rs

by janet h. sande

The improvement methodology

can succeed in a
low-automation environment

March 2010 41
six sigma myths busted
Six Sigma methodology is
defined in multiple dimensions. It is
primarily a business philosophy that
focuses on continuous improvement
by addressing customer needs, analyz-
ing business processes and instituting
proper measurement methods to reduce
process variation. It differs from previ-
ous productivity improvement methods
in that it emphasizes an increased
focus on quality as defined by the
customer, reduced defects and varia-
tion and rigorous statistical methods.
The most common application of Six
Sigma methodology, DMAIC (define,
measure, analyze, improve, control),
uses a process sigma improvement
team to improve the capabilities of an
existing process. This five-step method
structures an approach for clearly
identifying the desired level of improve-
ment, measuring current performance,
identifying the root cause of deviations
from the ideal state, eliminating the
root causes, and implementing control
systems to maintain improvements. It
uses a powerful quality and statistics
toolset to increase process performance,
relative to customer specifications, to a
level of 99.99997 percent.
Most Six Sigma practitioners agree
that the methodology can be applied
to most processes that involve repeti-
tive steps and that it is easier to apply
in some environments. Using a real
application of the DMAIC method in
a manufacturing process with limited
provisions for automated data collection,
this article addresses the challenges of
applying DMAIC in a low-automation,
low-technology environment; that is, an
42 Industrial Engineer
environment that relies heavily on human
intervention to complete manufacturing
tasks using semiautomated machinery.
This article also provides due-diligence
precautions for a successful Six Sigma
implementation.
Defining the project
Each step of DMAIC has specific goals
and uses targeted tools. In the define
phase, the primary goals are to define
the customer’s requirements and expec-
tations (i.e., the voice of the customer);
define the project boundaries; develop
the project’s mission, scope, objectives
and time frames (i.e., the project char-
ter); obtain background information
about the process; define the process
performance standards; and identify
the critical to quality (CTQ) elements.
Reaching these goals may require an
assortment of tools that include affinity
diagrams, a project definition worksheet,
control charts, CTQ trees, data collec-
tion, Pareto charts, run charts and a
supplier input process output customer
(SIPOC) diagram.
The company referenced in this article
manufactures bathroom and kitchen
products. Of the nearly 5,000 parts
produced by the manufacturing plant,
approximately 6.5 percent of them had
rework time embedded within their
manufacturing processes at an estimated
cost of $100,000 to $130,000 per year.
An analysis of six months of historical
data and Pareto charts showed that 50
percent of the rework originated from
two part numbers, and 80 percent of the
rework originated from six part numbers.
This led to the project team’s original
scope that included the six part numbers
that contributed to 80 percent of the
rework and the six brazing machines that
produce these subassemblies.
The Six Sigma project team included
an in-house and an external engineer,
shift supervisors, quality department
personnel, machine mechanics and
other support personnel as they were
needed. After the first few team meetings
and brainstorming sessions, the proj-
ect scope was modified. The new scope
reduced the number of parts to two parts
(both from the same part family) and
reduced the number of brazing machines
to three. The estimated rework on Part
No. 1 was 2.2 percent and 3.3 percent for
Part No. 2. The original goal of reducing
rework by 50 percent was retained. Rela-
tive to the manufacturing process, the
scope focused primarily on the brazing
process. The estimated process yield was
93.5 percent.
The define phase also worked on
completing a project definition work-
sheet, developing a SIPOC diagram and
a current state process flow chart, and
analyzing the operators’ data. The project
definition worksheet helped the team
state the problem, its magnitude, the
processes affected by the problem, the
customers affected, the process outputs
and the measures for each output.
Analyzing the operator data led to the
redesign of the data collection sheet into
a format similar to a detailed check/tally
sheet. It included increased space for
data collection, specific reject categories
and space for the entry of detailed infor-
mation about the machine used and its
up- and downtime. An example of the
check sheet is shown in Figure 1.
The SIPOC diagram is a high-level
process map that identifies the major
core processes. The diagram lists each
of the systems, people, organizations
and sources of materials, information or
resources that the process consumes or
transforms. The inputs identify the mate-
rials, information and other resources
provided by suppliers that are used to
consume or transform the process. A
high-level map of the process shows the
actions and activities that transform the
inputs into the outputs. The outputs
show the product (subassemblies) for the components used to produce the temperature that turns the brazing
produced by the process and used by the subassemblies, identified each key filler material into liquid. The liquid filler
the customer. Finally, the diagram shows component required to produce the material then covers the mating surfaces
the downstream processes, groups of subassemblies and specified the path and alloys and forms a permanent bond
people, systems and companies that that the subassembly followed after it between the metal surfaces. Gas burners
receive the process output. was produced. were the heat source.
