RESEARCH

Simplifying the Six Sigma Toolbox

through Application of Shainin
includes research articles that
focus on the analysis and
resolution of managerial and
academic issues based on
analytical and empirical or
case research
DOE Techniques
Sunil Sharma and Anuradha R Chetiya

Executive The success of a Six Sigma programme in an organization depends to a large extent on the
success of the Six Sigma projects, which in turn depends on how the team handles the prob-
Summary lem and whether the right combination of tools is being applied to address the root cause. The
Six Sigma toolbox consists of a wide range of tools comprising, on the one hand, simple and
commonly used tools like flow charts, Pareto analysis, and cause-and-effect diagram and the
more advanced statistical tools like design of experiments, regression analysis and many more,
on the other hand. While the simple tools are easy to apply, understand, and analyse, engi-
neers perceive the more advanced tools difficult to comprehend. Design of experiments (DOE)
is one such tool. Two well-known approaches of design of experiments are the Classical DOE,
pioneered by Sir Ronald A Fisher and the Taguchi approach, pioneered by Dr Genichii Taguchi.
A third approach to experimental design—the Shainin DOE techniques, offered by Dr Dorian
Shainin–can be considered as a very good alternative to the other approaches. They are much
simpler than the factorial designs, response surface designs, and orthogonal arrays of the
conventional approaches of DOE, but at the same time are recognized as being very powerful
and effective in solving the chronic quality problems that plague most manufacturers. Shainin
DOE basically works at eliminating suspected process variables by mostly using seven differ-
ent tools, viz.,
• Multi-Vari Charts
• Component Search
• Paired Comparison
• Variable Search
• Full Factorials
• B vs. C (Better vs. Current) Analysis
• Scatter Plots or Realistic Tolerance Parallelogram Plots.
Though not very well documented, these tools have proved to be the key drivers in the suc-
cess of many companies, e.g., Motorola.
This article examines two projects of a leading automotive and general lighting lamp manu-
KEY WORDS facturing company, in which a combination of the standard Six Sigma tools and Shainin tools
has been successfully used to address the root cause of the problems. The advantage of using
Shainin tools is that:
Six Sigma Tools
• Very small sample sizes are required to analyse the problem. Often samples as small as 2
Factorial Designs or 3 are enough to make statistically valid conclusions.
Shainin DOE • Statistical software is not required to analyse the data. In fact, Shainin DOE does not even
require knowledge of complex statistical tools.
Suspected Sources of • It involves employees at all levels, including workers and junior staff in problem solving
Variation that was hitherto a domain of senior technical experts.
• Also, the success of the projects had a very positive effect on the morale of the employees
Red X in terms of convincing them that Six Sigma is not all about using complex statistical tools.

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 13

A
technical feature that distinguishes Six Sigma
from other quality approaches is its ability to
use statistical methods within a structured for-
mat to reduce defects and improve processes. Some of
the criticisms of the Six Sigma methodology perhaps
stems from the fact that it is sometimes too statistical
and beyond comprehension of the people involved in
implementing it in practice. Eckes (2001) is of the opin-
ion that Six Sigma initiatives can fail if the organization
believes that better quality is possible only through the
use of sophisticated statistical tools. The objective of this
paper is to examine as to how to simplify and demystify
the use of Six Sigma tools. While a critical element of Six
Sigma is the rigour of methodo-logy, it is also true that
the methodologies and tools that work for one organi-
zation may not do so for another. Because of diversity
in products and processes, it becomes imperative to
choose the right combination of Six Sigma tools, to
rightly select projects, to deal with specific challenges
of different structures and processes. It examines the
applicability of a simpler but not very frequently used
methodology known as the Shainin methodology in Six
Sigma projects.
TOOLBOX FOR SIX SIGMA
Pyzdek (2003) has classified Six Sigma tools into three
categories, viz.,
• Basic Six Sigma methods
• Intermediate Six Sigma methods
• Advanced Six Sigma methods
Basic Six Sigma Methods
The basic Six Sigma tools are further categorized as prob-
lem solving tools, 7M tools, and knowledge discovery
tools (Table 1).
Intermediate Six Sigma Methods
These methods include a host of enumerative and ana-
lytical statistical tools.
A few enumerative statistical methods are:
• Distributions
• Statistical inference
Some of the analytical methods that can be used in Six
Sigma problem solving are:
• Basic control charts
• Exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA)
charts
Advanced Six Sigma Methods
These include tools like
• Design of experiments (DOE)
• Regression and correlation analysis
• Process capability analysis
While the basic and intermediate methods are relatively
easier to understand and use, the advanced methods are
perceived to be difficult to comprehend and interpret.
Design of Experiments (DOE) is one such tool.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: CLASSICAL AND
TAGUCHI APPROACH
Six Sigma process improvements consist of analysing
relationships between an output variable (Y) explained
wholly or partly by process variables (Xs) that affect the
output. A key step in Six Sigma projects is the identifi-
cation of the root cause of the problem out of the poten-
tial Xs. Experimental design is one of the tried and tested
statistical techniques long used by industrial engineers
to identify the key variables affecting output. Through

