Minitab Solutions PDF

Lear Corporation
Black Belt Training
Using Minitab® Release 14

for Six Sigma Data Analysis
Selected Exercise Solutions
Contents
Exercise D-1. Electronic Module Testing .......................................................................................... 2
Exercise D-2. Investigating Variability in Surface Finish ................................................................ 3
Exercise D-3. OEM Customer Focus Group ................................................................................... 12
Exercise D-4. Molded Parts Sampling ............................................................................................. 15
Exercise D-5. Southfield Restaurant Complaints ........................................................................... 18
Exercise D-6. Sulfur Dioxide Levels ................................................................................................. 25
Exercise D-7. Investigating Downtime Distributions...................................................................... 29
Exercise M-1. Injection Molded Center Console – Color Consistency: Results .......................... 32
Exercise M-2. Fabric Strength.......................................................................................................... 37
Exercise M-3. Seam Strength (used with Nested Gage R&R Example 3) .................................... 42
Exercise M-4. Rear Shelf Substrate ................................................................................................. 48
Exercise M-5. Brake Shoe Hardness – Joint Six Sigma Project with General Motors ............... 54
Exercise M-6. Brake Shoe Hardness – Joint Six Sigma Project with General Motors ............... 63
Exercise M-7. Instrument Panel Weight.......................................................................................... 72
Exercise M-8. Manual Seat Adjustor ............................................................................................... 83
Exercise M-9. Unclaimed Wages - Escheat...................................................................................... 90
Exercise A-1. Cushion Weights......................................................................................................... 93
Exercise A-2. Green Belt Training - Catapults ............................................................................... 97
Exercise A-6. Door Panel Grain Retention Problem .................................................................... 100
Exercise A-7. Titanic Passenger Survival Rates............................................................................ 101
Exercise C-1. Stability of Photographic Film Density Measurments.......................................... 102
Exercise C-2. Bath Bar Appearance .............................................................................................. 104
Exercise C-3. Refractive Index of Fiber Optic Cable ................................................................... 109
Exercise C-4. Door Latch Diameter ............................................................................................... 111
Exercise C-5. Inspecting Switch Assemblies.................................................................................. 113
© Lear Corporation. Portions © Minitab Inc. Minitab is a registered trademark of Minitab Inc. This training i
manual is prepared by Lear Corporation for use by its staff in connection with software licensed by Minitab Inc.
Any questions regarding this manual should be directed to the Lear Corporate Continuous Improvement Director.
Lear Corporation
Using Minitab Release 14
Exercise D-1. Electronic Module Testing

Solution
1. Open BUGS.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Quality Tools > Pareto Chart.
3. Choose Chart Defects Table
4. In Labels in , enter Bug Type, in Frequency in, enter Frequency.
5. Click OK.
Pareto Chart of Bug Type

400 100
80
300
Percent
60
Count
200
40
100
20
0 0
Bug Type y e n t n n y r
a lit nc tio ou tio tio und tio
n
ilit the
a a y a a b
io
n
rm avig La ic al
l So m
a a O
ct fo cif st ni Us
n r N e I n A
Fu Pe Sp
p y
Co
Count 95 88 75 33 25 21 19 14 13 12
Percent 24.1 22.3 19.0 8.4 6.3 5.3 4.8 3.5 3.3 3.0
Cum % 24.1 46.3 65.3 73.7 80.0 85.3 90.1 93.7 97.0 100.0
6. From the chart we can now answer the project managers questions. With the above chart he
can see all of the “bugs” with the electronic module. Functionality, performance,
navigation, layout, copy specification and installation account for 80% of the bugs with
the electronic module.
Note: The pareto chart above does not take into consideration the dollar amounts to fix each
bug. The project manager may want to attach a cost weighting to the bugs and then redo the
chart to reflect the cost picture.
© Lear Corporation. Portions © Minitab Inc. Minitab is a registered trademark of Minitab Inc. This training
2 manual is prepared by Lear Corporation for use by its staff in connection with software licensed by Minitab Inc.
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-2. Investigating Variability in Surface Finish

Solution
1. Open ROUGHNESS.MPJ.
2. Create columns for Date Time, Shift, and Fixture
3. Choose Calc > Make Patterned Data > Simple Set of Date/Time Values.
4. Complete dialog box as shown below and click OK.
5. Choose Calc > Make Patterned Data > Simple Set of Numbers.
6. Complete dialog box as shown below and Click OK.
manual is prepared by Lear Corporation for use by its staff in connection with software licensed by Minitab Inc. 3
Lear Corporation
7. Choose Calc > Make Patterned Data > Simple Set of Numbers
8. Complete dialog box as shown below and click OK.
Lear Corporation
Your worksheet should look like the following :
Lear Corporation
9. Create a graphical summary to examine the data

a. Choose Stat > Basic Statistics > Graphical Summary
b. Complete the dialog box as shown below and click OK
Lear Corporation
Summary for Roughness

A nderson-Darling N ormality Test
A -S quared 1.65
P -V alue < 0.005
M ean 51.749
S tDev 9.285
V ariance 86.214
S kew ness 1.49494
Kurtosis 4.06751
N 100
M inimum 37.196
1st Q uartile 45.473
M edian 50.514
3rd Q uartile 56.563
40 50 60 70 80 90 M aximum 89.695
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean
49.907 53.592
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
49.141 52.536
95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev
95% Confidence Intervals
8.152 10.786
Mean
Median
49 50 51 52 53 54
The supplier’s Black Belt’s hunch was correct – the process is producing parts higher than
the spec of 64.
10. Graph the data by shift and by fixture using boxplots.
a. Choose Graph > Boxplot
b. Complete the dialog box as shown below and Click OK.
Lear Corporation
c. Complete dialog box as shown below and click OK.
Lear Corporation
Boxplot of Roughness vs Shift
90
80
70
Roughness
60
50
40
30
1 2
Shift
This graph shows there is more variation on second shift.

d. Press CTRL + E
e. In dialog box enter Fixture in Categorical variables. Click OK.
Boxplot of Roughness vs Fixture
90
80
70
Roughness
60
50
40
30
1 2 3 4 5
Fixture
This graph shows that fixture 5 shows the most variation

11. Subset the worksheet by fixture 5 so we can evaluate the data for fixture 5 separately.
a. Choose Data > Subset Worksheet
Lear Corporation
b. Complete dialog box as shown and click OK.

c. In Condition enter Fixture = 5, click OK
12. Create a time series plot to examine the data for fixture 5 over time.
a. a. Choose Graph > Time Series
b. Choose Simple, then click OK
c. In Series, enter Roughness. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Time Series Plot of Roughness
90
80
70
Roughness
60
50
40
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Index
This plot shows a trend of increasing variation over time. The Black Belt would question
what is different about fixture 5 and why the increased variation over time?
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-3. OEM Customer Focus Group

Solution
1. Open CUSTFOCUS.MPJ.
2. Choose Data> Split Worksheet.
3. Complete dialog box as below:
4. Click OK.
5. In the worksheet named ( Status = Gold , Gender = Male , Ownership = 6 months) choose
Calc > Random Data > Sample from Columns
6. Complete dialog box as below and click OK
Lear Corporation
7. Repeat steps 5 & 6 for the other three worksheets that include customers with gold status.
8. Next , copy and paste the sampled customer data into a new MINITAB worksheet.
a. Choose File > New , then choose Minitab Worksheet. Label the first four columns
Customer ID , Status , Gender , and Ownership respectively.
b. In the worksheet named ( Status = Gold , Gender = Male , Ownership = 6 month) select
sampled customers in the worksheet , then choose Edit > Copy Cells. Make sure to
select all four columns of data.
c. Go to the new worksheet. Place your cursor in the first cell in the column C1 , then
choose Edit > Paste Cells.
9. Repeat step 8 for the remaining worksheets.
10. Review worksheet below. Your worksheet will not match this worksheet.
Lear Corporation
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-4. Molded Parts Sampling

Solution
1. Choose Calc> Make Patterned Data > Simple Set of Numbers.
2. Complete dialog box as below and select OK
3. Choose Calc > Make Patterned Data > Simple Set of Numbers.
4. Complete dialog box as shown below and Click OK.
Lear Corporation
5. Choose Calc > Random Data > Sample From Columns

6. Complete dialog box as shown below and select OK.
7. Choose Data > Sort

8. Complete dialog box as shown below and click OK
Lear Corporation
9. The sampled parts are shown in the worksheet below. Note that the first two columns of
your worksheet should match the worksheet below, while the Sample Pallet and Sample
Part will not.
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-5. Southfield Restaurant Complaints

Solution
1. Open RESTCOMPLAINT.XLS
2. Choose Stat> Tables > Tally Individual Variables.
3. In Variables, enter Complaint ‘Cook Staff’ Manager. Click OK.
Tally for Discrete Variables: Complaint, Shift, Cook Staff, Manager
Cook
Complaint Count Shift Count Staff Count
Food not cooked to order 9 Dinner 43 A 22
Poor food quality 6 Lunch 11 B 32
Slow service 23 N= 54 N= 54
Too expensive 2
Wrong order 12
Wrong Order 2
N= 54
Manager Count
John 25
Robert 29
N= 54
Notice that the complaint code for incorrect orders appears in two forms: “Wrong order” versus
“Wrong Order”. Merge them using the Code function in MINITAB:
4. Choose Data > Code > Text to Text.
5. Complete dialog box as shown below. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Create a pareto charts of the complaints:

6. Choose Stat > Quality Tools > Pareto Chart.
7. In Chart defects data in, enter Complaint.
8. In Combine defects after the first, enter 99.9, then click OK.
Lear Corporation
Pareto Chart of Complaint