Figure 2 is a generic SIPOC diagram Brazing is a metal joining process that Determining performance standards
spreadsheet. The information that the fuses two metals. The metals are heated to and the baseline process performance
team gathered was used to produce more than 840 degrees Fahrenheit (450 for this data-starved, low-automation
a SIPOC diagram. The project team’s degrees Celsius). These temperatures process was challenging. The team
diagram clearly identified the suppliers are approximately 100 F (55.6 C) above initially tried to define performance
standards by combining the manually
collected operators’ data and the factory’s
getting the data traditional estimate of the overall process
Name: Data: yield. This yield value was calculated from
the number of subassemblies completed
Machine Rework relative to the estimated count of raw
Machine: Number of nonconformances material injected into the process as well
Leak as the number of scrapped pieces. These
Hours Leak at spout Leak at leg at Bent Warp Excess Other
ran: to body to body spout cup cup solder difficult-to-explain measures were, at
to cup
most, 50 percent reliable. Additionally,
Part #
the true baseline level of performance
Part #
was unknown. The team wasn’t comfort-
able with proceeding in the realm of the
Part # unknown. So the team developed a plan
to conduct a controlled sample data
Total good parts: Comments / Problems / Reasons for downtime: collection trial in an attempt to collect
reliable data from the brazing process
and to calculate the baseline performance.
The procedure was as follows:
Figure 1. Brazing machine check sheet
1. Identify the process steps where data
must be collected.
diagram the process 2. Complete a data collection plan and
S I P O C
check sheet to capture the data for
each of these steps.
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers 3. Identify the statistically calculated
sample size of subassemblies required
for the trial.
Input High-level Output 4. Coordinate the data collection trial with
requirements process requirements the planning, production and quality
Provider and measures description and measures Receiver
control departments to set aside the
Start:
correct amount of raw material.
5. Identify the personnel who will moni-
tor the flow of the materials.
6. Identify the methods necessary to
End:
maintain the integrity of the trial.
Figure 2. Generic SIPOC spreadsheet 7. Determine the trial run conditions;

March 2010 43
six sigma myths busted
i.e., date, time, containment methods
and areas, etc.
8. Conduct the trial.
9. Analyze the rejected pieces.
10. Summarize the data.
Controlled sample data collection
confirmed and dispelled some of the
speculation about the process. After
this trial, the team felt more comfort-
able proceeding because it had a
representative process baseline. The
baseline results showed the yield for
Part No. 1 was 97.5 percent (3.41 process
sigma) and 91.4 percent (2.98 process
sigma) for Part No. 2. The controlled
sample trial also modified the project
scope, reducing the number of brazing
machines to one. The team intended
to optimize the performance of one
machine and retrofit the other machines
with the optimized setups. Additionally,
the process boundary was expanded.
The starting point was identified as the
point of raw material receipt, and the
ending point was the subassembly final
leak testing. The project timeline was set
for an additional six months.
Measuring the process
Now that the team had useful baseline
data, the project transitioned to the
measure phase. In the measure phase
of the DMAIC process, the team’s goals
were to measure the performance of the
core business process, develop a more
efficient data collection plan for the
product and process, define the process
input and output variables and validate
the measurement system. The expected
44 Industrial Engineer
outputs were data that pinpointed the
problem’s location or rate of occurrence;
baseline data on how well the process
met customer needs; the current process
sigma; a better understanding of how
the current process operates; a better
understanding of the causal relation-
ships between process performance
and customer value; and a more focused
problem statement.
The data collected with the new
check sheet was analyzed constantly
and compared to the data from the
controlled data collection trial, show-
ing definite correlation between the
data sets. This phase also developed a
new check sheet to track the activities
of the paste guns used with the brazing
filler material. Process analysis showed
that this process needed better control.
In the first controlled data collection
trial, an incident occurred with one of
the machines in the process and with
one of the raw materials. The assignable
causes were identified and addressed.
The corrections included modifying the
machine and revising inspection proce-
dures for incoming and in-process raw
materials. Additionally, a measurement
system analysis was conducted for the
final inspection leak testers. No statis-
tically significant error was identified;
however, the analysis enlightened the
team on differences between the test-
ing parameters for the plant and one of
its customers. These differences were
noted and reconciled.