Table 1: Basic Six Sigma Tools

Problem Solving Tools 7M Tools Knowledge Discovery Tools

Process mapping Affinity diagrams Run charts
Flow charts Process decision program charts Descriptive statistics
Matrix diagrams
Check sheets Histograms
Tree diagrams
Pareto analysis Interrelationship diagraphs Exploratory data analysis
Cause-and-effect diagrams Prioritization matrices
Scatter plots Activity network diagrams

14 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
designed experiments, changes are deliberately intro-
duced into the process to better understand which of
the Xs are affecting the output variable. There are two
well-known approaches to experimental design. The first
approach is the classical design of experiments credited
to Sir Ronald Fisher who initially experimented in the
field of agriculture. However, this method is now widely
used in many fields. The second approach is the Taguchi
approach pioneered by Dr Genichi Taguchi of Japan who
adopted the classical approach to reintroduce the con-
cept of orthogonal arrays. The commonly used classical
Design of Experiment (DOE) tools are the family of fac-
torial experiments consisting of full factorial designs and
fractional factorial designs. A full factorial allows us to
test all possible combinations of factors affecting output
in order to identify which ones are more dominant. A
fractional factorial tests just a fraction of the possible
combinations. Though a very popular tool, many engi-
neers and quality practitioners find design of experi-
ments difficult primarily because of the complexity of
having to create the conditions for conducting the ex-
periments in an industrial environment where interrupt-
ing production lines and changing machine settings may
be sometimes difficult and unproductive.
SHAININ DOE APPROACH
An alternative to the Classical and Taguchi experimen-
tal design is the lesser known but much simpler Shainin
DOE approach developed and perfected by Dorian
Shainin (Bhote and Bhote, 2000), consultant and advisor
to over 750 companies in America and Europe. Shainin’s
philosophy has been, “Don’t let the engineers do the
guessing; let the parts do the talking.” Shainin recog-
nized the value of empirical data in solving real-world
problems. He introduced the concept of Red X, the domi-
nant source of variation, among the many sources of
variation of a problem that inevitably accounts for nearly
all the unwanted effect. In fact, Shainin (Shainin, 1995;
1993b), classified all causes of chronic quality problems
into three X’s, viz., the Red X, the Pink X- the second
most important cause(s), and the Pale Pink X – the third
most important cause(s). According to him, these three
Xs together account for over 80 per cent of the variation
that is allowed within the specification limit and when
captured, reduced, and controlled, these can eliminate
this variation. Shainin developed techniques (Shainin
and Shainin, 1990; 1992a; 1992b; 1993a; 1993b; Shainin,
Shainin and Nelson, 1997) to track down the dominant
VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009
source through a process of elimination (Shainin, 1993b),
called progressive search. These techniques, also referred
to as the Shainin System for quality improvement, de-
veloped over a period of over 40 years, are simple but at
the same time powerful and easier to interpret and im-
plement in an industrial environment. In a way, these
may be considered as the non-parametric equivalent of
Taguchi’s DOE as they do not make any restrictive as-
sumptions about population parameters.
“Ninety per cent of the tolerances and specifications are
arbitrarily decided and are not correct for the intended
applications” (http://www.ind.tuv.com). This of course
in no small measure contributes to a host of what are
called ‘chronic quality problems’ – problems that keep
recurring. Finding solutions to these problems then be-
comes a major challenge for engineers and quality prac-
titioners. The Shainin techniques are primarily known
to produce breakthrough improvements in eliminating
chronic quality problems. These are highly effective in
pinpointing towards the root cause and validating it.
Applications of the Classical and Taguchi methods in
various fields have been extensively researched. A few
very recent contributions in this area are from Wang and
Ren (2007), Singh, Maheswari and Pandey (2007), See
and Wong (2008), Abdo (2008), Rao, et al (2008), and
Anawa, et al (2008). In contrast, the Shainin system has
not been extensively reviewed, academically, and very
limited studies have been carried out in this area. Bhote
(1990) compared Shainin techniques with Design of Ex-
periments and Taguchi methods, in the context of the
electronics industry and concluded that the Shainin tech-
niques are simpler, less costly, and statistically more
powerful than the other two. Logothetis (1990) also
evaluated the Shainin techniques in relation to the
Taguchi methods and statistical process control meth-
ods. Bhote (1991) and Bhote and Bhote (2000) described
these tools in their books, but there have been many criti-
cisms regarding their claims and the tools described.
Though Nelson (1991), Moore (1993), and more recently,
Zeigel (2001) criticized the Shainin System as unsubstan-
tiated and exaggerated, Steiner, et al (2008), are of the
opinion that some of the ideas behind the Shainin Sys-
tem are genuinely useful. Goodman and Wyld (2001)
offered a case study involving the use of Shainin DOE
in an industrial operation. This study suggested that ‘the
Shainin methodology is very practical and can be easily
executed in many settings, making it one of the most
15
approachable quality techniques available.’ Verma, et al
(2004) used a slightly different approach to compare the
methods. In their study, three cases of Taguchi experi-
ments were picked up from the available literature and
the Shainin method was then re-applied to find out
whether it had an edge over the other DOE techniques.
A comparison between Taguchi and Shainin techniques
in an aerospace environment was offered by Thomas
and Anthony (2005). A few other authors who have stud-
ied these techniques are Traver (1995), Ledolter and
Swersey (1997), Does, Roes and Trip (1999), De Mast, et
al (2000) and Steiner and MacKay (2005).
Motorola is one of the many companies to have used
these tools. Though Motorola’s phenomenal success with
Six Sigma approach is now history, a little known fact is
that the Shainin techniques were one of the key drivers
of their success. Motorola started using them way back
in 1980 with remarkable results. According to Bhote
(1991), who has done a significant amount of research
in these techniques, “Motorola’s plants, suppliers, and
customers all over the globe conducted about hundreds
of Shainin experiments as part of their Six Sigma qual-
ity movement.” Daimler Chrysler, General Motors, and
Delphi Corporation are some of the other companies
reported to have used the Shainin Methodology success-
fully. The American Society for Quality (ASQ) has very
recently instituted the Dorian Shainin Medal in recog-
nition of his contribution towards developing the Shainin
techniques that are now widely recognized as simple,
powerful, and practical tools to help in solving the manu-
facturers’ problems. In 2005, statistician Karl Bennet was
the first recipient of this award for his work in this area.
The Classical DOE, Taguchi DOE, and Shainin DOE are
compared with each other in Table 2.
An examination of the three approaches clearly indicates
that the Shainin tools have an edge over the other two
approaches in terms of cost, time, training, complexity,
scope, and ease of implementation.

