4.5 sigma
Poor
2.5 EXPLANATION
Position of DIO was column C ,

2.0 A B it was mean :
Process Control
1.5 PROCESS CONTROL IS GOOD,

Z shift
BUT TECHNOLOGY (METHOD)

C D IS BAD
1.0
0.5
Good ZZstst : :1.03
1 2 3 4 5 6 1.03
ZZshift
shift : Zstst––ZZltlt
: Z
: :1.03
Z st 1.03––0.84
0.84
Poor Good : :0.19
0.19
Technology
DMA I C
WIP Assy Stock Analysis
The Pareto analysis has been done, the result shows that tube stock, Furnace, CMA, and Assy
have the highest contribution to WIP Assy Amount
Analysis
ParetoAvg WIP Stock
Chart 1Q '04 Assy Inv.
for WIP Bare
Bare Tube
Tube
45 % conveyor stock ($ 78 K)
100 55 % ( $ 97 K) consists
300000
-Of
NG: & rework,
80 - Pending Lot
200000 - Remained Prod. Stock
P e rc e n t
60
C ount
Bulb
Bulb
40 F’ce Stock
100000
C/V Stock
20
CMA
CMA
0 0
g
Stock to keep production
e sy an
ub A As gb ers
Defect eT ulb CM unt on
Ba
r B TD Oth
Mo CP
Mount
Mount Assy
Assy
Count 165826 48983 37174 33504 7725 14962
Percent 53.8 15.9 12.1 10.9 2.5 4.9 Safety Stock to secure
Cum % 53.8 69.7 81.8 92.6 95.1 100.0
2supply
shift Mount Assy Process
WIP Part Stock Analysis DMA I C
The Pareto analysis result for WIP part stock shows that Mask Stock, Glass, Sub Mount and
Phosphor have the highest contribution to WIP part Amount
Analysis
ParetoPareto
ChartChartfor
for Desc.
WIP Part Inv. Flat Mask Flat Mask
86 % stock at PT YSI($ 156 K)
100 - Flat Mask (RM)
- Annealing
80 - Forming & Blackening
200000 14 % stock at SM ( $ 23 K)
P e rc e n t
60
C ount
Glass
Glass
40 Stock
100000
loading
20
Sub
Sub Mount
Mount
0 0
t
Mount Assy Process stock
sk s un or rs
Defect Ma las Mo os
p
he
G
Su
b Ph Ot
Phosphor
Phosphor
Count 179511 50418 32501 10535 7375
Percent 64.0 18.0 11.6 3.8 2.6 Safety Stock for aging time
Cum % 64.0 82.0 93.6 97.4 100.0 High price
DMA I C
Warehouse Stock Analysis
The Pareto analysis result for warehouse stock shows that Stock, Graphite, Phosphor and PAD
have the highest contribution to Warehouse Stock amount
Analysis
ParetoPareto
Chart Chart
forforW/House
C1 Inv. D
DYY
Inner Supply
100 - Revised Production Plan
150000 So frequently
80 - Quality Problem
- Comp. Request to achieve
100000 sales target
P e rc e n t
60
C ount
Graphite
Graphite
40
50000 Hardly PO revision
20 PO issued three month before
Phosphor
Phosphor
0 0
r Blue Stock
hi te po s
Defect DY
Gr
ap Ph
os PA
D
Gla
s
Count 47520 41443 39654 17572 16007

PPA
ADD
Percent 29.3 25.6 24.4 10.8 9.9 Minimum order 2304 kg
Cum % 29.3 54.8 79.3 90.1 100.0
Decreasing consumptions
DMA I C
Analysis Result
Item High Amount Stock Remarks
NG and rework Stock Selected as Vital View

Assy
Remained production stock & Pending lot Selected as Vital View
conveyor stock Not Selected as Vital View
WIP Mask Stock outsourcing process Selected as Vital View

Part Glass Stock Selected as Vital View
Sub Mount Not Selected as Vital View
YDY Selected as Vital View
G 72 B & G 355 Selected as Vital View

Warehouse
Phosphor Selected as Vital View
PAD Selected as Vital View

Analysis Result DMA I C
Bottle Neck
1. High stock of NG, rework, pending lot in the end of month due to quality
problem, sourcing team can not fully controlled this situation. Actually, it’s depend
on process and quality performance.
2. Outsourcing Mask Annealing process at Shin require more raw material
stock to keep production and secure supply.
3. Frequently change production plan for CIT and Y DY quality problem cause influence
high stock Y DY.
I
Improvement DMA C
Item Improvement Remarks