Analyzing the process
In the next phase, the analyze phase, the
team aimed to establish the key process
inputs that affect the process outputs
and identify and determine the root
cause(s) of defects and confirm them
with data. The expected output was
experimentation and verification of the
relationships of the components for the
vital few equation, y = f(x) + ε, and a
theory that was tested and confirmed.
In the vital few equation, y repre-
sented the process yield, x represented
the process inputs, f represented the
method(s) used to transform the inputs
into output, and ε represented the error
inherent in every process.
The team conducted additional
brainstorming and process analy-
sis sessions, constructing a fishbone
diagram of the causes of brazing
rework. The diagram’s cause catego-
ries were material, methods, machines,
measurements, people and environ-
ment. Multiple causes were identified
under each category. Next, the team
ranked each cause for its potential to
cause brazing rework. Twelve of the
perceived most likely causes were used
to complete a process failure mode and
effects analysis (FMEA). The FMEA is
a systematic approach for identifying
the ways that a product, part, process
or service can fail, along with the effects
of the failure. The analysis intends to
generate a list of potential failures, rank
the critical characteristics and generate
a list of actions that can eliminate the
causes of failures or reduce their rate of
occurrence. FMEA also identified criti-
cal process inputs and developed the
components for the vital few equation.
Improving the process
As the team transitioned to the improve
phase, its goals were to develop, try out
and implement solutions that addressed
and eliminated the root cause(s) of the
defects; use data to evaluate the solutions;
and improve the x variables to improve y.
The expected outputs were planned and
tested actions that eliminated or reduced
the impact of the identified root cause(s)
of the problem and “before-and-after”
data analysis that showed how much
the initial gap was closed. During this
phase, a kaizen event addressed one of
the FMEA items. Two days of intense
problem solving came about with help
from the Six Sigma project team, other
plant engineers and support personnel
and one of the material suppliers. The
results modified several machines and
processes.
One modification leveled the brazing
table and the fixture bases. The part
fixture is the apparatus that supports
the raw materials as they progress
through the brazing process. Another
modification redesigned the part and
brazing-filler-material paste gun fixtures.
A mini data collection run verified the
results of the process improvements.
Throughout this phase, improvements
were implemented to address the FMEA
items. The improvements included the
following:
• Revising visual inspection procedures
at several areas in the brazing process
• Retraining operators
• Reviewing and tightening design
tolerances of several raw materials
• Developing new in-process product
inspection procedures with specific
sample sizes and clearly defined feed-
back mechanisms
• Developing online tracking of the
paste guns, their problems and their
failure rates between the supplier and
the manufacturing plant
• Installing pneumatic counters on the
paste guns to count the number of
cycles completed
• Developing new documents and
training for installing and removing
paste guns
• Developing standardized setups for
the brazing machines, fixtures and
paste guns
• Developing a formal preventive
maintenance schedule for the process
equipment
• Developing a method to mark any
reworked subassembly
Since the plant poorly traced raw
materials and subassemblies, it was
speculated that some parts went through
multiple rounds of rework. The marking
system was intended to minimize or
eliminate this occurrence.
A final controlled data collection trial
was conducted to validate the improve-
ments. The yield for Part No. 1 (97.3
percent) did not show a statistically
significant change from the baseline
yield. The team attributed this disguised
lack of improvement to the fact that an
overall yield was used, not the yield for
the brazing process. The actual baseline
brazing fallout was 2.2 percent of the
total fallout. Data from the final trial
showed that the fallout decreased to
0.7 percent of the total. So the brazing
yield did increase. The yield for Part No.
2 showed an increase from 91.4 percent
to 98 percent (3.58 sigma). The brazing
fallout decreased from 6.9 percent (the
baseline) to 0.9 percent. Neither yield
reached the Six Sigma level of 99.99997
percent; however, the estimated hard
annualized savings were $44,600.
If retrofitting the other two brazing
machines saved at least that much, the
estimated direct annualized savings for
the entire brazing process was nearly
$150,000. The indirect savings were not
calculated, but the plant management
estimated it to be nearly equal that of the
hard savings.
Controlling the process
As the team transitioned to the final
phase, the control phase, its goals were
to maintain the gains by documenting,
standardizing and monitoring the work
methods and processes and to preserve
the lessons learned. The team wanted to
document the new methods, train the
employees on the new methods, develop
a system for monitoring the consistent
use of the new methods, complete docu-
mentation, communicate the results, and
document lessons and recommendations.