Table 2: Comparison of Classical, Taguchi, and Shainin Approaches of DOE

Classical DOE Taguchi DOE Shainin DOE

Primary tools Factorial experiments Orthogonal arrays a. Component search
b. Multi-vari analysis
c. Paired comparison
d. Product/Process Ssarch or Variable search
e. Full factorials
f. B vs. C (Better vs. Current) analysis
g. Scatter plots
Advantages Effective when interaction Effective when interaction Very powerful irrespective of the presence
effects are not present effects are not present or absence of interactions.
(20 to 200% improvements). (20 to 200% improvements). Maximum optimization possible.
Limited possibilities for Limited possibilities for
optimization. optimization.
Cost/Time Moderate Moderate Low
Training 3 to 5 days 3 to 10 days 1 to 2 days
Complexity Moderate High Low (based on simple & basic mathematical
operations)
Scope Requires use of statistical Requires use of statistical Software not necessary.
software e.g., SAS, SPSS, etc. software e.g., SAS, SPSS, etc. Can be used at prototype, pre-production
Used mainly in production. Used mainly in pre – and production stages.
production. However, can be
used at the design stage
under certain constraints.
Ease of Moderate Poor High
Implementation Requires knowledge of Almost no knowledge of statistics required.
statistics. Easy to understand at all levels including
Engineers find methods shop floor workers, engineers, and suppliers,
complex to comprehend thus creating an overall positive impact.
and interpret.
Source: Bhote, 1991.