Stock - Identify and checking 3 days before closing
- Pending Lot - Communicate Stock to related dept and from March ‘04
- Remained Prod. push for action
- Working closely with PCT Team to input remained stock
Mask Stock - Partial raw material delivery Weekly control
Annealing - Daily vendor managed inventory
Outsourced from March ‘04
- Optimized in out stock control
- Daily input glass to production line

Glass Stock - Communicate and push process to minimize stock Weekly control
In the end of month
from March ‘04
- Check stock condition & make any necessary action
- Confirm I production plan
YDY - Best effort to match PCT Production Plan & actual from March ‘04
- Just In Time purchasing
- Improve Import delivery simulation skill
Phosphor from March ‘04
- Tightly control on ETD & ETA
Graphite
- Maintain actual delivery performance on SRS
I
Improvement Result DMA C
Result analysis after improvement actions : Z bench 2.60
Process Capability Analysis for DIO
USL
Process Data
USL 2.90000
Within
Target *
LSL * Overall
Mean 2.25093
Sample N Z-Bench
6 :
StDev (Within) 2.60
0.249574

Z.Bench 2.60
Z.USL 2.60
Z.LSL *
Cpk 0.87
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9

Cpm *
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Z.Bench 3.01 PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL *
Z.LSL * PPM Total 0.00 PPM Total 4651.78 PPM Total 1307.83
Ppk 1.00
I
DMA
Sigma Value C
After improvement action, we can compare it with previous condition.

Improved Condition is better than Previous Condition.
PREVIOUS CONDITION IMPROVED CONDITION

Poor 2.5 Poor
2.5
A B
Process Control
2.0 2.0
Process Control
A B
Z shift
Z shift
1.5 1.5
C D 1.0
C D
1.0
0.5
0.5 Good
Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z st Good
Z st Poor
Poor Good Technology
Technology
Sigma = 1.03 ZZstst : :1.03

1.03 Sigma = 2.60 ZZstst : :2.60
2.60
ZZshift
ZZshift
shift: :ZZstst––ZZltlt shift: :ZZstst––ZZltlt
: :2.60
: :1.03
1.03––0.84
0.84 2.60––3.01
3.01
: :0.19 : :-0.41
0.19 -0.41
I
DMA
Saving Cost C
Previous Average Material Inventory Amount : $ K 1,117

Current Average Material Inventory Amount : $ K 1,075
Saving Cost : $ K 42
TARGET RESULT
1,117 1,117
1,050 1,075
K $ US
K $ US
K 67 K 42
(6%) (4%)
Current Target Before After

C
Control DMA I
Below check sheets are applied to ensure and maintain the material inventory DIO
stays optimized and some improvement activities stay controlled :
1. Mask daily inventory stock control at Shin
This is one of the application of vendor managed inventory (VMI)
2. Salvage glass daily input to process
3. Weekly Stock taking for warehouse and WIP (include Assy and Stock)
1. Desc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. PANEL
Tanggal 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 Ttl
F/MASK 5000 120000 120000 110000 100000 87000 80000
14 0 0 0 672 504 168 336 0 224 224 308 154 322 168 0 0 0 392 504 168 168 0 0 308 0 782 168 168 0 336 168 6242
ANNEA 35447 33612 21740 19973 23373 25155 20373 20 0 0 0 72 266 248 310 0 0 180 72 272 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 72 208 0 0 192 416 200 64 62 0 548 64 3318
14"
FO RM 2550 1961 3170 5149 2090 2095 8300 21 0 0 512 256 192 0 64 0 192 320 320 192 128 320 0 0 576 320 512 192 0 0 0 384 320 64 128 0 0 0 128 5120
JUMLAH 0 0 512 ## 962 416 710 0 416 724 700 618 450 488 0 0 648 712 ## 432 376 0 0 884 736 ## 360 230 0 884 360 14680
BLACK 7189 4841 7146 6972 6860 7207 2961
TO TAL 50186 160414 152056 142094 132323 121457 111634
F/MASK 5000 75000 75000 75000 75000 75000 75000 FUNNEL