60
100
50
80
40
Percent
Count
30 60
20 40
10 20
0 0
Complaint e r er
vic de i ty siv
e
r or o rd ual n
se ng to q pe
ow ro od ex
Sl ed fo o
W
ook or To
tc Po
no
od
Fo
Count 23 14 9 6 2
Percent 42.6 25.9 16.7 11.1 3.7
Cum % 42.6 68.5 85.2 96.3 100.0
The three biggest complaints are slow service, wrong order, and food not cooked to order.
Slow service and wrong order are typically attributed to the wait staff, while food not
cooked to order is usually a kitchen problem. However, all three complaints might be
kitchen problems.
Create a Pareto chart for each shift:
10. In Chart defects data in, enter Complaints.
11. In By variable in, enter Shift.
12. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Pareto Chart of Complaint by Shift

er
d
or
to
d ty
ke ali e
r o qu si v
ce de co
r vi or ot d en
se n oo p
ng d rf ex
ow ro o o o
Sl W Fo Po To
Shift = Dinner Shift = Lunch C omplaint
40 Slow service
Wrong order
Count
30 Food not cooked to order

20 Poor food quality
Too expensiv e
10
0
e r r y e
rv
ic de de li t si
v
or or ua en
se q
ng to d ex
p
ow ro ed o
Sl fo o
W ok or To
co Po
ot
n
od
Fo
Complaint
The graph indicates that most of the complaints come at dinner, but no complaints about
cost come at lunch.
Create a Pareto chart for each cook staff:
14. In Chart defects data in, enter Complaints.
15. In By variable in, enter ‘Cook Staff’.
16. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Pareto Chart of Complaint by Cook Staff

er
rd
o
to
e d it y
r ok al e
i ce de co qu ns
iv
rv or ot od pe
se ng n fo e x
d or
ow ro o o
Sl W Fo Po To
C ook Staff = A C ook Staff = B C omplaint
35
30 Slow service
Wrong order
25
Count
Food not cooked to order

20
Poor food quality
15
Too expensive
10
5
0
e r r ty e
ic de de al i siv
rv or or u n
se q e
ng to
od ex
p
ow ro ed
Sl W k fo o o
co
o or T
ot Po
n
od
Fo
Complaint
More complaints are made about cooking staff B. All the complaints about poor food
quality and almost all those about food not cooked to order are about staff B. However, do
not look at the raw counts and decide that the difference in the number of complaints is due
entirely to the cook staff. One cooking staff may work more dinners or longer shifts than
the other staff.
Create a Pareto chart for each manager:
18. In Chart defects data in, enter Complaint.
19. In By variable in, enter Manager.
20. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Pareto Chart of Complaint by Manager

r
de
or
to
ed al
i ty
e r ok qu iv
e
de co ns
r v ic or t od pe
se no fo
ng e x
ow ro od or o
Sl W Fo Po To
Manager = John Manager = Robert Complaint
30
Slow serv ice
25
Wrong order
Count
20 Food not cook ed to order

15 Poor food quality
10 Too expensiv e
5
0
e r r e
ic de de i ty iv
rv al ns
se or or qu
ng to d pe
ow ro ed o ex
Sl k fo o
W
oo or To
tc Po
no
od
Fo
Complaint
Most of the slow-service complaints occurred under Robert’s supervision. Also, most of the
wrong orders occurred under John’s supervision.
To look at the total number of complaints versus all the variables (Shift, Cook Staff, and
Manager), use the cross-tabulation function. Shown below is one of many ways to display
this count data in a table:
21. Choose Stat > Tables > Cross Tabulation and Chi-Square.
22. In For rows, enter Manager ‘Cook Staff’.
23. In For columns, enter Shift.
24. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Tabulated statistics: Manager, Cook Staff, Shift
Rows: Manager / Cook Staff Columns: Shift
Dinner Lunch All

John
A 5 4 9
B 12 4 16
Robert
A 12 1 13
B 14 2 16
All
All 43 11 54
Cell Contents: Count
This table shows the number of complaints for each combination of the variables shift,
manager, and cook staff.
The combination of variables that produce the most complaints are:
• Dinner with Robert as manager ( complaints do not vary by Cook Staff).
• Dinner with John as manager and Cook Staff B.
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-6. Sulfur Dioxide Levels

Solution
Often, you can overlook important relationships or make improper generalizations when
response data is assessed one variable at a time (OFAT). When possible, you should account
for all the input variables simultaneously when plotting the response data. However, you cannot
always do this or you may find it difficult to do, depending on the number of variables and the
quantity of the data.
In this exercise, you can create a single plot that summarizes the important features in the
response data.
1. Choose File > Open Worksheet.
2. In Files of type, choose Excel (*.xls).
3. Choose SULFURDIOXIDE.XLS
4. Click Options, then check Ignore blank data rows. Click OK.
5. Click Preview.
Scroll over to view cell C7, the Time 4 column. Though the column is mostly numeric data,
the first observation is text. The experimenters typed “missed” when they did not obtain a
scheduled reading. You can change the way MINITAB reads this column by selecting the
proper data type (Numeric) from the pull-down menu.
6. Under C7, in Text, choose Numeric.
7. Click OK.
8. Click Open.
Lear Corporation
To generate a graph that shows the within-batch time trend, between-run variation, and
tank-to-tank variation, you must stack the data. Stacking keeps the within-tank data together
for each production run (date)
9. Choose Data > Stack > Rows
10. In Rows to be stacked are in the following columns, enter ‘Time 1’ ‘Time 2’ ‘Time 3’
‘Time 4’ (including the quotation marks)
11. In Store stacked data in, type SO2.
12. Check Store column subscripts in, then type Time.
13. Check Expand the following columns while stacking rows, then enter Date Tank.
14. In Store the expanded columns in, enter Day Tnk. Click OK.
The data are structured for analysis now, but you need to code the time data before you plot
them, because text variables cannot be used on the x-axis of a scatterplot.
15. Choose Data > Code > Text to Numeric
16. In Code data from columns, enter Time
17. In Into columns, enter Time
18. Under Original values, row 1, enter ‘Time 1’. Under New, enter 1.
Lear Corporation
19. Repeat for ‘Time 2’, ‘Time 3’, and ‘Time 4’, naming them 2,3,and 4.
20. Click OK.
Create a scatterplot to examine the relationship among SO2 levels and time for each tank:
21. Choose Graph > Scatterplot
22. Choose With Connect and Groups. Click OK.
23. Under Y variables, enter SO2; under X variables, enter Time.
24. Under Categorical variables for grouping, enter Day.
25. Click Multiple Graphs, then click the By Variables tab.
26. Under By variables with groups in separate panels, enter Tnk.
27. Click OK in each dialog box.
Lear Corporation
Scatterplot of SO2 vs Time

1.5 2.5 3.5
H1 H10 H 11 Day
500
1-Oct
2-Oct
400
3-Oct
11-Oct
300
14-Oct
15-Oct
200
16-Oct
17-Oct
SO2
100
H2 H4 H9 18-Oct
500
400
300
200
100
1.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Time
Panel variable: Tnk
For each tank, the SO2 levels decrease over time within a production run (date). For tanks
H10, H11, and H9, the decline in SO2 levels over the production time is much more
dramatic than for the other tanks. The production run-to-production run (date-to-date)
variation seems to have a much greater impact on H10, H11, and H9 than on the other
tanks.
You should further investigate the tank-to-tank performance variations to better understand
the process.
Lear Corporation
Exercise D-7. Investigating Downtime Distributions

Solution
1. Open DOWNTIME.MPJ.
2. Choose Data > Split Worksheet.
3. In By Variables, enter ‘Reason’. Click OK.
Analyze the data for changeovers:

4. Make the Changeover worksheet active.
5. Choose Graph > Dotplot.
6. Under One Y, choose With Groups. Click OK.
7. In Graph variables, enter ‘Downtime’; in Categorical variables for grouping,
enter ‘Shift’.
8. Click OK.
Dotplot of Down Time vs Shift

Shift
2
27 30 33 36 39 42 45
Down Time
Each symbol represents up to 3 observations.
The graph shows that downtime spikes at 5-minute intervals: 25, 30 and 35 minutes. These
spikes might mean that the person recording and entering the data rounded to the nearest 5
minutes.
Analyze the data for fixture alignment:
9. Make the Fixture Alignment worksheet active.
10. Choose Graph > Dotplot.
11. Under One Y, choose Simple. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
12. In Graph variables, enter ‘Downtime’, then click OK.
Dotplot of Down Time
12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Down Time
Two different distributions appear for down due to fixture alignments. One is centered
around 20 minutes and one around 30. Recall from the example that Line A had more
overall downtime from fixture alignments than Line B. Therefore, the two distributions
might be due to the lines.
Create a dotplot by line for the fixture alignment data:
13. Choose Editor > Panel.
14. In By variables with groups in separate panels, enter ‘Line’.
15. Click OK.
Dotplot of Down Time

A
12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Down Time
Each symbol represents up to 2 observations.

Panel variable: Line
Lear Corporation
This graph shows that line A has more overall downtime occurrences but each occurrence
lasts for less time compared to line B. The workers on line A may be resolving fixture
alignment problems faster or they may be just rushing because they have more downtime
occurrences to resolve.
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-1. Injection Molded Center Console – Color Consistency:

Results
Solution
1. Open the Worksheet
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Color Consistency.MTW
3. Your screen will look like this:
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Gage Study > Gage R&R Study (Crossed)
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Part numbers > ‘Part’ > Operator >‘Operator’,
and Measurement data > ‘Red to Blue’
6. Click on Options
Lear Corporation
7. For the Process tolerance, enter the total tolerance for the plaques, 2.
8. Click OK in both of the dialog boxes.
9. Analysis of the Data
a. The ANOVA table shows that the measurement system cannot tell the difference
between the parts.
b. The variation is due to the operators and the interaction between the operators and the
plaques.
c. The part to part variation is 1.6% and the variation of the measurement system is over
the 30% limit.
d. It appears that the Colorimeter is not able to distinguish the differences between the
plaques.
Lear Corporation
Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method
Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction
Source DF SS MS F P
Part 9 0.007904 0.0008782 1.2228 0.322
Operator 3 0.057482 0.0191608 26.6775 0.000
Part * Operator 27 0.019393 0.0007182 1.6834 0.039
Repeatability 80 0.034133 0.0004267
Total 119 0.118912
Gage R&R
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
Total Gage R&R 0.0011386 98.84
Repeatability 0.0004267 37.04
Reproducibility 0.0007119 61.80
Operator 0.0006148 53.37
Operator*Part 0.0000972 8.44
Part-To-Part 0.0000133 1.16
Total Variation 0.0011519 100.00
Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)
Total Gage R&R 0.0337433 0.202460 99.42 10.12
Repeatability 0.0206559 0.123935 60.86 6.20
Reproducibility 0.0266823 0.160094 78.62 8.00
Operator 0.0247942 0.148765 73.05 7.44
Operator*Part 0.0098586 0.059151 29.05 2.96
Part-To-Part 0.0036515 0.021909 10.76 1.10
Total Variation 0.0339403 0.203642 100.00 10.18
Number of Distinct Categories = 1
10. Graphical Analysis

a. Most of the variability is in the measurement system.
b. Operator 4 has the greatest variation.
c. Part 2 has a larger variation that the other plaques. Why was this one different?
d. The first Quality Engineer tends to measure higher that the others.
Lear Corporation
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Red to Blue

