Six Sigma in Measurement Systems:

Evaluating the Hidden Factory

OK
Inputs Operation Inspect First Time
Correct
NOT
Rework OK
Hidden Factory
Scrap

Time, cost, people

Bill Rodebaugh
Director, Six Sigma
GRACE

slide 1
 Objectives
 The Hidden Factory Concept
− What is a Hidden Factory?
− What is a Measurement System’s Role in the Hidden
Factory?
 Review Key Measurement System metrics including
%GR&R and P/T ratio
 Case Study at W. R. GRACE
− Measurement Study Set-up and Minitab Analysis
− Linkage to Process
− Benefits of an Improved Measurement System
 How to Improve Measurement Systems in an
Organization

slide 2
The Hidden Factory -- Process/Production
OK
Inputs Operation Inspect First Time
Correct
NOT
Rework OK
Hidden Factory
Scrap

Time, cost, people

•What Comprises the Hidden Factory in a Process/Production Area?

•Reprocessed and Scrap materials -- First time out of spec, not reworkable
•Over-processed materials -- Run higher than target with higher
than needed utilities or reagents
•Over-analyzed materials -- High Capability, but multiple in-process
samples are run, improper SPC leading to over-control

slide 3
The Hidden Factory -- Measurement Systems
OK
Sample Lab Work Inspect Production
Inputs
NOT
Re-test OK
Hidden Factory
Waste
Time, cost, people

•What Comprises the Hidden Factory in a Laboratory Setting?

•Incapable Measurement Systems -- purchased, but are unusable
due to high repeatability variation and poor discrimination
•Repetitive Analysis -- Test that runs with repeats to improve known
variation or to unsuccessfully deal with overwhelming sampling issues
•Laboratory “Noise” Issues -- Lab Tech to Lab Tech Variation, Shift to
Shift Variation, Machine to Machine Variation, Lab to Lab Variation

slide 4
 The Hidden Factory Linkage
 Production Environments generally rely upon in-
process sampling for adjustment
 As Processes attain Six Sigma performance they begin
to rely less on sampling and more upon leveraging the
few influential X variables
 The few influential X variables are determined largely
through multi-vari studies and Design of
Experimentation (DOE)
 Good multi-vari and DOE results are based upon
acceptable measurement analysis

slide 5
 Objectives
 The Hidden Factory Concept
− What is a Hidden Factory?
− What is a Measurement System’s Role in the Hidden
Factory?
 Review Key Measurement System metrics including
%GR&R and P/T ratio
 Case Study at W. R. GRACE
− Measurement Study Set-up and Minitab Analysis
− Linkage to Process
− Benefits of an Improved Measurement System
 How to Improve Measurement Systems in an
Organization

slide 6
 Possible Sources of Process Variation
Observed Process Variation

Actual Process Variation Measurement Variation

Long-term Short-term Variation Variation due Variation due

Process Variation Process Variation w/i sample to gage to operators

Repeatability Calibration Stability Linearity

σ 2 Observed Pr ocess = σ 2 Actua l Pr ocess + σ 2 Measurement System

σ 2 Measurement System = σ 2 Re peatability + σ 2 Re producibility
We will look at “repeatability” and “reproducibility” as primary
contributors to measurement error

slide 7
 How Does Measurement Error Appear?

Actual process variation - 15

LSL USL
No measurement error

Frequency
10

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Process

15

Observed process LSL USL

variation - Frequency
10

With measurement error

5

0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Observed

slide 8
 Measurement System Terminology
 Discrimination - Smallest detectable increment between two measured values
 Accuracy related terms
− True value - Theoretically correct value
− Bias - Difference between the average value of all measurements of a sample and the
true value for that sample
 Precision related terms
− Repeatability - Variability inherent in the measurement system under constant
conditions
− Reproducibility - Variability among measurements made under different conditions
(e.g. different operators, measuring devices, etc.)
 Stability - distribution of measurements that remains constant and predictable over time for
both the mean and standard deviation
 Linearity - A measure of any change in accuracy or precision over the range of instrument
capability

slide 9
 Measurement Capability Index - P/T
 Precision to Tolerance Ratio

. * σ MS
515
P/T = Usually expressed
as percent
Tolerance
 Addresses what percent of the tolerance is taken up by
measurement error
 Includes both repeatability and reproducibility
− Operator x Unit x Trial experiment
 Best case: 10% Acceptable: 30%