16 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
Shainin DOE Tools: An Overview of Select Tools
Shainin DOE basically works at eliminating suspected
process variables (Xs) mostly by using seven different
tools (Bhote, 1991):
• Multi-Vari Analysis
• Component Search
• Paired Comparison
• Variable Search
• Full Factorials
• B vs. C (Better vs. Current) Analysis
• Scatter Plots or Realistic Tolerance Parallelogram
Plots
Subsequently, Bhote and Bhote (2000) added three more
tools to the list, viz., Product/Process Search, Concen-
tration chart, and Response Surface Methodology. How-
ever, our aim is to study the application of a few basic
but effective tools along with their application in Six
Sigma projects.
A brief discussion and understanding is necessary be-
fore these tools are applied:
Multi-vari analysis: Multi-vari analysis is used to re-
duce a large number of suspected sources of variation
to a smaller family of variables containing the dominant
source of variation. A multi-vari analysis is based on
the assumption that any process variation can occur as
a result of three factors, viz.,
• Positional or Part-to-Part Variation
• Temporal or Time-to-Time Variation
• Cyclical or Stream-to-Stream Variation
Each type of variation is individually measured using a
run of approximately 3 to 5 units produced consecutively
at any given time. After a time lapse, another run of 3 to
5 units are produced. This process is repeated until 80
per cent of the out-of-control variation in the process is
captured. A plot of these results indicates which one of
the three variations is maximum. Simple tools like the
average and the range are then used to identify which
type of variation out of these three is the highest. In case
the positional or part-to-part variation is the highest, the
source of variation is usually attributed to the machine
or the process design. Further tools can be used to iden-
tify the exact cause. If time to time variation is high, the
team needs to try and identify the event that has caused
the shift in average in a variable over a period of time.
VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009
And, in the last case of high cyclical variation, the team
needs to focus on identifying which stream causes the
highest variation to get down to the root cause. DeMast,
Roes and Does (2001) have studied this technique in
detail.
Component search: Component search technique is a
simple but powerful tool to lower down the number of
suspected sources of variation to the family of Red X or
the Red X itself. This technique can be used primarily in
assembly operations, i.e., when a product can be disas-
sembled and re-assembled, as it allows finding the com-
ponent of an assembly that is most likely to cause the
problem. This technique is used to find the suspected
source of variation (SSV) that either originates from the
assembly process or the components in the assembly.
Thus, the various stages of the component search method
(Bhote, 1991) are:
• Ballpark stage: This stage determines whether Red X
or Pink X is actually present among the components
or factors being investigated.
• Elimination: The second step involves elimination of
all unimportant main effects and their associated in-
teraction effects.
• Capping run: This stage consists of re-verification of
the important and unimportant effects.
• Factorial analysis: Once the important and unimpor-
tant factors have been double-checked, factorial
analysis is used to determine the magnitude of the
important SSVs and their interactions.
Once the problem components are identified, a paired
comparison can be used to further identify the para-
meters in the component causing the problem.
Paired comparison: Paired comparison is similar to com-
ponent search except that it is used when components
cannot be reassembled or disassembled. This technique
uses a small sample consisting of good parts and bad
parts to further narrow down the range of potential
sources of variation. The good and bad parts are selected
on the basis of a suitable parameter related to the prob-
lem. Selecting the good parts implies selecting the Best
of Best (BOB) parts and selecting the bad parts implies
selecting the Worst of Worst (WOW) parts with respect
to the desired response. The terms BOB and WOW are
attributed to Shainin et al (1997). Steiner et al (2008) are
of the opinion that this comparison of extreme values of
the response variable is unique to the Shainin System
17
and its roots lie in the assumption that the values of the
two groups must be substantially different and hence
identifiable. Usually 8 good and 8 bad parts are selected.
Once the sample is selected, each SSV is measured on
the 16 parts and the results are recorded in the form of a
table. The analysis to pinpoint a suspected source of
variation as being significant or not significant is based
on a minimum “endcount” (Bhote and Bhote, 2000),
which is described later. This technique can be used only
when the suspected source of variation is measurable
on both the good and bad parts. This technique is ex-
plained in more detail in the project illustration.
Product/Process search or Variable search: The first
three methods are generally used to reduce the SSVs to
a smaller number. Once this is achieved and the number
of SSVs has been reduced to a range of 5 to 15, the vari-
able search technique can be used to further zero-in on
one or two variables that could possibly be the domi-
nant sources of variation. It is very useful to separate
the important variables from the unimportant ones, con-
trol the former, and open up tolerances on the latter.
This technique can be used to identify factors of varia-
tion related to the process parameters and is especially
useful in case the sources of variation are related to in-
put material dimensions which are subject to change
during processing. Ledolter and Swersey (1997) have
given a critical evaluation of variables search as an ex-
perimental design method for uncovering important
factors. Anthony (1999) has given a brief description of
this method, showing with the help of an experiment
that it is a powerful tool for identifying key process vari-
ables and therefore recommending its utilization by the
engineering fraternity in manufacturing organizations
as a problem-solving tool. Anthony and Cheng (2003)
have illustrated the potential of Shainin’s variable search
method as a powerful methodology for problem solv-
ing with the help of a simple catapult example.
Full factorials: This is same as the full factorial of Clas-
sical DOE except that here Shainin recommends its use
once the number of SSVs has been bought down to four
or less than four by using one or more of the above tech-
niques. Thus, the maximum size of the full factorial ex-
periment would be 24.Also the objectives of this tool
remain the same as those of the variable search tech-
nique, i.e., pinpoint the Red X or the Pink X, separate
and quantify the important and unimportant factors, and
open up tolerances on the unimportant ones.
18 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
Better vs. Current (B vs C) analysis: This is a final vali-
dation tool useful in validating the root cause identified
using the other methods. Here B stands for the better
process and C stands for the current process. Some ap-
plications of this method are:
• to validate the root cause
• to validate product/process changes made
• to validate improvement actions.
An advantage of this method is that it can be applied
using very small sample sizes starting from 3 from the B
process and 3 from the C process, to make a final con-
clusion with a certain degree of statistical confidence
whether the B process is better than the C process. This
technique is explained in detail in the project illustra-
tions.
Scatter plots or Realistic tolerance parallelogram plots:
The purpose of scatter plots or realistic tolerance paral-
lelogram plots is to determine an optimum and realistic
level of tolerance value. It is a graphical representation
of thirty observations of the independent variable against
corresponding values of the dependent variable. If there
is correlation between the two, then the independent
variable is the dominant source of variation and an ap-
propriate target value along with a tolerance can be de-
termined graphically. In case of absence of correlation,
the independent variable is not important and the toler-
ance can be opened up to an economical level.
Although the tools are systematic and follow a logical
sequence, these can be applied individually or in groups
depending on the nature of the problem. A compara-
tive analysis of these tools is presented in Table 3.
The Shainin tools have the following major advantages.
These tools are:
• simple to comprehend by both engineers and line
workers
• logical and based on common sense
• practical in terms of implementation in prototype
building, production as well as easy to work with
suppliers
• universally applicable in a wide range of industries
• statistically valid and powerful
• able to produce excellent results with quality gains
of up to 100-1,000 per cent.
Table 3: The Shainin DOE tools