Reported by :
G age name: Tolerance:
D ate of study : M isc:
Components of Variation Red to Blue by Part

100 % Contribution 80.00
% Study Var
Percent
% Tolerance
79.95
50
79.90
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
R Chart by Operator
1 2 3 4 Red to Blue by Operator
0.10
UCL=0.0895 80.00
Sample Range
79.95
0.05 _
R=0.0347 79.90
0.00 LCL=0
1 2 3 4
Operator
Xbar Chart by Operator
1 2 3 4 Operator * Part Interaction
80.00 80.00 Operator
Sample Mean
1
UCL=79.9668
Average
2
79.95 _ 79.95
_ 3
X=79.9312 4
79.90
79.90 LCL=79.8957
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-2. Fabric Strength

Solution
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Fabric Strength. .MTW
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Gage Study > Gage R&R Study (Crossed)
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Part numbers > ‘Fabric ID’ > Operators > ‘Lab
Tech’, and Measurement data > ‘Max Load’
6. Click on Options
Lear Corporation
7. For the Process tolerance, enter the total tolerance for the tensile test, 50.
Lear Corporation
Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method
Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction
Source DF SS MS F P
Fabric ID 19 101340 5333.69 2571.96 0.000
Lab Tech 2 0 0.07 0.04 0.965
Fabric ID * Lab Tech 38 79 2.07 1.83 0.018
Repeatability 60 68 1.13
Total 119 101487
Gage R&R
%Contribution
Total Gage R&R 1.603 0.18
Lab Tech 0.000 0.00
Lab Tech*Fabric ID 0.471 0.05
Part-To-Part 888.603 99.82
Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)
Total Gage R&R 1.2662 7.597 4.24 15.19
Repeatability 1.0642 6.385 3.57 12.77
Reproducibility 0.6860 4.116 2.30 8.23
Lab Tech 0.0000 0.000 0.00 0.00
Lab Tech*Fabric ID 0.6860 4.116 2.30 8.23
Part-To-Part 29.8094 178.857 99.91 357.71
Total Variation 29.8363 179.018 100.00 358.04
The Lab Techs agree on the results from the measurement system. The % Study Var is
only 4.24 for the Total Gage R&R with the %Tolerance at 15.19. Distinct categories is
above the recommended 5 at 33. The majority of the variation is with the fabric samples.
Lear Corporation
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Max Load

Reported by :
Date of study : M isc:
Components of Variation Max Load by Fabric ID

400 % Contribution 480
% Study Var
Percent
% Tolerance 440
200
400
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Fabric ID
R Chart by Lab Tech
1 2 3 Max Load by Lab Tech
4 UCL=4.007 480
Sample Range
440
2 _
R=1.226 400
0 LCL=0
1 2 3
Lab Tech
Xbar Chart by Lab Tech
1 2 3 Lab Tech * Fabric ID Interaction
480 480 Lab
Sample Mean
Tech
Average
1
440 440
2
_
_ 3
UCL=410.3
X=408.0
LCL=405.7 400
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 8 19 20
Fabric ID
a. Components of Variation – Differences in the fabric samples.

b. Lab Tech * Fabric ID Interaction – Measurements are similar between each of the
Lab Techs.
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-3. Seam Strength (used with Nested Gage R&R Example
3)
Solution
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Seam Strength.MTW
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Gage Study > Gage R&R Study (Nested)
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Part or batch numbers > ‘Roll’ > Operators
>‘Tech’, and Measurement data > ‘Max Load’
6. Click OK in the dialog box.

a. The ANOVA table shows that the Technicians are in more agreement with a p-value of
0.0984
Lear Corporation
Gage R&R Study - Nested ANOVA
Gage R&R (Nested) for Max Load
Source DF SS MS F P
Tech 2 0.1119 0.05593 0.0160 0.984
Roll (Tech) 6 20.9356 3.48926 36.8008 0.000
Repeatability 18 1.7067 0.09481
Total 26 22.7541
b. Nearly 8% of the variation is due to the repeatability.

c. 92% of the variation is due to the fabric samples.
Gage R&R
%Contribution
Total Gage R&R 0.09481 7.73
Part-To-Part 1.13148 92.27
d. The %Study Var for Repeatability is nearly 28% as well.

e. Generally the repeatability component is due to the gage. In this test, repeatability is
confounded with the assumption that there is homogeneity within the rolls of fabric.
f. The number of distinct categories is 4, slightly lower that the acceptable target of 5 to
discriminate between parts.
g. Most of the variation is in the fabric samples.
Study Var %Study Var

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)
Total Gage R&R 0.30792 1.84752 27.81
Repeatability 0.30792 1.84752 27.81
Reproducibility 0.00000 0.00000 0.00
Part-To-Part 1.06371 6.38227 96.06
Total Variation 1.10738 6.64430 100.00
a. Most of the variability part-to-part in the Components of Variation.
Lear Corporation
b. Variation between the rolls of fabric should be larger than the variation within a roll.
c. The Xbar chart has several points outside the control limits.
Gage R&R (Nested) for Max Load
Reported by :
Date of study : M isc:
Components of Variation Max Load By Roll ( Tech )

100 % Contribution 462.0
% Study Var
Percent
460.5
50
459.0
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Roll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tech 1 2 3
R Chart by Tech
1 2 3 Max Load by Tech
1.6 462.0
UCL=1.459
Sample Range
460.5
0.8 _
R=0.567
459.0
0.0 LCL=0
1 2 3
Tech
Xbar Chart by Tech
1 2 3
Sample Mean
461 UCL=460.865
_
X=460.285
460
LCL=459.705
459
9. Scatter Plot
a. Select > Graph > Scatterplot
Lear Corporation
b. Select > With Groups > Click OK
c. Select under Y variables ‘Max Load’ and under X variables ‘Roll”.

d. Select under Categorical variable for grouping (0-3) ‘Specimen’.
e. Click OK.
f. The Specimen identification is in the upper right corner by both shape and color.
Lear Corporation
Scatterplot of Max Load vs Roll

462.0 Specimen
1
2
461.5 3
461.0
Max Load
460.5
460.0
459.5
459.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Roll
g. Sample 2 (red square) for each of the rolls of fabric has a higher reading than the
others. So do you think that the rolls of fabric are homogeneous?
h. Is the second sample (from the middle of the fabric) different than the other parts of the
linear roll?
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-4. Rear Shelf Substrate

Solution
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Substrate2.MTW
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Attribute Agreement Analysis
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Attribute column > ‘Response’, Samples > ‘Part’,
Appraisers > ‘Appraiser’, and Known standard/attribute > ‘Standard’.
6. Click OK.
7. Examine the Analysis – Gage R&R
a. Within Appraisers
Lear Corporation
• The Assessment Agreement table is created when the appraiser reviews the parts two
or more times. This allows us to evaluate the consistency of the response.
• In this example, Lisa matched 19 out of 20 times. The other appraisers repeated their
responses.
Attribute Agreement Analysis for Response
Within Appraisers
Assessment Agreement
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

Derek 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)
James 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)
Jane 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)
Lisa 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)
# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.
b. The Kappa Statistic for Assessment Agreement is “1” for Derek, James, and Jane.
Their agreement is perfect. Lisa has a Kappa value of 0.90, which is still acceptable, but
identifies a change of her opinion.
Fleiss' Kappa Statistics
Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Derek Fail 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
Pass 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
James Fail 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
Pass 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
Jane Fail 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
Pass 1.00000 0.223607 4.47214 0.0000
Lisa Fail 0.89975 0.223607 4.02380 0.0000
Pass 0.89975 0.223607 4.02380 0.0000
c. Each Appraiser vs. the Standard

The Assessment Agreement table allows us to evaluate each appraiser, when in
agreement, to the approved standard.
In this example both Derek and Jane agreed with the standard 100% of the time. James
had more difficultly in measuring against the standard.
Lear Corporation
Each Appraiser vs Standard
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

Derek 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)
James 20 17 85.00 (62.11, 96.79)
Jane 20 20 100.00 (86.09, 100.00)
Lisa 20 19 95.00 (75.13, 99.87)
# Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with the known

standard.
Assessment Disagreement table allows us to evaluate each appraiser, when in

disagreement, to the approved standard.
• The # Fail / Pass column identifies the number of parts the appraiser failed, but
should have passed. James did not identify the parts correctly to the standard
resulting in errors 30% of the time.
• The # Mixed column identifies the number of parts that the appraiser disagreed
with themselves with repeated assessment of a part. Lisa changed her mind on
the assessment of a part.
Assessment Disagreement
# Pass / # Fail /
Appraiser Fail Percent Pass Percent # Mixed Percent
Derek 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
James 0 0.00 3 30.00 0 0.00
Jane 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Lisa 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.00
# Pass / Fail: Assessments across trials = Pass / standard = Fail.