Note: 5.15 standard deviations accounts for 99% of Measurement System (MS) variation.
The use of 5.15 is an industry standard.

slide 10
 Measurement Capability Index - % GR&R

σ MS
%R & R = x 100
σ Observed Pr ocess Variation Usually expressed
as percent

 Addresses what percent of the Observed Process Variation is

taken up by measurement error
 %R&R is the best estimate of the effect of measurement
systems on the validity of process improvement studies (DOE)
 Includes both repeatability and reproducibility
 As a target, look for %R&R < 30%

slide 11
 Objectives
 The Hidden Factory Concept
− What is a Hidden Factory?
− What is a Measurement System’s Role in the Hidden
Factory?
 Review Key Measurement System metrics including
%GR&R and P/T ratio
 Case Study at W. R. GRACE
− Measurement Study Set-up and Minitab Analysis
− Linkage to Process
− Benefits of an Improved Measurement System
 How to Improve Measurement Systems in an
Organization

slide 12
 Case Study Background
 Internal Raw Material, A1, is necessary for Final Product production
− Expensive Raw Material to produce – produced at 4 locations Worldwide
− Cost savings can be derived directly from improved product quality, CpKs
− Internal specifications indirectly linked to financial targets for production costs are used to
calculate CpKs
− If CTQ1 of A1 is too low, then more A1 material is added to achieve overall quality – higher
quality means less quantity is needed – this is the project objective
 High Impact Six Sigma project was chartered to improve an important quality variable,
CTQ1
 The measurement of CTQ1 was originally not questioned, but the team decided to study
the effectiveness of this measurement
− The %GR&R, P/T ratio, and Bias were studied
− Each of the Worldwide locations were involved in the study
 Initial project improvements have somewhat equalized performance across sites. Small
level improvements are masked by the measurement effectiveness of CTQ1

slide 13
 CTQ1 MSA Study Design (Crossed)

Site 1 Lab Site 2 Lab Site 3 Lab Site 4 Lab

Site 1 Sample 1 Site 1 Sample 2 Site 2 Sample 1…..

Op 1 Op 2 Op 3 6 analyses/site/sample
2 samples taken from each site
T1 T2 2*4 Samples should be representative
Each site analyzes other site’s sample.
Each plant does 48 analyses
6*8*4=196 analyses
slide 14
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Output)
Components of Variation Response By Sample
120 890
%Contribution
100
%Study Var
80 840
Percent

%Tolerance
60
40 790

20
740
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

R Chart by Operator Response By Operator

100 CB1 CB2 CB3 LC1 LC2 LC3 V1 V2 V3 W1 W2 W3 890
Sample Range

840
50 UCL=52.45

790
R=16.05
0 LCL=0 740
0 Oper CB1 CB2 CB3 LC1 LC2 LC3 V1 V2 V3 W1 W2 W3

Xbar Chart by Operator Operator*Sample Interaction

900 CB1 CB2 CB3 LC1 LC2 LC3 V1 V2 V3 W1 W2 W3 900
Sample Mean

850 UCL=851.5 Average 850

Mean=821.3
800
LCL=791.1 800

750
0 Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

slide 15
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Session)
Source DF SS MS F P
Sample 7 14221 2031.62 5.0079 0.00010
Operator 11 53474 4861.27 11.9829 0.00000
Operator*Sample 77 31238 405.68 1.4907 0.03177
Repeatability 96 26125 272.14
Total 191 125058
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
Total Gage R&R 617.39 90.11 Sample, Operator,
& Interaction are
Repeatability 272.14 39.72
Significant
Reproducibility 345.25 50.39
Operator 278.47 40.65
Operator*Sample 66.77 9.75
Part-To-Part 67.75 9.89

slide 16
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results
Mean
P/T Equal Variances Differences
Site %GRR R-bar
Ratio within Groups
(Tukey Comp.)
94.3
All 116 16.05 No (0.004) Only 1,2 No Diff.
(78.6 – 100)*
38.9
Site 1 29 7.22 Yes (0.739) All Pairs No Diff.
(30.0 – 47.6)
91.0
Site 2 96 17.92 Yes (0.735) Only 1,2 Diff.
(70.7 – 100)
80.0
Site 3 79 20.37 Yes (0.158) All Pairs No Diff.
(60.8 – 94.8)
98.0
Site 4 120 18.67 Yes (0.346) Only 2,3 No Diff.
(64.8 – 100)
*Conf Int not calculated with Minitab, Based upon R&R Std Dev
slide 17
CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Output)
Dotplot of All Samples over All Sites
890