Tool Objective Where Applicable When Applicable Sample Size

Multi-vari chart To reduce a large number
of unrelated variables to a
family of smaller related
causes
Components search To determine if the Red X is
in the assembly process or
the components in the
assembly
Paired comparisons Provide clues to determine
the red X by using a paired
comparison of good and
bad parts
Variable search Pinpoints the Red X,
Pink X etc
Finds the magnitude of the
important main and
interaction effects
Open up tolerances on
unimportant variables
Full factorials Same as variable search
B vs. C analysis To validate a new/better
process over a current one
Scatter plots or Determines optimum values
Realistic tolerance for Red X, Pink X variables
Parallelogram plots and their maximum
allowable tolerances
Source: Bhote, 1991.
To get a snapshot of how At engineering pilot run, Min 9- 15
a product/ process is production pilot run or
currently running in production
In assembly operations At prototype, 2
engineering pilot run,
production pilot run
or in production
Where there are matched Same as component 1 to 20
sets of differently search
performing products that
cannot be disassembled
When the number of In R &D, development 1 to 20
variables is between engineering and in
5 to 20 production
When the number of Same as variables 1 to 16
variables are between search
2 and 4
Usually follows one or In prototype, pilot run Min 3B’s and
more of the above tools or production 3C’s
Follows the above tools In pilot run 30