The following controls were implemented
to maintain the improvements:
1. Several visual inspection procedures
were updated, and the respective docu-
ments were updated and distributed.
2. The documents for the materials with
tightened tolerances were updated,
March 2010 45
six sigma myths busted
and the changes were communicated
to everyone affected.
3. New documents were developed, and
training was conducted for the paste
guns.
4. The new in-process part inspection
procedures were incorporated into
an existing quality control plan and
communicated to everyone affected.
5. The data collected under this new
inspection procedure helped develop
control charts. The control charts were
placed in a visible area on the produc-
tion floor and updated after each
process check.
6. Standard operating setup sheets were
developed for each part on each braz-
ing machine. The sheets included
specific standards for the physical
location of the fixtures, paste guns, gas
lines and torches, as well as specific
paste gun variables (i.e., tip type and
size, gun pressure and temperature).
7. The formal preventive maintenance
schedule was entered into mainte-
nance’s computer systems.
8. The new process for marking and
tracking rework subassemblies was
communicated to everyone affected.
If a reworked part failed final testing
a second time, it was automatically
scrapped.
Overall, the Six Sigma project
succeeded despite the many challenges
faced. The challenges included an
economic downturn that slowed produc-
tion, the loss of team members due to
work force reductions and changes, and
reduced financial support. The commit-
ment of the team members combined
with the commitment and support of the
plant’s management and adherence to
the due diligence of the DMAIC process
sustained the project. The adherence to
structured problem-solving methods,
the application of quality tools and the
use of data-driven decision making were
46 Industrial Engineer
critical to the success of each phase.
Another tool instrumental in maintain-
ing the project’s progress was a detailed
master project schedule. This schedule
listed each activity that the team should
have and did accomplish during each
DMAIC phase, the targeted begin and
due dates, the actual completion dates
and completion status, and the assigned
resources. This spreadsheet was updated
regularly and helped the project team
and management track the progress of
the project.
Some of the key lessons learned from
this project were:
1. The Six Sigma methodology can
be implemented successfully in a
low-technology, low-automation envi-
ronment. However, considerable efforts
must be made to identify the correct
measures that will accurately quantify
the process.
2. The effectiveness of the problem-solv-
ing initiative must remain grounded
in proven quality tools.
3. Include clearly defined contingency
plans in the project plan.
4. Clearly identify methods and measures
to quantify the process that is improved.
5. Automated data collection is much
more reliable than manual data
collection.
6. Clearly understand the process and
project proposal prior to developing
the project scope.
7. The rigor of Six Sigma is challenging;
however, data-driven decision making
minimizes the anxiety.
8. The implementation of Six Sigma
mandates a structured plan and
schedule. Otherwise, the due diligence
may be compromised.
In summary, this project confirmed
the concept that Six Sigma can be
applied to a process that involves repeti-
tive steps, has a problem to be solved and
has one or more measures to quantify
the gap between the current state and
the desired state. It also confirms that
the methodology will produce tangible
results. Not only did the project produce
a positive financial impact, but it also
reduced losses from scrap, rework and
excessive cycle times and delays while
increasing the company’s focus on qual-
ity. Additionally, the process boosted
the morale and skills of the employees
involved.
By the same token, this project
dispelled several myths about Six Sigma.
Many companies hesitate to use Six
Sigma because of the perceived payroll,
consulting, training or improvement
costs. Throughout the project, the team
members — most with no formal Six
Sigma training — performed their regu-
lar duties while providing invaluable
support for the team. It is imperative,
however, for the project team leaders to
be well-versed in the methodology.
Another myth about Six Sigma is that
it requires complex statistics. Although
the data analysis was not detailed in this
article, nothing more than basic statis-
tics was used for this project. If designed
experiments had been used, the statistics
would have been more rigorous. The final
bottom line is that if the due diligence of
the methodology is followed, Six Sigma
will produce positive results. d
Janet H. Sanders is an assistant professor
in the Department of Technology at East
Carolina University. She earned a bachelor’s
degree in ceramic engineering and a master’s
degree in industrial management from
Clemson University, along with a doctoral
degree in industrial engineering from North
Carolina A&T State University. She has more
than 20 years of manufacturing experience
in various industries and is an ASQ-certified
quality auditor and quality engineer. Sanders
also is a consultant for problem solving, root
cause analysis and Six Sigma.
Copyright of Industrial Engineer: IE is the property of Institute of Industrial Engineers and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.