Tanggal 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 Ttl
ANNEA 2933 2933 2933 2933 2933 2933 2933
20"
14 200 0 0 400 400 400 0 0 400 200 200 0 400 0 0 0 200 400 200 200 400 0 0 0 200 200 200 0 0 200 400 5200
FO RM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amount Amount
No Part No Description Act.Gd Inv. Book Process PMS20 0 Gap
0 81 0U/PRICE
261 90 270 0 90 0 0 180 0 0 0 REMARKS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 0 180 270 270 180 0 180 90 2412
INV Process
BLACK 2790 2790 2790 2790 2790 2790 2790 21 0 0 405 243 162 81 0 0 81 405 374 162 162 243 0 0 324 324 324 243 81 0 0 405 162 0 0 243 0 81 162 4667
1 153-113V DY 14" LG STD 0 0 488 2,432 -2,432 1.68205 0.00 820.84
TO TAL 10723 2 153-276F
80723 DY HARTONO/SANKEN/VESTEL
80723 80723 80723 80723 80723 0 0 JUMLAH0 200 0 4860643 823 571 270 0 5710.00
0.00000 605 574 342 5620.00
243 0 0 524 724 524 443 481 0 270 405 542 470 470 423 0 461 652 12279
3 3024GAFA01C MASK FLAT 21" MULTI 20,000 20,000 2,191 80,000 -60,000 1.72214 34,442.80 145.70
4 3040GA0001A BASE 20" 202,103 202,103 0 202,103 0 0.02246 4,539.23 0.00
3. 5
6
3040GA0006A BASE 14"
3210GBAA01A FRAME SUPPORT 14"
210,000
0
210,000
0
0
4,284
210,000
0
0
0
0.03620
0.12900
7,602.00
0.00
0.00
552.64
7 3210GBEA01A FRAME SUPPORT 20" 0 0 1,920 0 0 0.58850 0.00 1,129.92
8 3210GBFA01A FRAME SUPPORT 21" 0 0 3,120 0 0 0.63900 0.00 1,993.68
9 3300GB0001A PLATE COMPENSATION 0 0 0 0 0 0.63900 0.00 0.00
10 3300GB0001B PLATE COMPENSATION 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 0.00428 42.80 0.00
11 3300GB0002A PLATE COMPENSATION 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 0 0.00299 59.80 0.00
12 3300GC0001A B-S PLATE 20" 0 0 20,000 10,000 -10,000 0.01220 0.00 244.00
13 3740GA0001A LEAD PROTECT 20" 12,500 12,500 11,500 12,500 0 0.01182 147.75 135.93
Attachment
Inventory and DIO Monthly Control 2004 2. DIO

1250 4
1201 Targe
1200 1181 Actual
Actual t
1150 Targe 3
1100 t 2.5
2.3
1039 2.0 2.3 2
1050 1024
984 2
1000
950
1
900
850
800 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DESC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
INTR. 15 62 84 135 82
Inventory
(K $)
W/H 303 333 432 469 394
WIP 706 786 522 597 509
T/T 1,024 1,181 1039 1201 984
Days 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.0

Attachment
Inventory and DIO Budget Control 2004
2004
Desc. Avg/Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sales Amount Target 12,060 12,176 12,569 12,256 12,290 12,322 12,432 12,879 12,874 12,197 10,740 11,551 146,346
Actual 13,784 13,668 15,892 15,388 15,423
In transit Target 45 45 45 41 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 42
Actual 15 62 84 135 82
W/house Target 372 372 372 365 365 365 365 365 365 325 325 325 357
Actual 303 333 432 469 394
WIP Target 695 695 695 672 672 672 672 672 672 665 665 665 676
Actual 706 786 522 597 509
Total Target 1,112 1,112 1,112 1,078 1,078 1,078 1,077 1,077 1,077 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,074
Actual 1,024 1,181 1,039 1,201 984
DIO Target 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.7
Actual 2.30 2.51 2.03 2.34 1.98
Attachment
Material Inventory and DIO Control 2003 and 1 Q of 2004

4
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Avg
Months
DESC. avg
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
In Transit 25 39 33 24 17 24 113 107 80 44 124 109 55 62 61
W IP 564 724 713 799 890 970 693 653 604 664 668 574 706 786 715
W/House 442 331 278 333 298 357 314 361 409 320 383 311 303 333 341
Total 1,031 1,094 1,024 1,156 1,205 1,351 1,120 1,121 1,093 1,029 1,175 994 1,064 1,181 1,117
Sales Amt 12,953 13,091 13,701 12,080 12,698 12,328 14,099 14,396 14,147 14,385 10,551 13,112 13,784 13,668 13,214
DIO 2.4675 2.3399 2.3169 2.8709 2.9412 3.2879 2.4632 2.4138 2.3186 2.2166 3.3403 2.3502 2.3936 2.5055 2.6205
Reduce LNG Usage
6σ Champion Review
Contents
DMAIC Report
1. Define Step
2. Measure Step
3. Analysis Step
4. Improvement
5. Control
Date Nov 24th , 2004