840

790

740

A
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

slide 18
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Session)
Analysis of Variance for Site
Source DF SS MS F P
Site 3 37514 12505 26.86 0.000
Error 188 87518 466
Total 191 125032
Individual 95% CIs For Mean
Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -+---------+---------+---------+-----
Site 1 48 824.57 15.38 (---*---)
Site 2 48 819.42 22.11 (---*---)
Site 3 48 800.98 20.75 (---*---)
Site 4 48 840.13 26.58 (---*---)
-+---------+---------+---------+-----
Pooled StDev = 21.58 795 810 825 840

Site and Operator are closely related

slide 19
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Output)
X-bar R of All Samples for All Sites
100
Discrimination
CB1 CB2 CB3 LC1 LC2 LC3 V1 V2 V3 W1 W2 W3
Sample Range

Index is “0”,
however can
50 UCL=52.45

R=16.05 probably see

0 LCL=0
differences of 5
0

Xbar Chart by Operator

900 CB1 CB2 CB3 LC1 LC2 LC3 V1 V2 V3 W1 W2 W3

Most of the
Sample Mean

850 UCL=851.5

Mean=821.3
samples are
seen as “noise”
800
LCL=791.1

750
0

slide 20
CTQ1 MSA Study Results (Minitab Output)
X-bar R of All Samples
y for Site 4
70 W1 W2 W3
60 UCL=60.99
Sample Range

50
40
30
20 R=18.67
10
0 LCL=0
0

Xbar Chart by WO OP
900 W1 W2 W3

UCL=875.2
Sample Mean

850
Mean=840.1

800 LCL=805.0

•Mean differences are seen in X-bar area

0

•Most of the samples are seen as “noise”

slide 21
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results – Process Linkage
Site 2 Example
y
860 LC1 LC2 LC3
850 UCL=853.1

MSA Study
Sample Mean

840
830
820
810
Mean=819.4
Results with
800
790
Mean = 819.4
LCL=785.7
780
0

1000

2002 Historical
1
11
Individual Value

1 1 1
1 1

Process
900 55 UCL=899.2
6 22 6 6
662 62
2 22
4 2 22
Results with
Mean=832.5
800 2
22 4 2
6 6 6

Mean = 832.5
5 LCL=765.8
1 1
1
700
Subgroup 0 100 200 300 400

Selected Samples are Representative

slide 22
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results – Process Linkage
Site 2 Example
y
100 LC1 LC2 LC3

MSA Study Results

Sample Range

with Range = 17.92,

UCL=58.54
50

0
R=17.92
LCL=0
Calc for Subgroup
0

150
1
1 1 2002 Historical
11
Process
1 1 1
Moving Range

11
100 1 1
1

Results with
UCL=81.95

50

2
R=25.08 Range = 25.08
Calc for pt to pt
2 2 2
0 22 222 2 2
LCL=0

When comparing the MSA with process operation, a large

percentage of pt-to-pt variation is MS error (70%) --- a
back check of proper test sample selection
slide 23
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results – Process Linkage
Site 2 Example

 Key issue for Process Improvement Efforts is “When will we see

change?”
− Initial Improvements to A1 process were made
− Control Plan Improvements to A1 process were initiated
− Site 2 Baseline Values were higher than other sites
− Small step changes in mean and reduction in variation will achieve goal
 How can Site 2 see small, real change with a Measurement System with
70+% GR&R?