# Fail / Pass: Assessments across trials = Fail / standard = Pass.
# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.
• The Kappa Statistic for the Assessment Disagreement is 1.00 for Derek and
Jane. James had a Kappa Statistic of 0.69. You need to investigate why he did
not correctly identify part 1, 6, and 15.
Lear Corporation
Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Derek Fail 1.00000 0.158114 6.32456 0.0000
Pass 1.00000 0.158114 6.32456 0.0000
James Fail 0.69309 0.158114 4.38352 0.0000
Pass 0.69309 0.158114 4.38352 0.0000
Jane Fail 1.00000 0.158114 6.32456 0.0000
Pass 1.00000 0.158114 6.32456 0.0000
Lisa Fail 0.94987 0.158114 6.00754 0.0000
Pass 0.94987 0.158114 6.00754 0.0000
d. Between Appraisers
The Assessment Agreement table compares each appraiser’s responses to the
substrates with the other appraiser’s responses. In this example 85% of the time the
appraisers agreed with each other.
Between Appraisers
# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

20 17 85.00 (62.11, 96.79)
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other.
The Kappa Statistic for Between Appraisers is 0.85964 which shows a high level of
agreement between the appraisers.
Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Fail 0.859640 0.0422577 20.3428 0.0000
Pass 0.859640 0.0422577 20.3428 0.0000
e. The last set of tables evaluates all of the Appraisers vs. the Standard.
The Assessment Agreement table compares all appraiser’s responses to the standard.
In this example, the appraisers match the standard 85% of the time which shows good
agreement.
Lear Corporation
All Appraisers vs Standard
# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

20 17 85.00 (62.11, 96.79)
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known standard.
The Kappa Statistic for All Appraisers vs. Standard is 0.91 which shows a high level of
agreement with the appraisers to the standard.
Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Fail 0.910742 0.0790569 11.5201 0.0000
Pass 0.910742 0.0790569 11.5201 0.0000
Examine the Analysis – Gage R&R: The Graphs

1. Assessment Agreement Within Appraisers
As you may recall, Lisa changed her mind and was consistent in her responses 95% of the
time. The other appraisers, agreed with themselves, 100% of the time.
2. Assessment Agreement Appraiser vs. Standard
Both Derek and Jane agreed with the standard 100% of the time. James and Lisa require
additional training.
Date of study :
Reported by :
Name of product:
Misc:
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

100 95.0% C I 100 95.0% C I
P ercent P ercent
95 95
90 90
85 85
Percent
Percent
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
Derek James Jane Lisa Derek James Jane Lisa

Appraiser Appraiser
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-5. Brake Shoe Hardness – Joint Six Sigma Project with
General Motors
Solution: Initial Look at Capability
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Brake Shoe Hardness 2
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Capability Sixpack > Normal
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Centering’, Subgroup size >
‘Subgroup’, Lower spec > ‘39’ and Upper spec > ‘43’.
6. Click OK.
7. Examine the Analysis – Capability: The Sixpack
Lear Corporation
Process Capability Sixpack of Centering

Xbar C har t C apability H istogr am
UCL=42.327
42
Sample Mean
_
_
41 X=41.028
40
LCL=39.730
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 39.00 39.75 40.50 41.25 42.00 42.75 43.50
R C har t Nor mal P r ob P lot

UCL=4.761
A D: 0.214, P : 0.850
Sample Range
_
2 R=2.251
0 LCL=0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 38 40 42 44
Last 2 5 Subgr oups C apability P lot

44 Within Within O v erall
S tDev 0.967932 S tDev 0.979634
42
Values
Cp 0.69 Pp 0.68
O v erall
C pk 0.68 P pk 0.67
40
C C pk 0.69 C pm *
S pecs
30 35 40 45 50
Sample
8. Xbar Chart
a. The Xbar Chart is a visual representation of the data points.
b. In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
appears that the process is stable.
9. R Chart
a. The R Chart is a visual representation of the ranges of data points
10. In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
11. Dot Plot (Last 25 Subgroups)
a. The Dot Plot is a visual representation of the last 25 subgroups.
b. In this example the points are both symmetric and randomly distributed around the
Rockwell Hardness process mean.
12. Capability Histogram
a. The histogram is your first look to assess if the variable data follows the curve for a
normal distribution. The bell curve is automatically added to the graph.
b. In this example it appears that the data is normally distributed around the process mean.
13. Normal Probability Plot
a. The Normal Probability Plot is a visual of the data point along a diagonal straight line.
b. In this example the Rockwell hardness data points are along the straight line indicating
that the data distribution is normal.
Lear Corporation
c. Just below the title of the Normal Probability Plot are results from the Anderson-
Darling Normality Test (AD) and a P-value. AD: 0.214, P: 0.85
d. Null Hypothesis, HO: The data follow a normal distribution and the Alternative
Hypothesis, HA: The data does not follow a normal distribution.
e. The p-value is high (> 0.05).
f. For the Rockwell Hardness data, the p-value is 0.85 > 0.05, therefore fail to reject the
null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis. Therefore, the data is normally
distributed.
Steps: Continue to Assess the Process Capability

1. Return to your Worksheet in Minitab
2. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Capability Analysis > Normal
3. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Centering’, Subgroup size >
‘Subgroup’, Lower spec > ‘39’ and Upper spec > ‘43’
Lear Corporation
4. Click on Options
5. Check to Include confidence intervals
Examine the Analysis – Process Capability

1. The Process Capability contains both a graphical representation of the data and capability
indices.
2. The process has shifted closer to the center of the upper and lower specification limits.
Lear Corporation
3. Cpk is close to the Cp which is an indication of process centering.
Process Capability of Centering

(using 95.0% confidence)
LSL USL
P rocess D ata W ithin
LS L 39 Ov erall
Target *
USL 43 P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean 41.0281 Cp 0.69
S ample N 250 Low er C L 0.62
S tD ev (Within) 0.967932 U pper C L 0.76
S tD ev (O v erall) 0.979634 C PL 0.70
C PU 0.68
C pk 0.68
Low er C L 0.60
U pper C L 0.76
C C pk 0.69
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.68
Low er CL 0.62
U pper CL 0.74
PPL 0.69
39.00 39.75 40.50 41.25 42.00 42.75 43.50 PPU 0.67
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance P pk 0.67
P P M < LS L 20000.00 P P M < LS L 18070.81 P P M < LS L 19212.03 Low er CL 0.60
P P M > U S L 16000.00 P P M > U S L 20815.53 P P M > U S L 22064.93 U pper CL 0.74
P P M Total 36000.00 P P M Total 38886.34 P P M Total 41276.96 C pm *
Low er CL *
Steps: Six Sigma Process Report (Variable Data)

2. Select > Six Sigma > Process Report
Lear Corporation
3. Complete the dialog box as: All observations are in one column: ‘Centering’, Subgroup
size >‘Subgroup’, Lower Spec > ‘39’, Upper Spec > ‘43’.
4. Click OK.

1. Minitab produces two graphical reports. Both should be included in the Six Sigma Project
Template. The first report is the Executive Summary.
2. Process Benchmarks
3. A defect per Million Opportunity, DPMO is the potential amount of defects for a process if
a million parts were produced.
4. In this example, the DPMO = 41,277 (over a 50% reduction from 101,431).
5. Potential (ST) is the Sigma Value (z) for the process.
6. In this example, the z score = 1.76, is far from the optimal level of 6.
7. The mean has been shifted, but the z short term remains the same. GM will still receive
defective parts from Supplier XYZ.
Lear Corporation
Report 1: Executive Summary

Process Performance Process Demographics
LS L USL
D ate:
Reported by :
P roject:
D epartment:
P rocess:
C haracteristic:
U nits:
U pper S pec: 43
Low er S pec: 39
39.00 39.75 40.50 41.25 42.00 42.75 43.50
N ominal:
O pportunity :
A ctual (LT) P otential (S T)
1000000
100000 Process Benchmarks
10000 A ctual (LT) P otential (S T)
1000
S igma 1.74 1.76
100 (Z.Bench)
10
1 DP M O 41277.0 38803.9
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
8. Process Performance
9. Visual normal distribution curve of the actual data (long term) and the potential (short
term).
10. In the example, it is easy to see that many brake shoes may be short of the Rockwell
Hardness LSL.
11. The second graphical report is the Process Capability for Hardness
a. Xbar Chart and SChart
In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
Lear Corporation
Report 2: Process Capability for Centering

Xbar and S C har t C apability Indices
UCL=42.327 ST LT
42
_
M ean 41 41.0281
_
41 X=41.028 S tDev 0.968 0.980
Z.U S L 2.07 2.01
40
Z.LS L 2.07 2.07
LCL=39.730 Z.Bench 1.76 1.74
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Z.S hift 0.03 0.03
2
UCL=1.901 P .U S L 0.0194020 0.0220649
P .LS L 0.0194020 0.0192120
P .Total 0.0388039 0.0412770
_
1
S=0.910 Yield 96.12 95.87
DP M O 38803.9 41277.0
Cp 0.69 *
0 LCL=0 C pk 0.68 *
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 C C pk 0.69 *
Subgroup
Pp * 0.68
P pk * 0.67
P otential (ST ) C apability A ctual (LT ) C apability
P rocess Tolerance P rocess Tolerance

38.0962 43.9038 38.0892 43.967
39 43 39 43
Data S ource:
S pecifications S pecifications Time S pan:
Data Trace:
b. Potential (ST) and Actual (LT) Capability

Visual representation of the process both on a long and short term basis.
12. The mean has been shifted, but parts are still manufactured out of spec. GM will still
receive defective parts from Supplier XYZ.
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-6. Brake Shoe Hardness – Joint Six Sigma Project with
General Motors
Solution: Initial Look at Capability
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Brake Shoe Hardness 3
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Quenching’, Subgroup size >
‘Subgroup’, Lower spec > ‘39’ and Upper spec > ‘43’.
6. Click OK.
7. Examine the Analysis – Capability: The Sixpack
Lear Corporation
Process Capability Sixpack of Quenching

UCL=41.617
41.5
Sample Mean
_
_
41.0 X=40.926
40.5
LCL=40.234
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 39.6 40.0 40.4 40.8 41.2 41.6 42.0

UCL=2.535
A D: 0.287, P : 0.620
Sample Range
2
_
R=1.199
1
0 LCL=0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 39 40 41 42