Process Technique Group
Prepared : Novi Muharam
D
M A I C
Background
LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) is source of energy for combustion process in F’ce
Up to 3rd quarter LNG usage for exhaust furnace still higher, it’s about 5000 Nm3/day.
This project have a purpose to decreasing LNG usage in furnace
Energy Unit Price (U$) LNG Usage

Energy Usage Price
0.5 100
0.4 80 11%
Percent
0.3 60
Count
0.2 40
5000
0.1 20
0.0 0 4500
ic ers
Defect LN
G N2 O2 c tr
Ele Oth
Count 0.1650 0.1309 0.1290 0.0605 0.0070

Percent 33.5 26.6 26.2 12.3 1.4
Cum % 33.5 60.1 86.3 98.6 100.0
Current Target Unit:

How to do: (Nm3/day)
Target Saving cost:

LNG & Air pressure system = (5000 –4500 )Nm3/day x 0.165 U$/Nm3 x 30 x 12
Adjustment to find best ratio = 500 Nm3/day x 0.165 x 30 x 12
Both of them. = 29,700 U$/Years
D
M A I C
Process Mapping
CTQ Area : - LNG & Air Usage
G/S
Load Exh Up Slope

Robot In
P-pipe -Cart Zone
-F/F C/V
Exhaust Furnace Keeping

Zone #1 ~ #44 Zone
Unload Out Down Slope
Tip off Control Panel B.B.D

Robot
M
D A I C
Brainstormed Potential X List
Big Y X1 X2 X3
Material LNG Pressure Ratio
LNG Ratio Air Pressure Ratio

Usage
Machine TIC Temperature
RC Fan RPM Motor
Dumper Valve
Exh Blower Pressure

M
D A I C
Gage R&R
Gage R&R for Exhaust F’ce Line #1 Measurement

Gage name: Exhaust F'Ce Measurement
GaR StdDev Study Var Oct 19th, 2005
Date of study:
%Study Var Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Auto 14" Reported by: Novi M
Tolerance:
Source (SD) (5,15*SD) (%SV) Misc:
Components of Variation Response By Part

100 0,5
%Contribution
Total Gage R&R 0,009704 0,04998 1,40 %Study Var
0,0
P e rc e n t
50 -0,5
Repeatability 0,002582 0,01330 0,37 -1,0
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part a b c d e f
Reproducibility 0,009354 0,04817 1,35
R Chart by Operator Response By Operator
0,010
Eng'r Gijo Maker 1 maker 2 PQC 0,5
Operator 0,002566 0,01321 0,37
0,0
0,005
UCL=0,004356 -0,5
Operator*Part 0,008995 0,04633 1,30
R=0,001333 -1,0
0,000 LCL=0
0 Oper
Part-To-Part 0,692590 3,56684 99,99 Eng'r Gijo Maker 1 maker 2 PQC
Gage R&R <20% Xbar Chart by Operator Operator*Part Interaction

Eng'r Gijo Maker 1 maker 2 PQC 0,5 Operator
0,5 Eng'r
Total Variation 0,692658 3,56719
Acceptable 100,00
S a m p le M e a n
Gijo_1
0,0 0,0
Gijo_2
A ve ra g e
-0,5 LCL=-0,5082
UCL=-0,5032
Mean=-0,5057 Gijo_3
-0,5
PQC
-1,0
-1,0
-1,5
0 Part a b c d e f
M
D A I C
Capability Process
Four Block Diagram

Poor
Exhaust F'ce 14" Capa' 2.5
Process Data
LSL USL Block A Block B
2.0
Process Control
USL 7.50000
Within
Target *
Z Shift
LSL 2.50000 Overall
Mean 5.27297
Sample N 37
StDev (Within) 0.98276 1.5
Z.Bench 2.19 1.0 Block C Block