Use Power and Sample Size Calculator with and without impact
of MS variation. Lack of clarity in process improvement work,
results in missed opportunity for improvement and continued
use of non-optimal parameters

slide 24
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results – Process Linkage
Site 2 Example
2-Sample t Test 2-Sample t Test
Alpha = 0.05 Sigma = 22.23 Alpha = 0.05 Sigma = 6.67
Sample Target Actual Sample Target Actual
Difference Size Power Power Difference Size Power Power
2 2117 0.9000 0.9000 2 192 0.9000 0.9011
4 530 0.9000 0.9002 4 49 0.9000 0.9036
6 236 0.9000 0.9002 6 22 0.9000 0.9015
8 133 0.9000 0.9001 8 13 0.9000 0.9074
10 86 0.9000 0.9020 10 9 0.9000 0.9188
12 60 0.9000 0.9023 12 7 0.9000 0.9361
14 44 0.9000 0.9007 14 5 0.9000 0.9156
16 34 0.9000 0.9018 16 4 0.9000 0.9091
18 27 0.9000 0.9017 18 4 0.9000 0.9555
20 22 0.9000 0.9016 20 3 0.9000 0.9095

Simulated Reduction of Pt to Pt variation by 70% decreases

time to observe savings by over 9X.
slide 25
 CTQ1 MSA Study Results – Process Linkage
Site 2 Example
Benefits of An Improved MS
 Realized Savings for a Process Improvement Effort
− For A1, an increase of 1 number of CTQ1 is approximately $1 per ton
− Change of 10 numbers, 1000 Tons produced in 1 month (832  842)
− $1 * 10 * 1000 = $10,000
 More trust in all laboratory numbers for CTQ1
 Ability to make process changes earlier with R-bar at 6.67
− Previously, it would be pointless to make any process changes within the 22 point
range. Would you really see the change?
 As the Six Sigma team pushes the CTQ1 value higher, DOEs and other
tools will have greater benefit

slide 26
 Objectives
 The Hidden Factory Concept
− What is a Hidden Factory?
− What is a Measurement System’s Role in the Hidden
Factory?
 Review Key Measurement System metrics including
%GR&R and P/T ratio
 Case Study at W. R. GRACE
− Measurement Study Set-up and Minitab Analysis
− Linkage to Process
− Benefits of an Improved Measurement System
 How to Improve Measurement Systems in an
Organization

slide 27
 Measurement Improvement in the Organization

 Initial efforts for MS improvement are driven on a BB/GB project basis

− Six Sigma Black Belts and Green Belts Perform MSAs during Project Work
− Lab Managers and Technicians are Part of Six Sigma Teams
− Measurement Systems are Improved as Six Sigma Projects are Completed
 Intermediate efforts have general Operations training for lab personnel,
mostly laboratory management
− Lab efficiency and machine set-up projects are started
− The %GR&R concept has not reached the technician level
 Current efforts enhance technician level knowledge and dramatically
increase the number of MS projects
− MS Task Force initiated (3 BBs lead effort)
− Develop Six Sigma Analytical GB training
− All MS projects are chartered and reviewed; All students have a project
− Division-wide database of all MS results is implemented

slide 28
 Measurement Improvement in the Organization

 Develop common methodology for Analytical GB training

Six Sigma Step Action Typical Six Sigma Tools Used

Define σ Target measurement Project Charter
system for study
σ Identify KPOVs
Measure σ Identify KPIVs “Soft” tools: Process Map, Cause & Effect
σ Evaluate KPOV Matrix, FMEA
performance “Stat” tools: Minitab Graphics, SPC,
Capability Analysis
Analyze σ Measurement System Gage R&R, ANOVA, Variance Components,
Analysis Regression, Graphical Interpretation
Improve σ Reduce Reproducibility “Soft” tools: Fishbone Diagram, Focused
σ Reduce Repeatability FMEA
σ Reduce Operator or “Stat” tools: D-Study, t-Tests and
Instrument Bias Regression, Design of Experiments
Control σ Final Report SPC, Reaction Plans, Control Plans, ISO
σ Control Plan for KPIVs synergy, Mistake Proofing

slide 29
 Final Thoughts

 The Hidden Factory is explored throughout all Six Sigma programs

 One area of the Hidden Factory in Production Environments is
Measurement Systems
 Simply utilizing Operations Black Belts and Green Belts to improve
Measurement Systems on a project by project basis is not the long term
answer
 The GRACE Six Sigma organization is driving Measurement System
Improvement through:
− Tailored training to Analytical Resources
− Similar Six Sigma review and project protocol
− Communication to the entire organization regarding Measurement System
performance
− As in the case study, attaching business/cost implications to poorly performing
measurement systems

slide 30