S tDev 0.515339 S tD ev 0.517454
Values
41 Cp 1.29 Pp 1.29
O v erall
C pk 1.25 P pk 1.24
40 C C pk 1.29 C pm *
S pecs
30 35 40 45 50
Sample
8. Xbar Chart
a. The Xbar Chart is a visual representation of the data points.
b. In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
c. R Chart
9. The R Chart is a visual representation of the ranges of data points
a. In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
a. The Dot Plot is a visual representation of the last 25 subgroups.
b. In this example the points are both symmetric and randomly distributed around the
Rockwell Hardness process mean.
a. The histogram is your first look to assess if the variable data follows the curve for a
normal distribution. The bell curve is automatically added to the graph.
b. In this example it appears that the data is normally distributed around the process mean.
a. The Normal Probability Plot is a visual of the data point along a diagonal straight line.
b. In this example the Rockwell hardness data points are along the straight line indicating
that the data distribution is normal.
Lear Corporation
c. Just below the title of the Normal Probability Plot are results from the Anderson-
d. Null Hypothesis, HO: The data follow a normal distribution and the Alternative
e. The p-value is high (> 0.05).
f. For the Rockwell Hardness data, the p-value is 0.620 > 0.05, therefore fail to reject the
null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis. Therefore, the data is normally
distributed.
Steps: Continue to Assess the Process Capability

2. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Capability Analysis > Normal
3. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Quenching’, Subgroup size >
‘Subgroup’, Lower spec > ‘39’ and Upper spec > ‘43’
Lear Corporation
4. Click on Options
5. Check to Include confidence intervals

1. The Process Capability contains both a graphical representation of the data and capability
indices.
Lear Corporation
2. Cpk and the Ppk are both close to the Cp and the Pp. This is an improvement in the process
and appears to be the critical x. However, still a bit short of the 1.5 target.
Process Capability of Quenching

LSL USL
P rocess D ata W ithin
LS L 39 O v erall
Target *
USL 43 P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean 40.9258 Cp 1.29
S ample N 250 Low er C L 1.17
S tD ev (Within) 0.515339 U pper C L 1.42
S tD ev (O v erall) 0.517454 C PL 1.25
C PU 1.34
C pk 1.25
Low er C L 1.12
U pper C L 1.37
C C pk 1.29
O v erall C apability
Pp 1.29
Low er CL 1.18
U pper CL 1.40
PPL 1.24
39.0 39.6 40.2 40.8 41.4 42.0 42.6 PPU 1.34
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance P pk 1.24
P P M < LS L 0.00 P P M < LS L 93.12 P P M < LS L 98.94 Low er CL 1.12
P P M > U S L 0.00 P P M > U S L 28.50 P P M > U S L 30.56 U pper CL 1.36
P P M Total 0.00 P P M Total 121.62 P P M Total 129.50 C pm *
Low er CL *
Steps: Six Sigma Process Report (Variable Data)

Lear Corporation
3. Complete the dialog box as: All observations are in one column: ‘Quenching’, Subgroup
size >‘Subgroup’, Lower Spec > ‘39’, Upper Spec > ‘43’.
4. Click OK.

1. Executive Summary.
2. Process Benchmarks
Lear Corporation
3. A defect per Million Opportunity, DPMO is the potential amount of defects for a process if
a million parts were produced.
4. In this example, the DPMO = 129 (nearly a 99% reduction from 101,431).
5. Potential (ST) is the Sigma Value (z) for the process.
6. In this example, the z score = 3.71. Much better than the original analysis.
7. GM is satisfied with the improvements.

LS L USL
D ate:
Reported by :
P roject:
D epartment:
P rocess:
C haracteristic:
U nits:
U pper S pec: 43
Low er S pec: 39
39.0 39.6 40.2 40.8 41.4 42.0 42.6
N ominal:
O pportunity :
1000000
1000
S igma 3.65 3.71
100 (Z.Bench)
10
1 DP M O 129.5 104.1
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
8. Process Performance
9. Visual normal distribution curve of the actual data (long term) and the potential (short
term).
10. In the example, it is easy to see that most of the brake shoes will be within specification.
11. The second graphical report is the Process Capability for Hardness
a. Xbar Chart and SChart
In this example, all of the values for Rockwell Hardness are within the control limits. It
Lear Corporation
Report 2: Process Capability for Quenching

41.5
UCL=41.617 ST LT
_
M ean 41 40.9258
_
41.0 X=40.926 S tD ev 0.515 0.517
Z.U S L 3.88 4.01
40.5 Z.LS L 3.88 3.72
LCL=40.234 Z.Bench 3.71 3.65
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 Z.S hift 0.06 0.06
1.0 UCL=1.012 P .U S L 0.0000520 0.0000306
P .LS L 0.0000520 0.0000989
P .Total 0.0001041 0.0001295
_
0.5 S=0.484 Yield 99.99 99.99
DP M O 104.1 129.5
Cp 1.29 *
0.0 LCL=0 C pk 1.25 *
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 C C pk 1.29 *
Subgroup
Pp * 1.29
P pk * 1.24
P otential (ST ) C apability A ctual ( LT ) C apability

39.454 42.546 39.3735 42.4782
39 43 39 43
D ata S ource:
D ata Trace:
b. Potential (ST) and Actual (LT) Capability

Visual representation of the process both on a long and short term basis.
12. The parts are in spec. Yippee!
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-7. Instrument Panel Weight

Solution: Initial Weight Capability
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > IP Weight
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Weight’, Subgroup size > ‘5’,
Lower spec > ‘21’ and Upper spec > ‘27’. (Note the data has been divided by 100 for
analysis)
a. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Examine the Analysis – Initial Weight Capability: The Sixpack

Process Capability Sixpack of Weight
30 1
Sample Mean
UCL=27.23
25 _
_
X=23.57
20 LCL=19.91
1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

UCL=13.42
A D: 0.396, P : 0.365
Sample Range
10
_
R=6.35
5
0 LCL=0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 10 20 30

S tD ev 2.72857 S tD ev 3.15588
Values
25 Cp 0.37 Pp 0.32
O v erall
C pk 0.31 P pk 0.27
20
C C pk 0.37 C pm *
S pecs
5 10 15 20
Sample
1. Xbar Chart
Points 2 and 17 are outside the 3 standard deviations. An indication of instability
2. R Chart
Values for weight are within the control limits.
The points are generally symmetric and randomly distributed around weight mean with the
exception of points 2 and 17.
Data is somewhat normally distributed around the process mean. May be some outliers.
a. Data points are along the straight line indicating that the data distribution is normal.
b. Just below the title of the Normal Probability Plot are results from the Anderson-
c. Null Hypothesis, HO: The data follow a normal distribution and the Alternative
d. For the weight data, the p-value is 0.365 > 0.05, therefore fail to reject the null
hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis. Therefore, the data is normally distributed.
Lear Corporation
6. Capability Plot and Indices

Standard Deviation for Within = 2.73, Overall = 3.16 is an indication of some instability in
the process.
Steps: Revised Weight Capability

1. Return to your the Worksheet
2. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Capability Sixpack > Normal or Ctrl E
3. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Weight’, Subgroup size > ‘5’,
Lower spec > ‘21’ and Upper spec > ‘27’. (Note the data has been divided by 100 for
analysis)
4. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Examine the Analysis – Revised Weight Capability: The Sixpack

Process Capability Sixpack of Revised Weight
28
UCL=27.265
Sample Mean
_
_
24
X=23.545
20 LCL=19.825
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

UCL=13.64
A D: 0.444, P : 0.279
Sample Range
10
_
R=6.45
5
0 LCL=0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 15 20 25 30

S tD ev 2.77256 S tD ev 2.78555
25
Values
Cp 0.36 Pp 0.36
O v erall
C pk 0.31 P pk 0.3
20
C C pk 0.36 C pm *
S pecs
5 10 15 20
Sample
1. Xbar Chart
Points 2 and 17 have been removed. Process looks stability
2. R Chart
Points are within the control limits.
The points are symmetric and randomly distributed around weight mean.
Data is normally distributed around the process mean.
a. Data points are along the straight line indicating that the data distribution is normal.
b. Just below the title of the Normal Probability Plot are results from the Anderson-
c. Null Hypothesis, HO: The data follow a normal distribution and the Alternative
d. For the weight data, the p-value is 0.279 > 0.05, therefore fail to reject the null
hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis. Therefore, the data is normally distributed.
6. Capability Plot and Indices
Standard Deviation for Within = 2.77, Overall = 2.78 is an indication the process is more
stable.
Lear Corporation
Steps: Initial Weight Six Sigma Process Report (Variable Data)

3. Complete the dialog box as: All observations are in one column: ‘Weight’, Subgroup size
>‘5’, Lower Spec > ‘21’, Upper Spec > ‘27’.
4. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Examine the Analysis – Initial Weight Process Capability

1. Executive Summary
a. Process Benchmarks
DPMO = 346,272 which is a high defective rate.
Potential (ST) is the Sigma Value (z) for the process = 0.61.
LS L USL
D ate:
Reported by :
P roject:
D epartment:
P rocess:
C haracteristic:
U nits:
U pper S pec: 27
Low er S pec: 21
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
N ominal:
O pportunity :
1000000
1000
S igma 0.40 0.61
100 (Z.Bench)
10
1 DPMO 346272.9 271560.1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
b. Process Performance
In the example, it is easy to see that many of the IPs are too heavy or too light. What is
causing the variation in the process?
2. The second graphical report is the Process Capability for Weight
Report 2: Process Capability for Weight
30
ST LT
UCL=27.23
M ean 24 23.5699
25 _
_ S tDev 2.729 3.156
X=23.57
Z.U S L 1.10 1.09
20 LCL=19.91
Z.LS L 1.10 0.81
Z.Bench 0.61 0.40
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Z.S hift 0.21 0.21
UCL=5.358 P .U S L 0.135780 0.138542
P .LS L 0.135780 0.207731
4
P .Total 0.271560 0.346273
_
S=2.565 Yield 72.84 65.37
2 DPMO 271560.1 346272.9
Cp 0.37 *
0 LCL=0 C pk 0.31 *
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 C C pk 0.37 *
Subgroup
Pp * 0.32
P pk * 0.27
P otential ( ST ) C apability A ctual (L T ) C apability

15.8143 32.1857 14.1023 33.0375
21 27 21 27
D ata S ource:
D ata Trace:
Lear Corporation
a. Potential (ST) and Actual (LT) Capability

b. Too much variation in the process. Many parts out of spec.
Steps: Revised Weight Six Sigma Process Report (Variable Data)

3. Complete the dialog box as: All observations are in one column: ‘Revised Weight’,
Subgroup size >‘5’, Lower Spec > ‘21’, Upper Spec > ‘27’.
4. Click OK.
* ERROR * Some subgroups have less than 2

observations, no statistics can be calculated.
The Six Sigma Process Report cannot calculate capability because of the missing data. To use
this data, create a subset datasheet without the missing values:
Steps: Create a Subset Datasheet

2. Select > Data > Subset Worksheet
3. Complete the dialog box as: Specify which rows to exclude, Rows that match.
Lear Corporation
4. Click on Condition, and complete the dialog box as:
5. Click OK and OK.