Some other benefits reported by users of Shainin DOE
techniques are accrued by virtue of their direct role in:
• solving chronic quality problems
• reducing process variations
• eliminating defects
• reducing/eliminating scrap/rework/testing
• reducing cost of poor quality
• increasing field reliability of products
• improving financial parameters, like return on invest-
ment (ROI) and market share, etc.
Among the Shainin tools, factorial designs and scatter
plots are commonly known and used. However, the
main differentiators of the Shainin tools are component
search method, paired comparison method, product/
process search, and B vs. C analysis. In order to high-
light the application of these tools, we choose two
projects from the selected predominantly automotive
lamp manufacturing company known to apply Shainin
tools extensively in their Six Sigma projects.
LAMP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Company Profile
The company is a leading manufacturer of automotive
and general lighting lamps with a group turnover ex-
ceeding Rs 250 crore. With exports to nearly 60 different
countries, it is the largest exporter of lamps in the coun-
try. The company gets nearly 33 per cent of its income
from exports and the rest from the domestic segment. It
has five fully integrated state-of-the-art manufacturing
facilities at Noida in NCR and Dehradun and Haridwar
in Uttaranchal. The five units together deliver over 150
million lamps annually, all benchmarked to international
regulations for quality, performance, and safety. One of
the five facilities, is a 100 per cent export-oriented unit
(EOU), catering to exports mostly to USA and European
countries like Italy and Germany. The company also has
all major quality certifications like ISO 9001:2000, ISO/
TS 16949:2002, ISO 14000:2004, and OHSAS 18001:2007.
It saw a change in ownership in the year 2007 following

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 19

which there has been a reorganization in management
structure that has resulted in a renewed focus on man-
agement initiatives and an increased thrust on global
business.
Product Profile
In the automotive segment, the company manufactures
a series of halogen-based lamps used as headlamps and
fog lamps in vehicles. In the general lighting segment,
its product profile includes compact fluorescent lamps
(CFL), magnetic and electronic lamps, metal halide
lamps, and sodium vapour lamps. Fifty-five per cent of
the company’s revenue comes from automotive lamps
and the remaining 45 per cent from the CFL segment.
Market Profile
The last decade has seen a steady growth of the auto-
motive lamp segment. This can be primarily attributed
to two major reasons. Firstly, the phenomenal growth
of the automobile sector in India, which is now the sec-
ond largest two-wheeler market in the world and the
fourth largest passenger vehicle market in Asia. With
rise in volumes in the two-wheeler and four-wheeler
segments, the demand for automotive lamps is also on
the upswing. In the automotive lamp segment, the com-
pany has a 70 per cent market share in both original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) and after-sales market.
It is also the largest exporter of automotive lighting from
India with a revenue of Rs 900 million in FY 2007. In the
two-wheeler segment, it is clearly the market leader with
an impressive 80 per cent market share. Secondly, the
European Union (EU) norms have now made it manda-
tory to fit vehicles with halogen lamps which give
brighter lights and also last longer and are more envi-
ronment-friendly. So, all new vehicles now come fitted
with halogen lamps.
The company has an impressive list of about 36 OEM
clients both in the two-wheeler and four-wheeler seg-
ments. Its major clients in the four-wheeler segment are
Maruti, Hyundai, Honda, and Ashok Leyland. Among
two-wheelers, its major clients are Hero Honda, TVS
Motors, and Bajaj. The company also supplies to MICO
BOSCH, Lispart, and Crompton. On the supply side, the
company’s major raw materials are glass, molybdenum,
and tungsten which are mostly imported from Europe
and Japan.
20 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
Business Potential and Objectives for the Future
The domestic passenger vehicle segment is expected to
register a 15 per cent CAGR over FY 08-10 to 2million
units and the company is set to capitalize on this oppor-
tunity unfolding in the domestic markets. Also, strong
growth in the automotive sector over the past 3-4 years
would result in a steady growth in replacement demand.
With strong penetration in OEMs and servicing of after
sales markets through service stations of various OEMs,
the company is well placed to capitalize on the growth
prospects in the replacement market. It is also aggres-
sively exploring opportunities to tap newer markets of
the US, Middle East, and China. According to the latest
estimates, its export business is expected to grow at a
CAGR of 15 per cent and domestic automotive lamps
revenue to grow at a CAGR of 18-20 per cent over FY
07-10. Further, it is looking to foray into the luminaries
segment and has entered into joint ventures with two
Italian companies and a Chinese manufacturer for sup-
ply to the mass market. Efforts are on to bring Light
Emitting Diode (LED) technology to the Indian market,
through a joint venture with a US-based company for
LED technology, though this project is at a very nascent
stage. Net sales at the company are expected to grow at
30 per cent CAGR over FY 07-10 and the company is
expected to demonstrate an earnings growth of 35 per
cent CAGR for FY 07-10.(These data are sourced from
www. moneycontrol.com.)
The Quality Initiative at the Company
With the aim of benchmarking their products to inter-
national levels of quality, performance, and safety, the
company launched the Six Sigma movement with a high
level of commitment. It trained about 25 black belts and
120 green belts who have successfully completed over
39 black belt projects and 133 green belt projects. Keep-
ing in view the company’s working principle to ‘keep it
simple,’ it uses Shainin DOE tools in all its Six Sigma
projects. The two projects described now reinforce the
view that a complex Six Sigma toolkit is not always the
answer for successful projects. A toolkit consisting of a
combination of simple classical Six Sigma tools and
Shainin DOE tools can be equally effective. Both projects
have used the structured Six Sigma DMAIC (Define,
Measure, Analyse, Improve, and Control) format.
The Six Sigma Projects Selected Figure 1: A Model of the Halogen Lamp in Project A