Z.USL 2.27
Z.LSL
Cpk
2.82
0.76
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.5 D
Cpm *
Good
Overall Capability
Z.Bench 1.09
PPM < LSL 0.00
PPM < LSL 2389.10
PPM < LSL 47716.94 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z.LSL
Ppk
1.67
0.45
PPM Total 81081.08 PPM Total 14111.87 PPM Total 137981.99 Poor Z st Good
Technology
D : World class
A
D M I C
Analysis
Analysis of Temp furnace with result has significant effect to Pressure LNG
LNG Regression
Analysis: Press
Press LNG
LNG versus
versus Temp
Temp
Pressure The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
Fail to reject Ho
Press
Press LNG
LNG == 3.7
3.7 ++ 21.9
21.9 Temp
Temp
Manometer Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Gauge
Constant
Constant 3.75
3.75 36.18
36.18 0.10
0.10 0.918
0.918
Temp
Temp 21.934
21.934 6.556
6.556 3.35
3.35 0.002
0.002
SS == 64.96
64.96 R-Sq
R-Sq == 24.2%
24.2% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 22.1%
22.1%
Accept Ha
Normal Probability Plot Analysis
Analysis of
of Variance
Variance
.999
Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
.99
.95 Regression
Regression 11 47242
47242 47242
47242 11.19
11.19 0.002
0.002
Probability
.80
Residual
Residual Error
Error 35
35 147702
147702 The p-value
4220 < 0.05, Fail to accept
4220
.50
.20 Total 36 194945
Ho, which demonstrate statistical
Total 36 194945
.05 significance (an equation with a
.01
“good” fit)
.001
2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2

Qty LNG
Average: 5.27297
StDev: 1.65154
Hypothesis Analysis :
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared: 0.414
N: 37 P-Value: 0.321
Ho : Temperature furnace has no significant effect to LNG Pressure
Ha : Temperature furnace has significant effect to LNG Pressure
A
D M I C
Analysis
Analysis of Temp furnace with result has significant effect to LNG & Air press
Test for Equal Variances for LNG Ratio
95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas Factor Levels
75 0.1
75 0.2
75 0.5 Bartlett's Test
75 0.6
75 1.7
75 2.0 Test Statistic: 3.282
75 3.0
75 4.0 P-Value : 0.858
75 5.0
75 6.0
75 6.8
75 7.0
75 7.3
75 8.0
75 9.0
75 9.1
75 9.3 Levene's Test
75 9.8
75 11.0
75 11.6 Test Statistic: 2.096
75 11.8
75 12.0 P-Value : 0.131
75 12.9
75 13.5
75 14.2
One-way
One-way ANOVA:
ANOVA: Air
Air Press,
Press, Press
Press LNG,
LNG,
75 14.6
Temp
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temp Boxplots of Air Press - Temp

(means are indicated by solid circles)
Analysis
Analysisof
ofVariance
Variance
Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP 600
Factor
Factor 22 1769458
1769458 884729
884729 118.10
118.10 0.000
0.000 500
Error
Error 108
108 809084
809084 7492
7492 400
Total
Total 110
110 2578542
2578542 300
Individual
Individual95%
95%CIs
CIsFor
ForMean
Mean
200
Based
BasedononPooled
PooledSt
StDev
Dev
100
Level
Level NN Mean
Mean StDev
StDev --+---------+---------+---------+----
--+---------+---------+---------+----
0
Air
AirPres
Pres 37
37 424.73
424.73 73.53
73.53 (-*--)
(-*--)
Air Pres
Press
PressLN 37 117.00
117.00 73.04
73.04 (--*--)
Temp
LN 37 (--*--)
Press
LNG
Temp 2 37 297.54 108.32 (--*--) Hypothesis Analysis :
Temp 2 37 297.54 108.32 (--*--)
Ho : Temperature furnace has no significant effect to LNG & Air Pressure
--+---------+---------+---------+----
--+---------+---------+---------+---- Ha : Temperature furnace has significant effect to LNG & Air Pressure
Pooled
PooledStDev
StDev== 86.55
86.55 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400
A
D M I C
Analysis
Analysis of RPM motor with result has significant effect to Pressure LNG
RC Fan
Rotation Regression
Analysis: LNG
LNG Press
Press versus
versus RPMRPM
Motor
Motor Fail to reject H o
The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
RPM
RPM == 1448
1448 ++ 0.0344
0.0344 LNG
LNG Press
Press
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Constant
Constant 1448.00
1448.00 5.02
5.02 288.20
288.20 0.000
0.000
LNG
LNG press
press 0.03440
0.03440 0.01568
0.01568 2.19
2.19 0.035
0.035
.999
.99
Accept Ha
SS == 8.711
8.711 R-Sq
R-Sq == 12.1%
12.1% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 9.6%
9.6%
.95
P robability
.80
.50
.20 Analysis
Analysis of
of Variance
Variance
.05
.01 Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
.001
Regression
Regression 11 365.11
365.11 365.11
365.11 4.81 0.035
0.035
The p-value < 0.05, Fail4.81
to accept Ho, which
1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490
RPM
Average: 1462.22
StDev: 19.1748
A-Squared: 0.624
Residual
Residual Error
Error 35
35 demonstrate
2655.97
2655.97 statistical significance (an
75.88
75.88
equation with a “good” fit)
N: 37 P-Value: 0.097
Total
Hypothesis
TotalAnalysis : 36
36 3021.08
3021.08
Ho : RPM motor has no significant effect to LNG Pressure
Ha : RPM motor has significant effect to LNG Pressure
A
D M I C
Analysis
Analysis of Air Blower with result has no significant effect to Pressure LNG
Exhaust F’ce
Blower
Regression
Analysis: LNG
LNG Press
Press Versus
Versus Air
Air Blower
Blower
The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
Reject Ho
Air
Air Blower
Blower == 475
475 -- 0.169
0.169 LNG
LNG Press
Press
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Constant
Constant 474.97
474.97 35.14
35.14 13.52
13.52 0.000
0.000
Air
Air Blower
Blower -0.1689
-0.1689 0.1111
0.1111 -1.52
-1.52 0.138
0.138