6. A new Datasheet appears without the missing data:
Lear Corporation
Try the analysis again with the new Datasheet.
Steps: Revised Weight Six Sigma Process Report (Variable Data)

2. Complete the dialog box as: All observations are in one column: ‘Revised Weight’,
Subgroup size >‘5’, Lower Spec > ‘21’, Upper Spec > ‘27’.
3. Click OK.
Examine the Analysis – Revised Weight Process Capability

1. Executive Summary
a. Process Benchmarks
DPMO = 287,882 which is still a high defective rate.
Potential (ST) is the Sigma Value (z) for the process = 0.59.
Lear Corporation

LS L USL
D ate:
Reported by :
P roject:
D epartment:
P rocess:
C haracteristic:
U nits:
U pper S pec: 27
Low er S pec: 21
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
N ominal:
O pportunity :
1000000
1000
S igma 0.56 0.59
100 (Z.Bench)
10
1 DP M O 287882.0 279237.4
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
b. Process Performance
Many of the IPs are still too heavy or too light.
2. Process Capability for Revised Weight
Report 2: Process Capability for Revised Weight
28
UCL=27.265 ST LT
M ean 24 23.5449
_
_
24
X=23.545
S tD ev 2.773 2.786
Z.U S L 1.08 1.24
Z.LS L 1.08 0.91
20 LCL=19.825 Z.Bench 0.59 0.56
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Z.S hift 0.03 0.03
UCL=5.444 P .U S L 0.139619 0.107419
P .LS L 0.139619 0.180463
4
P .Total 0.279237 0.287882
_
S=2.606 Yield 72.08 71.21
2 DPMO 279237.4 287882.0
Cp 0.36 *
0 LCL=0 C pk 0.31 *
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 C C pk 0.36 *
Subgroup
Pp * 0.36
P pk * 0.30
P otential ( ST ) C apability A ctual ( LT ) C apability

15.6823 32.3177 15.1882 31.9015
21 27 21 27
D ata S ource:
D ata Trace:
a. Potential (ST) and Actual (LT) Capability

b. There is still too much variation in the process.
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-8. Manual Seat Adjustor

Solution: Individual Distribution Identification
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Manual Seat Adjustor
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Individual Distribution Identification
Lear Corporation
5. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Force’
6. Click on Box-Cox.
7. Select Box-Cox power transformation (W=Y**Lambda) and Check Use optimal lambda.
Lear Corporation
Examine the Analysis – Individual Distribution Identification

Use the Probability Plots and the Anderson-Darling Test to identify which model best fits the
data.
Probability Plot for Force Probability Plot for Force
G oodness of F it Test G oodness of F it Test
Normal - 95% CI Normal - 95% CI E xponential - 95% C I 2-P arameter Exponential - 95% C I
99.9 99.9
N ormal 99.9 99.9 Exponential
99 99 A D = 35.954 90 90 A D = 80.329
90 90 P -V alue < 0.005 50 50 P -V alue < 0.003
Percent
Percent
P er cent
P er cent
50 50 N ormal (A fter Transformation) 10 10 2-P arameter Exponential

A D = 21.688 A D = 75.816
10 10 P -V alue < 0.005 P -V alue < 0.010
1 1
1 1
Lognormal Weibull
0.1 0.1
5 10 15 20 0 400000 800000 1200000 A D = 42.214 0.1 0.1 A D = 24.730
Force Force P -V alue < 0.005 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 P -V alue < 0.010
Transformed data with lambda = 5.00000 For ce For ce - T hr eshold
3-P arameter Lognormal 3-P arameter Weibull
Lognormal - 95% CI 3-Parameter Lognormal - 95% CI A D = 36.128 Weibull - 95% C I 3-P arameter Weibull - 95% C I A D = 19.989
99.9 99.9 P -V alue = * 99.9 99.9 P -V alue < 0.005
99 99 90 90
90 90 50 50
P er cent
P er cent
Percent
Percent
50 50 10 10
10 10 1 1
1 1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5 10 20 255 260 265 270 5 10 180 185 190
Force Force - Threshold For ce For ce - T hr eshold
Probability Plot for Force Probability Plot for Force

G oodness of F it Test G oodness of F it Test
S mallest E xtreme V alue - 95% C I Largest Extreme V alue - 95% C I Logistic - 95% C I Loglogistic - 95% C I
99.9 99.9 S mallest E xtreme V alue 99.9 99.9 Logistic
90 A D = 19.910 A D = 22.715
99 99
50 99 P -V alue < 0.010 P -V alue < 0.005
90 90
P er cent
P er cent
P er cent
P er cent
10 Largest Extreme V alue Loglogistic

90 50 50
A D = 46.704 A D = 26.675
P -V alue < 0.010 10 10 P -V alue < 0.005
1 50
G amma 1 1 3-P arameter Loglogistic
10
A D = 40.118 A D = 22.923
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5 10 15 0 10 20 30 P -V alue < 0.005 5 10 15 20 5 10 20 P -V alue = *
For ce For ce For ce For ce
3-P arameter G amma
G amma - 95% C I 3-P arameter G amma - 95% C I A D = 37.450 3-P arameter Loglogistic - 95% C I
99.9 99.9 P -V alue = * 99.9
99 99
99
90 90
90
P er cent
P er cent
P er cent
50 50 50
10 10
10
1 1 1
0.1 0.1 0.1

5 10 20 35 40 45 50 195 200 205
For ce For ce - T hr eshold For ce - T hr eshold
Lear Corporation
1. The Null Hypothesis, HO: The data follows “X” distribution and the Alternative
Hypothesis, HA: The data does not follow “X” distribution.
a. The p-value in all cases is < 0.05, therefore the data does not follow any of these
distributions.
b. Let’s see if we can transform the data with the Johnson Transformation.
Steps: Johnson Transformation

2. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Johnson Transformation.
3. A dialog box will appear. Complete as Single column > ‘Force’
1. Click OK.
Lear Corporation
Examine the Analysis: Johnson Transformation

The Johnson Transformation p-value = 0.425. The transformed data using the Johnson
Transformation now fits a normal distribution.
Johnson Transformation for Force

P r obability P lot for O r iginal Data Select a T r ansfor mation
99.9 0.4
N 200
P-Value for A D test

99 AD 35.954 0.4
P-Value <0.005
90 0.3
Percent
0.2
50
0.1 Ref P
10
0.0
1 0.2 0.4
0.8 0.6 1.0 1.2
0.1 Z Value
5 10 15 20 (P-Value = 0.005 means <= 0.005)
P r obability P lot for T r ansfor med Data

99.9
N 200
99 AD 0.369
P-Value 0.425 P -V alue for Best F it: 0.424558
90 Z for Best F it: 0.4
Best Transformation Ty pe: S U
Percent
Transformation function equals

50
1.46795 + 0.695272 * A sinh( ( X - 14.8525 ) / 0.0545035 )
10
1
0.1
-4 -2 0 2
Steps: Continue to Assess the Process Capability – Johnson

Transformation
2. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Capability Analysis > Nonnormal
Lear Corporation
3. A dialog box will appear. Complete as: Single column > ‘Force’ , check Johnson
Transformation, Lower spec > 4 and Upper spec > 30. .
4. Click on Options.
Lear Corporation
5. Check to Include confidence intervals and Target > 11.

6. Click OK in both dialog boxes.
Examine the Analysis: Process Capability – Johnson Transformation

Process Capability of Force
Johnson Transformation with SU Distribution Type
1.468 + 0.695 * Asinh( ( X - 14.853 ) / 0.055 )
LS L* Target* U S L*
Process Data transformed data Overall Capability
LSL 4 Pp 0.86
Target 11 Lower CL 0.78
USL 15 Upper CL 0.94
Sample Mean 14.1441 PPL 0.86
Sample N 200 PPU 0.86
StDev 1.51913 Ppk 0.86
Shape1 1.46795 Lower CL 0.76
Shape2 0.695272 Upper CL 0.96
Location 14.8525
Exp. Overall Performance
Scale 0.0545035
PPM < LSL 4969.65
After Transformation PPM > USL 4887.39
LSL* -2.69466 PPM Total 9857.04
Target* -1.97462
USL* 2.66466
Sample Mean* -0.0179923
StDev* 1.0383
Observed Performance
PPM < LSL 0
PPM > USL 0
PPM Total 0
-2.25 -1.50 -0.75 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25
Seat adjustors are being produced both over and under the specification limit. DPMO =
9857.
Lear Corporation
Exercise M-9. Unclaimed Wages - Escheat

Solution: Six Sigma Product Report (Attribute Data)
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Unclaimed Wages
4. Select > Six Sigma > Product Report
Lear Corporation
5. Complete the dialog box as: Defects > ‘UNCASHED’, Units > ‘TOTAL CHECKS’,
Opportunities per unit > OPPS and Components > PLANT.
6. Click OK.
Lear Corporation

