1.

Using the data in the exhibits and the note on process control charts, construct and
analyse the appropriate SPC charts. What conclusions should Rolfs draw?

Based on the data given in Exhibit3, the centreline and ranges are set.
Centreline is the mean of all of values

Range is set at 3 standard deviations: Mean ± 3σ/n

POD WEIGHT
Computations for X-Bar Chart Computations for R Chart
Centreline 2.80515 Centreline 0.0671
Standard Deviation 0.024904 Upper Control 0.134468
Limit
Number of samples 6 Lower Control 0
(n) Limit
Upper Control Limit 2.835652
Lower Control Limit 2.774648

FINGER HEIGHT
Computations for X-Bar Chart Computations for R Chart
Centreline 2.06035 Centreline 0.3099
Standard Deviation 0.11822 Upper Control 0.62104
Limit
Number of samples 6 Lower Control 0
(n) Limit
Upper Control Limit 2.20514
Lower Control Limit 1.91556
 X-Bar Chart : POD WEIGHT
2.85
2.84
2.83
2.82
2.81
2.8
2.79
2.78
2.77
2.76
2.75
2.74
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

X-Bar X-DoubleBar UCL LCL

R Chart : POD WEIGHT

0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Range R-Bar UCL LCL

POD WEIGHT
Based on the above X-Bar and R-Charts we can see that the mean and range of Pod Weight
lies within the Upper and Lower control limits on all the days and all the shifts. Hence the
process for Pod Weight is in control after the Greenlight implementation. The last five
readings of the mean have been declining continuously. Thought the limit of 8 hasn’t been
reached yet, the maintenance team should be called to investigate for the sudden decline in
the mean of pod weight.
On analysing the X-Bar charts of Shift wise pod weight, no pattern was observed. Hence the
overall process is under control and no action needs to be taken regarding Pod Weight.

FINGER HEIGHT
 X-Bar Chart : FINGER HEIGHT
2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

X-Bar X-DoubleBar UCL LCL

R Chart : FINGER HEIGHT

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Range R-Bar UCL LCL

The mean of finger height has exceeded the limits on 19 out of the 45 shifts in which readings
were taken. Also, we notice that the change in mean between the shifts is very high. This
could be due to the operators tweaking the equipment to improve quality.
 X-Bar Finger Height - Shift A X-Bar Finger Height - Shift B
2.5 2.4

2.3 2.2

2.1 2

1.9 1.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

X-Bar X-DoubleBar UCL LCL X-Bar X-DoubleBar UCL LCL

X-Bar Finger Height - Shift C

2.2

1.8

1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

X-Bar X-DoubleBar UCL LCL

From the above three shift-based X-Bar charts we see that Shift A has crossed the UCL more
often and has never gone below the LCL. Contrast to A, Shift C has never crossed the UCL, but
has gone below the LCL many times. This further proves the point that operations team might
have adjusted the equipment.
The process for Finger Height is not in control and Rolfs needs to investigate the cause of
the issue. The team needs to check on the shift-based pattern and verify if that is due to the
operator’s tweaking the machines. If so, they need to instruct the operators to follow the
process strictly and call the technicians for any issues.
Also, the operators should be asked to record all the defects they find since the adjustments
to equipment are often done to correct these changes. Without recording these defective
data, it will not be possible for the technician’s team to recalibrate correctly.
2. What recommendations would you make to Rolfs in order to address both near- and
longer-term issues?

Short – Term Recommendations:

 Investigate Finger height process:

From the X-Bar and R Charts, we observe that the pod weight performance
variability is within the limits whereas the finger height process shows high degree of
variation in its data. We also see pattern based on shifts in which the data was
collected. The root cause for this variation needs to identified first.
  Process standardization:

The measurements taken by operators must be strictly process driven so that it’s
consistent across shifts and operators. This will help in eliminating the shift wise
pattern that we observed in the finger height measurements.

 Prioritize defect list:

Excess reagent defect which was identified by auditors isn’t a customer requirement.
In the short-run its better to concentrate on eliminating customer facing defects.

Reasons to adopt operator-based process control:

 Standardized process – better control:

The greenlight project gives a set of steps to be followed by the operators while
taking samples. This ensures that the operators don’t have excess power and the
decisions are made by experts in process control field.

 Cost Effective:

The new process can reduce the number of test data collected and eliminates
unnecessary quality control activities. As the number of sample tested is reduced, so
is the number of samples that needs to be discarded.

 Faster problem identification:

The new method believes in identifying issues and resolving them immediately
before proceeding to the next task. This helps in eliminating issues before a
defective product actually gets produced.

Long – Term Recommendations:

 Customer specifications:
Customer requirements needs to be incorporated while creating the Process control
plan. Currently only Pod weight and Finger height are being measured. In the future,
specific areas where complaints are more frequent needs to be measured regularly.
This will help in understanding if variables other than pod weight and finger height
needs to be monitored or not. Due to the past methodology of operations team, many
customer specification issues might be due to the adjustments and tweaking done by
operators. This needs to be identified at an early stage to eliminate uncertainty and
make the process more robust.

 Transition from old to new concept:

Currently the teams are grounded on the concept on volume and are trying to
maximize utilization. For the teams to switch to the new concept, their belief needs to
 be changed. When an issue is identified, the system needs to be shut down
immediately without waiting for the defects to occur. This can be taught by showing
them the results of implementing the new model. Examples of successful
implementations of other firms can be cited to drive the point to all the teams. This
would ensure that operators don’t discard defective data and report everything.
The process also needs to be streamlined and role of each person should be clearly
defined. Also, rules and regulations for taking measurements in the new process needs
to be established clearly amongst both operators and auditors so that there is no
discrepancy.

 Automation:
To continually improve the process, even after defect rates go below 1%, better
equipment needs to be procured. Data collection can be atomized so that
measurements are exact and not prone to human errors. This eliminates the issue the
company is currently facing with data recording where operators are discarding
defective samples. Automation not only helps in collecting and analysing data faster,
but also reduced the need for man-power. Hence this will also be cost effective for
the company.