SS == 72.23
72.23 R-Sq
R-Sq == 6.2%
6.2% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 3.5%
3.5%
Analysis
Analysis of
of Variance
Variance
Fail to accept Ha
.999
.99 Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
.95
Probability
.80
Regression
Regression 11 12044
12044 12044
12044 2.31
2.31 0.138
0.138
.50
.20 Residual
Residual Error
Error 35
35 182604
182604 5217
5217
.05
.01
Total
Total 36
36 194647
194647
.001
Hypothesis Analysis :
300 400 500 600
Ho : RPM motor has significant effect to LNG Pressure
Blower
Average: 424.730
StDev: 73.5314
A-Squared: 0.200 Ha : RPM motor has no significant effect to LNG Pressure
N: 37 P-Value: 0.875
A
D M I C
Analysis
Analysis of Damper with result has no significant effect to Pressure LNG
Damper
Regression
Analysis: LNG
LNG Press
Press versus
versus Damper
Damper
The
The regression
regression equation
equation is
is
Damper
Reject Ho
Damper == 428
428 -- 0.43
0.43 LNG
LNG Press
Press
Predictor
Predictor Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP
Constant
Constant 427.96
427.96 24.17
24.17 17.70
17.70 0.000
0.000
LNG
LNG press
press -0.425
-0.425 2.745
2.745 -0.15
-0.15 0.878
0.878
Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals SS == 74.55 R-Sq

(response is Damper) 74.55 R-Sq == 0.1%
0.1% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 0.0%
0.0%
Fail to accept Ha
2
Analysis
Analysis of
of Variance
Variance
1 Source
Source DF
DF SS
SS MS
MS FF PP
Normal Score
0 Regression
Regression 11 133
133 133
133 0.02
0.02 0.878
0.878
Residual
Residual Error
Error 35
35 194514
194514 5558
5558
-1
Total
Total 36
36 194647
194647
-2 Hypothesis Analysis :
-100 0 100 200
Ho : RPM motor has significant effect to LNG Pressure
Residual Ha : RPM motor has no significant effect to LNG Pressure
A
D M I C
Analysis Resume
Select most effected factor in Regression and ANOVA with P value < 0.05
Factor Detail Analysis Content Analysis Tool Result Conclusion

LNG Ratio Pressure and quantity Regression Selected as
adjustment P < 0.05 vital few
For f’ce combustions
Air & LNG Checking both of pressure Regression Selected as
P < 0.05
Pressure Compare with temperature result vital few
RPM Motor Heating result measurement ANOVA P < 0.05 Selected as

With Gas inside vital few
Furnace.
Not
Air blower Sample test for kind of air blower Regression selected as
effect to gas ratio. P > 0.05
With Gas vital few
Damper Sample test for damper setting Not

for
Regression
With Gas P > 0.05 selected as
Each position vital few
A
D M I C
Bottle Neck
From furnace build until now, this furnace have never been done by
Cleaning inside of f’ce
To make efficiency,
Dilution Need cleaning inside of f’ce
air From Carbon (C) result of combustion.
Exhaust
duct Gas
burner
To many Carbon (C)