Report 7: Product Performance
O pps A dj
O bs per Total
C omponent D efs O bs U nits U nit C mplx A dj D efs A dj U nits O pps DP U DPMO Z.S hift Z.S T YTP
P LA N T A 173 16825 1 * 173 16825 16825 0.0102823 10282.3 1.500 3.816 0.989770
P LA N T B 91 11326 1 * 91 11326 11326 0.0080346 8034.6 1.500 3.907 0.991998
P LA N T C 86 10921 1 * 86 10921 10921 0.0078747 7874.7 1.500 3.915 0.992156
P LA N T D 133 3717 1 * 133 3717 3717 0.0357815 35781.5 1.500 3.302 0.964851
P LA N T E 91 16273 1 * 91 16273 16273 0.0055921 5592.1 1.500 4.037 0.994424
P LA N T F 178 12844 1 * 178 12844 12844 0.0138586 13858.6 1.500 3.701 0.986237
P LA N T G 107 21438 1 * 107 21438 21438 0.0049911 4991.1 1.500 4.076 0.995021
P LA N T H 164 21516 1 * 164 21516 21516 0.0076222 7622.2 1.500 3.927 0.992407
P LA N T I 95 4389 1 * 95 4389 4389 0.0216450 21645.0 1.500 3.521 0.978588
P LA N T J 215 13983 1 * 215 13983 13983 0.0153758 15375.8 1.500 3.660 0.984742
P LA N T K 159 22291 1 * 159 22291 22291 0.0071329 7132.9 1.500 3.950 0.992892
P LA N T L 134 22291 1 * 134 22291 22291 0.0060114 6011.4 1.500 4.011 0.994007
Total 1626 177814 9144.4 1.500 3.860
The Product Report is added to your Six Sigma Project. This identifies:
a. Total DPMO = 9144 z = 3.860
b. Plant D has the highest defect rate. Need to investigate why this has occurred.
c. 0.914% on average, of the checks, are not cashed.
Lear Corporation
Exercise A-1. Cushion Weights

Solution: Box Plot
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Cushion Weight
3. Your worksheet will look like this:
3. Select > Graph > Box Plot.
4. A dialog box will appear, Select > With Groups.
Lear Corporation
5. Click OK.
6. Complete the dialog window:
7. Graph variables: ‘Day 1’ ‘Day 2’ ‘Day 3’
8. Categorical variable for grouping (1-3, outermost first): Supplier
9. Scale Level for Graph Variables, check Graph variables displayed innermost on scale.
10. Click OK.

11. Ctrl E
12. Complete the dialog window:
Lear Corporation
13. Graph variables: ‘Day 1’ ‘Day 2’ ‘Day 3’

14. Categorical variable for grouping (1-3, outermost first): Auditor
15. Scale Level for Graph Variables, check Graph variables displayed innermost on scale.
16. Click OK.
Examine the Analysis – Box Plots

1. Supplier 1 has more variation than Supplier 2. Supplier 1’s variation increases over time.
2. There appears to be some instability in Supplier 1’s manufacturing process that needs to be
investigated
Boxplot of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 vs Supplier

9
7
Data
4
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Supplier 1 2
3. Both Auditors have the same variation in reading the data samples.
Lear Corporation
Boxplot of Supplier vs Auditor
2.0
1.8
1.6
Supplier
1.4
1.2
1.0
A B
Auditor
Lear Corporation
Exercise A-2. Green Belt Training - Catapults

Solution: Multi-Vari Charts
2. Choose File > Open Worksheet > Green Belt Catapult
3. Your worksheet will look like this:
4. Select > Stat > Quality Tools > Multi-Vari Chart
5. Complete the dialog box as: Response: > ‘Team 1’, Factor 1: ‘Ball Type’, and Factor 2:
‘Green Belts’.
Lear Corporation
6. Click OK.
7. Ctrl E
‘Green Belts’.
9. Click OK.
10. Ctrl E
‘Green Belts’.
12. Click OK.

13. Ctrl E
‘Green Belts’
Lear Corporation
15. Click OK.
Examine the Analysis – Multi Vari Chart

Multi-Vari Chart for Team 1 by Ball Type - Green Belts Multi-Vari Chart for Team 2 by Ball Type - Green Belts
170 Ball 130 Ball
Type Type
160 1 1
2 120 2
150
140
110
130
Team 1
Team 2
120 100
110
90
100
90 80
80
70
A B C A B C
Green Belts Green Belts
Multi-Vari Chart for Team 3 by Ball Type - Green Belts Multi-Vari Chart for Team 4 by Ball Type - Green Belts
Ball 100 Ball
90 Type Type
1 1
2 2
80 90
70
Team 3
Team 4
80
60
70
50
60
40
A B C A B C
Green Belts Green Belts
1. Teams 1, 2, and 4 have definite differences in the ball types.

2. Teams 1 and 2, GB A has a much lower shot distance with ball 2 than his team members.
Did this operator change the way he shot, held, or positioned the catapult? Was the same
ball used?
3. Team 2, GBs B and C has little variation in the shot distances for the same ball.
4. Team 3 appears to have some difficulty in shooting the catapult. GB C seemed to follow
trend of other Teams. (In class the rubber band was not positioned correctly.)
Lear Corporation
Exercise A-6. Door Panel Grain Retention Problem

Solution
Power and Sample Size
Test for One Proportion
Testing proportion = 0.05 (versus not = 0.05)

Alpha = 0.05
Alternative Sample Target

Proportion Size Power Actual Power
0.04 3506 0.8 0.800039
Test and CI for One Proportion
Test of p = 0.05 vs p not = 0.05
Exact
Sample X N Sample p 95% CI P-Value
1 160 4000 0.040000 (0.034140, 0.046543) 0.003
Lear Corporation
Exercise A-7. Titanic Passenger Survival Rates

Solution
Test for Two Proportions
Testing proportion 1 = proportion 2 (versus not =)

Calculating power for proportion 2 = 0.1623
Alpha = 0.05
Sample Target
Proportion 1 Size Power Actual Power
0.2169 808 0.8 0.800051
The sample size is for each group.
1. Not enough sample for the first test
Test for Two Proportions
Testing proportion 1 = proportion 2 (versus not =)

Calculating power for proportion 2 = 0.1623
Alpha = 0.05
Sample Target
Proportion 1 Size Power Actual Power
0.3257 108 0.8 0.802698
The sample size is for each group.
Test and CI for Two Proportions
Sample X N Sample p
1 57 175 0.325714
2 75 462 0.162338
Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: 0.163377
95% CI for difference: (0.0862293, 0.240524)
Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 4.15 P-Value = 0.000
2. With attribute data you need lot more samples to detect any difference statistically.
Lear Corporation
Exercise C-1. Stability of Photographic Film Density Measurments

Solution
1. Open FILMDENS.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Control Charts > Variables Charts for Subgroups > X bar-R.
3. Choose All observations for a chart are in one column, enter ‘Dense 150’
4. In Subgroup sizes, enter 3.
5. Click X bar-R Options and click the Parameters tab.
6. In Mean, enter 1.5.
Xbar-R Chart of Dense 150

1.504
U C L=1.503735
1.502
Sample M ean
_
_
1.500 X=1.5
1.498
1.496 LC L=1.496265
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
U C L=0.00940
0.008
Sample Range
0.006
_
0.004
R=0.00365
0.002
0.000 LC L=0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
This process is in statistical control around the target value of 1.5

8. Press CTRL+E.
9. Follow steps 3-7, entering ‘Dense 300’, 3 (for subgroup size), and 3 (for historical mean).
Lear Corporation

3.02
U C L=3.01681
3.01
Sample M ean
_
_
3.00 X=3
2.99
LC L=2.98319
2.98
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
U C L=0.04229
0.04
Sample Range
0.03
0.02 _
R=0.01643
0.01
0.00 LC L=0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
This measurement system appears to be stable around the value of 3.

10. Press CTRL+ E
11. Follow steps 3-7, entering ‘Dense 350’, 3 (for subgroup size), and 3.5 (for historical mean)
1
1
3.60
1
Sample Mean
3.55 1
1
1
U C L=3.5255
_
_
3.50 X=3.5
LC L=3.4745
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
U C L=0.06405
0.060
Sample Range
0.045
0.030 _
R=0.02488
0.015
0.000 LC L=0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Sample
This measurement system appears to exhibit a trend, starting around the 20th day of the
study. You should assess why this behavior occurs. The validity of data recorded for films
with high density values may be questionable.
Lear Corporation
Exercise C-2. Bath Bar Appearance

Solution
1. Open BATHBAR.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Control Charts > Variables Charts for Subgroups > X bar-R.
3. Choose Observations for a subgroup are in one row of columns,
enter ‘Mold 1’-’Mold 5’.
4. Click X bar-R Options, choose the Tests tab, and choose Perform all tests for special
causes.
Xbar-R Chart of Mold1, ..., Mold5

5.0 U C L=4.951
Sample M ean
4.5 _
_
X=4.318
4.0
LC L=3.685
3.5
1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Sample
U C L=2.321
2.0
Sample Range
1.5
_
R=1.098
1.0
0.5
0.0 LC L=0
1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Sample
Notice the subgroup means appear to exhibit statistical control. In fact, the means appear to
be clustered a little too closely around the centerline. This can happen if the control limits
are too wide. This can be caused by nonrandom sources of variation or a poor estimate of
the within-subgroup standard deviation.
The variation from cycle to cycle is being compared to the variation from mold to mold, as
the within-subgroup variation for this chart is the variation from mold to mold. The
between-subgroup variation comes from cycle-to-cycle variation and hour-to-hour
variation.
Now look at the control charts generated for each mold:
Lear Corporation
6. Press CTRL + E
7. Choose All observations for a chart are in one column, enter ‘Mold 1’-‘Mold 5’.
8. In Subgroup sizes, enter 5.
9. Click OK.
Xbar-R Chart of Mold1
1
5.2 1
U C L=5.106
Sample M ean
4.8
_
_
X=4.631
4.4
LC L=4.157
4.0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
2.0
U C L=1.741
1.5
Sample Range
1.0 _
R=0.823
0.5
0.0 LC L=0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample

5.00 U C L=5.018
4.75
Sample M ean
_
_
4.50 X=4.494
2
4.25
2
4.00 LC L=3.970
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
2.0
U C L=1.921
1.5
Sample Range
1.0 _
R=0.908
0.5
0.0 LC L=0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
Lear Corporation
4.8 U C L=4.825
5
4.6
Sample M ean
_
_
4.4
X=4.352
4.2
4.0
LC L=3.880
1
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
U C L=1.731
1.6
Sample Range
1.2
_
0.8 R=0.819
0.4
0.0 LC L=0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample

1
1
4.6 U C L=4.591
4.4
Sample M ean
4.2 _
_
X=4.127
4.0
6
3.8
LC L=3.663
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
U C L=1.702
1.6
Sample Range
1.2
_
0.8 R=0.805
0.4
0.0 LC L=0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
Lear Corporation

1
1
4.50
U C L=4.456
5
Sample M ean
4.25
_
_
4.00 X=3.985
2
3.75 6 6 2 2
3.50 LC L=3.514
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
2.0
1
U C L=1.726
1.5
Sample Range
1.0 _
R=0.817
0.5
0.0 LC L=0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Sample
Notice that, when each mold is charted separately, the results are quite different. In fact,
several points fail the tests for special causes. In these control charts, the subgroup- to-
subgroup variation is compared to the variation in successive cycles of the machine. The
between subgroup variation is the hour-to-hour variation.
Now create a Multiple Y’s boxplot, where each cavity is a Y.
10. Choose Graph > Boxplot.
11. Choose Multiple Y’s, Simple, and click OK.
12. In Graph variables, enter ‘Mold 1’- ‘Mold 5’.
13. Click OK.
Boxplot of Mold1, Mold2, Mold3, Mold4, Mold5
6.0
5.5
5.0
Data
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Mold1 Mold2 Mold3 Mold4 Mold5
Lear Corporation
Notice the differences between the molds. They do not appear to be producing bars of the
same median weight. This explains how the difference between molds inflates the sample
range.
In the first control chart, where we plotted Mold 1- Mold 5 together, one sample from each
mold made up a subgroup. The default X bar-R chart uses the sample range to calculate the
control limits for the X bar chart. The inflated range inflates the control limits, making the
chart somewhat less sensitive to overall mean shifts.
Lear Corporation
Exercise C-3. Refractive Index of Fiber Optic Cable

Solution
1. Open REFRINDX.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Control Charts > Variables Charts for Subgroups > X bar S.
3. Choose All observations for a chart are in one column, enter ‘Refractive Index’.
4. In Subgroup sizes , enter 12.
5. Click Scale.
6. Under X Scale, choose Stamp; under Stamp columns, enter ‘Date/Time’.
7. Click OK, then click X bar-S Options.
8. Click the Tests tab and choose Perform all tests for special causes.
Xbar-S Chart of Refractive Index
1
1
1 1
1 1 1
97 1
1 1
1 1
5 2 2 U C L=96.478
Sample M ean
2 8
96 8
2 _
_
X=95.365
95
5 5 LC L=94.251
94 1
5
1 1
1 1
93 1 1
1
1
1 1
2/02 12am 2/03 12am 2/04 12am 2/05 12am 2/06 12am 2/07 12am 2/08 12am 2/09 12am 2/10 12am
Date/T ime
U C L=2.070
2.0
Sample StDev
1.5
_
S =1.257
1.0
0.5 LC L=0.444
Date/T ime
Clearly, the process is not in statistical control. The control chart needs to reflect the
process shifts, as indicated in the change column, which serves to group data before and
after a change to new materials.
Recalculate the control limits:
10. Press CTRL + E, then click X bar-S Options.
11. Click the Stages tab.
12. Under Define stages(historical groups) with this variable, enter ‘Coating Material’.
Lear Corporation
Xbar-S Chart of Refractive Index by Coating Material

O riginal C oating M aterial N ew C oating M aterial
98
Sample M ean
1 1 1
96
U C L=95.156
_
_
94 X=94.111
5 LC L=93.067
1 1
Date/T ime
O riginal C oating M aterial N ew C oating M aterial
2.0 U C L=1.941
Sample StDev
1.5
_
S =1.179
1.0
0.5
LC L=0.417
Date/T ime
As indicated in the control chart, the process is no longer in statistical control after the
process change. However, there does seem to be a cyclical pattern in the data. You may
want to investigate whether the patterns are regular and if so, why.
Lear Corporation
Exercise C-4. Door Latch Diameter

Solution
1. Open LATCH.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Control Charts > Variables Charts for Individuals > I-MR.
3. In Variables, enter Diameter.
4. Click Scale.
5. Under X Scale, choose Stamp; under Stamp columns, enter ‘Date/Time’, Click OK.
6. Click I-MR Options.
7. In Mean, enter 5; in Standard deviation, enter 0.01.
8. Click the Tests tab and choose Perform all tests for special causes.
I-MR Chart of Diameter
U C L=5.03
5.025
Individual V alue
5.010
_
X=5
4.995
4.980
LC L=4.97
1/16 09:22 1/16 09:34 1/16 09:58 1/16 10:19 1/16 10:31 1/16 10:40 1/16 10:52 1/16 11:07 1/16 11:19 1/16 11:46
Date/T ime
0.04
U C L=0.03686
0.03
M oving Range
0.02
__
0.01 M R=0.01128
0.00 LC L=0
1/16 09:22 1/16 09:34 1/16 09:58 1/16 10:19 1/16 10:31 1/16 10:40 1/16 10:52 1/16 11:07 1/16 11:19 1/16 11:46
Date/T ime
As shown in the I-MR chart, even with all 8 tests for special causes, no evidence exists to
suggest that the process is not stable, around the value of 5mm.
10. A CUSUM chart is designed to rapidly detect small and sustained changes in a process.
Think of a CUSUM chart as a “very sensitive” I-MR chart.
11. Choose Stat > Control Charts > Time-Weighted Charts > CUSUM.
12. Choose All observations for a chart are in one column, enter Diameter.
13. In Subgroup sizes, enter 1; in Target, enter 5.
14. Click Scale.
Lear Corporation
15. Under X Scale, choose Stamp; under Stamp columns, enter ‘Date/Time’; then click OK.
16. Click CUSUM Options.
17. In Standard deviation, enter 0.01.
CUSUM Chart of Diameter

0.04 UCL=0.04
0.03
0.02
Cumulative Sum
0.01
0.00 0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04 LCL=-0.04
-0.05
2 4 58 9 1 40 2 07 9 6
:2 :3 : :1 :3 : :5 : :1 :4
09 09 09 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
6 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 6 16
1 /1 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1 /1 1/
Date/Time
The CUSUM chart has detected the 0.5 standard deviation downward shift that the process
experienced around the time of the 20th reading (10:49). Investigate the process to find a
special cause for this shift.
Lear Corporation
Exercise C-5. Inspecting Switch Assemblies

Solution
1. Open ASSEMBLY.MPJ.
2. Choose Stat> Basic Statistics > Display Descriptive Statistics.
3. In Variables, enter ‘Assemblies Inspected’.
4. Click OK.
Descriptive Statistics: Assemblies Inspected
Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median

Assemblies Inspe 59 0 1192.3 6.79 52.1 1068.0 1155.0 1200.0
Variable Q3 Maximum
Assemblies Inspe 1232.0 1309.0
5. The number of assemblies inspected per day does not vary more than +/- 25%, so we can
use the mean of 1192 assemblies to calculate the control limits.
6. Choose Stat > Control Charts > Attributes Charts > P.
7. In Variables, enter ‘Rejects’.
8. In Subgroup sizes, enter ‘Assemblies Inspected’.
9. Click Scale. Under X Scale, choose Stamp.
10. Under Stamp columns, enter, ‘Date/Time’. Click OK.
11. Click P Chart Options, then click the S Limits tab.
12. Under When subgroup sizes are unequal, calculate control limits, choose Assuming all
subgroups have size, enter 1192.
Lear Corporation
P Chart of Rejects
0.18 1
0.17 UCL=0.17195
0.16
0.15
Proportion
_
0.14 P=0.14165
0.13
0.12
0.11 LCL=0.11135
0.10 1 1
2/1 2/6 2/12 2/18 2/24 3/2 3/8 3/14 3/20 3/26
Date/Time
The P chart shows an average of 14.65% defective assemblies per day. The process
frequently exceeds the 14% without a special cause of variation; therefore, the “red alert”
approach to problem solving is not effective. The production department can search for a
special cause of variation every time the percent defective exceeds 14%; however, the
process has a mean defective rate around 14%, so investigations do not show any process
irregularities to improve. Adjustments to the process in response to random changes add
more variability to the process.
The three out-of-control points indicate opportunities to learn about the special sources of
variation that contribute to the increase or decrease in percent defective assemblies on a
given day.

Minitab Solutions PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Minitab Solutions PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lear Corporation

Black Belt Training

Using Minitab® Release 14

Exercise D-1. Electronic Module Testing

Pareto Chart of Bug Type

Exercise D-2. Investigating Variability in Surface Finish

Your worksheet should look like the following :

9. Create a graphical summary to examine the data

Summary for Roughness

c. Complete dialog box as shown below and click OK.

Boxplot of Roughness vs Shift

This graph shows there is more variation on second shift.

Boxplot of Roughness vs Fixture

This graph shows that fixture 5 shows the most variation

b. Complete dialog box as shown and click OK.

Time Series Plot of Roughness

Exercise D-3. OEM Customer Focus Group

Exercise D-4. Molded Parts Sampling

5. Choose Calc > Random Data > Sample From Columns

7. Choose Data > Sort

Exercise D-5. Southfield Restaurant Complaints

Create a pareto charts of the complaints:

Pareto Chart of Complaint

Pareto Chart of Complaint by Shift

30 Food not cooked to order

Pareto Chart of Complaint by Cook Staff

Food not cooked to order

Pareto Chart of Complaint by Manager

20 Food not cook ed to order

Tabulated statistics: Manager, Cook Staff, Shift

Rows: Manager / Cook Staff Columns: Shift

Dinner Lunch All

Cell Contents: Count

Exercise D-6. Sulfur Dioxide Levels

Scatterplot of SO2 vs Time

Exercise D-7. Investigating Downtime Distributions

Analyze the data for changeovers:

Dotplot of Down Time vs Shift

Each symbol represents up to 3 observations.

12. In Graph variables, enter ‘Downtime’, then click OK.

Dotplot of Down Time

Dotplot of Down Time

Each symbol represents up to 2 observations.

Exercise M-1. Injection Molded Center Console – Color Consistency:

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Number of Distinct Categories = 1

10. Graphical Analysis

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Red to Blue

Components of Variation Red to Blue by Part

Exercise M-2. Fabric Strength

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Number of Distinct Categories = 33

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Max Load

Components of Variation Max Load by Fabric ID

a. Components of Variation – Differences in the fabric samples.

6. Click OK in the dialog box.

Gage R&R Study - Nested ANOVA

Gage R&R (Nested) for Max Load

b. Nearly 8% of the variation is due to the repeatability.