I
D M A C
Improvement
The Improve phase identifies a solution and confirms that the proposed solution will meet or
exceed the improvement goals of the project.
Response Surface Regression: Result versus LNG Press, LNG
Qty, ...
The
The analysis
analysis was
was done
done using
using coded
coded units.
units.
Analysis of Variance for Result
Estimated
Estimated Regression
Regression Coefficients
Coefficients for
for Result
Result
Term
Term Coef
Coef SE
SE Coef
Coef TT PP Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Source
Constant
Constant 115.3
115.3 37.23
37.23 3.098
3.098 0.008
0.008 Blocks
Blocks 11 16733
16733 16733 16733 2.06 0.173
Block
Block -25.0
-25.0 17.44
17.44 -1.436
-1.436 0.173
0.173
Regression
Regression 14
14 1238887
1238887 1238887
1238887 88492
88492 10.91
10.91 0.000
0.000
LNG
LNG Pres
Pres 108.1
108.1 18.39
18.39 5.878
5.878 0.000
0.000
Linear
Linear 4 885220 885220 221305 27.27 0.000
LNG
LNG Qty
Qty -137.5
-137.5 18.39
18.39 -7.478
-7.478 0.000
0.000
Square
Square 44 193821 193821 48455 5.97 0.005
AIR
AIR Pres
Pres -79.2
-79.2 18.39
18.39 -4.310
-4.310 0.001
0.001
RPM
RPM 3.9
3.9 18.39
18.39 0.213
0.213 0.834
0.834
Interaction
Interaction 66 159846
159846 159846 26641 3.28 0.031
LNG
LNG Pres*LNG
Pres*LNG Pres
Pres 2.4
2.4 17.20
17.20 0.142
0.142 0.889
0.889 Residual
Residual Error
Error 14 113594 113594 8114
LNG
LNG Qty*LNG
Qty*LNG Qty
Qty 78.6
78.6 17.20
17.20 4.568
4.568 0.000
0.000 Lack-of-Fit
Lack-of-Fit 10
10 113594
113594 113594
113594 11359 * *
AIR
AIR Pres*AIR
Pres*AIR Pres
Pres 26.9
26.9 17.20
17.20 1.566
1.566 0.140
0.140 Pure
Pure Error
Error 44 00 00 00
RPM*RPM
RPM*RPM -10.3
-10.3 17.20
17.20 -0.600
-0.600 0.558
0.558
LNG
LNG Pres*LNG
Pres*LNG Qty
Qty -76.0
-76.0 22.52
22.52 -3.375
-3.375 0.005
0.005
LNG
LNG Pres*AIR
Pres*AIR Pres
Pres -51.5
-51.5 22.52
22.52 -2.287
-2.287 0.038
0.038
LNG
LNG Pres*RPM
Pres*RPM 3.5
3.5 22.52
22.52 0.155
0.155 0.879
0.879
LNG
LNG Qty*AIR
Qty*AIR Pres
Pres 39.2
39.2 22.52
22.52 1.743
1.743 0.103
0.103
LNG
LNG Qty*RPM
Qty*RPM -2.5
-2.5 22.52
22.52 -0.111
-0.111 0.913
0.913
AIR
AIR Pres*RPM
Pres*RPM -1.7
-1.7 22.52
22.52 -0.078
-0.078 0.93
0.93
SS == 90.08
90.08 R-Sq
R-Sq == 91.7%
91.7% R-Sq(adj)
R-Sq(adj) == 82.8%
82.8%
I
D M A C
Improvement
Surface Plot of Result Optimum condition when:
-LNG pressure 60.5 mmH22O

-Ratio of gas 4.5
-Air Pressure 452.5 mmH22O
-RPM Motor 1459 rpm
1000
500
Result
0 10
-100
5 ratio
0 100 0
200 300
LNG Press 400 500
Hold values: AIR Pres: 452.5 RPM: 1459.0

I
D M A C
Improvement
Exhaust F'ce 14" Capability Four Block Diagram

Poor
LSL USL
Process Data 2.5
A
USL 7.50000
Within
Target
LSL
*
2.50000 Overall
Block
Block B
2.0
Process Control
Mean 4.65757
Sample N 37
Z Shift
1.5
C D
Z.Bench 5.27
Z.USL 6.94 Block Block
Z.LSL 5.27 1.0
Cpk 1.76
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

Cpm *
0.5
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance Good
Z.Bench 4.64 PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM < LSL 0.07 PPM < LSL 1.71
1 2 3 4 5 6
Z.LSL 4.64 PPM Total 0.00 PPM Total 0.07 PPM Total 1.71
Ppk 1.55 Poor Z st Good
Technology
I
D M A C
Improvement
Improvement Result
LNG Usage
8%
92% Cost Saving:
= (5000 – 4600 )Nm3/day x 0.165 U$/Nm3 x 30 x 12
= 400 Nm3/day x 0.165 x 30 x 12
5000 = 23,760 U$/years
4600
4500
Current Target Result
Unit: (Nm3/day)
C
D M A I
Control
Control Plan
Item Period Gauge Method Chart Type PIC
LNG Press Weekly Digital Use check sheet Xbar - R PQC

Each Zone Manometer Leader exh
Air Press Weekly Digital Use check sheet Xbar - R PQC

Each Zone Manometer Leader exh
LNG meter Daily Visual Use check sheet Xbar - R Leader exh
control
RPM Weekly Tachometer Use check sheet Xbar - R PQC

Motor
C
D M A I
Control
Process Control
Process standard changes: Weekly check sheet for Gas measurement
Before After
F’ce
Control
LNG & AIR Press

Weekly check
PIC:
LNG Meter PQC Exh
Daily check
OK Record
PIC: Standard
Leader Exh Data
Record NG
F’ce Data
Control
Setting Gas
Ratio Standard:
LNG Meter
Daily check Record -LNG pressure 60.5 ± 10 mmH22O
PIC:
Data
-Ratio of gas 4.5
Leader Exh -Air Pressure 452.5 ± 50 mmH22O
Record
Data

Six Sigma Implementation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma Implementation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIX SIGMA AND ITS

Sigma Level Defect.10-6

1736: French 1896: Italian sociologist Vilfredo

1941: Alex Osborn, head of 1970s: Imai develop Dr.

1986: Bill Smith, a senior engineer

1994: Larry Bossidy launches

Administration Six Sigma

COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality)

Sigma Level DPMO COPQ as sales percentile

1-sigma 691.462 (very low competitive) N/A

2-sigma 308.538 (Average Indonesia’s Industry) N/A

3-sigma 66.807 25-40% of sales

4-sigma 6.210 (Average USA’s Industry) 15-25% of sales

5-sigma 233 (Average Japan’s Industry) 5-15% of sales

6-sigma 3,4 (World Class Industry) < 1% of sales

Periode Description Sigma

1999 Q4 Total saving $ 35 million (initial target $ 25 million) 2.3% of Revenue

• <25∼40% of sales is failure cost. • 5% of the sales is failure cost.

• Having 66,807 defects per million. • 3.4 defects per million.

• Depends on the detect to find • Focusing on process not to produce

• Not available of systematic • Uses know-how of measurement,

 4 sigma Level? 1misspelled word per 30pages of newspaper.

The concept of sigma

Inflection : The size or a standard deviation

• Variation means that a 15

process does not produce 10

the same result (the “Y”) 5

• Some variation will exist in

Customers do not feel averages!

The pizza delivery example. . .

• Customers want their pizza

• Guarantee = “30 minutes or less”

• What if we measured performance and found an

How often are we delivering

• Managing by the average doesn’t tell the whole story.

• Sigma level measures how often we meet (or fail to

• All work occurs in a system of interconnected processes

• Monitor • Control object

Question 2), Is needed to test and audit Y continually if the X is good?

 6 Sigma activity is concerned about the problem happened(in the sector of

1. Clarifying improvement target object.

12. Confirm measurement system for ‘X’ Vital Few X1

• Six sigma less suitable for innovation.

Develop Charter and

Improv Measure Measure CTQs / Requirements

Identify Root Causes

DMAIC = Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control

Call-takers must answer Answer rate

The refrigerator must

Continue to ask “Why?” until you Reach the Root Cause…...

Courtesy of Daraius Patell

Measurement Method Machine

People Materials Environment

• Define the problem in

Process for creating a Structure Tree:

- Everything associated with taking measurements:

-- The “Measurement System”.

Think of the “Measurement System” as a sub-process that

Actual Process Measurement

Long Term Short Term Variation due

Accuracy Repeatability Stability Linearity Reproducibility

σ 2gage = σ 2repeatability + σ 2reproducibility

Acceptable if less than 20%

Hypothesis Test (for variables)