Six Sigma projects are usually executed with the help of

the Six Sigma players, which typically include black belts
and green belts among others. A black belt is a project
manager with a full-time responsibility of leading Six
Sigma projects. He leads the team through the five
phases of the project, viz., Define, Measure, Analyse,
Improve, and Control (DMAIC) of a Six Sigma project.
A black belt usually possesses a technical degree or ori-
entation and is required to be a master of basic statisti-
cal tools. Green belts are usually managers who are
involved part-time in Six Sigma projects and also hold
other regular responsibilities. They provide technical
Source: Quality Control Department of the Selected Company.
background and support to the black belts. Also, unlike
a black belt, a green belt needs to be just familiar with
Figure 2: Pareto Chart for Defects in Automotive Lamp
basic statistical tools. A green belt can serve as a project in Project A
leader in smaller projects within a department or a unit
0.5
once Six Sigma has been institutionalized within an or- 100

ganization. Green belt projects are usually less demand- 0.4 80

ing than black belt projects. It may be mentioned that 0.3
Count

Count
60
some of the technical considerations of the projects are 0.2 40
beyond the scope of this paper; our attempt has been to 0.1 20
focus on the application of the Shainin tools.
0.0 0

The first project, Project A, was a green belt project. A Defect Sub Main Mount Shell Others
Filament Filament Tilt Crack
team leader, a sponsor, and three team members were a Bend Bend
part of this project. The project concerning defects in a Count 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02
halogen lamp was a priority project as the price of non- Percent 39.6 25.0 20.8 10.4 4.2
Cum % 39.6 64.6 85.4 95.8 100.0
conformance in this case was very high. A DMAIC meth-
odology was followed in the project and it was
Gage R & R Study
completed within two months. This project demonstrated
To evaluate the effectiveness of the measurement sys-
the application of the Shainin techniques, product/proc-
tem, a Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (Gage R
ess analysis, and multi-vari analysis along with a few
& R) study was conducted with the help of MINITAB.
other basic Six Sigma tools to bring down the defect rate.
Repeatability measures the variability in measurements
Project A with one measurement instrument and one operator
while measuring identical characteristics on the same
The problem in this case was that of defects in the fila- part. Reproducibility measures the variability in meas-
ment of a halogen lamp (Figure 1). This particular lamp urements with one measurement instrument by differ-
consisted of two coiled tungsten filaments, viz., a sub- ent operators, again while measuring identical characte-
filament and a main-filament mounted in a glass enve- ristics on the same part. Repeatability captures the in-
lope and filled with a small amount of halogen gas. At strument variability and reproducibility captures the
the outset, a Pareto analysis (Figure 2) indicated that operator-to-operator variability. The total Gage R & R
maximum variation was coming from a bend in the sub- in this case was not significant since it was less than 20
filament of the lamp. As a result of this problem, the per cent. So measurement system variability was elimi-
wastage was estimated to be 0.19 per cent. A project nated.
charter was prepared, the problem was defined as ‘sub-
filament bend,’ and a target was established to reduce In this phase, potential factors causing the bend were
the sub-filament bend wastage to 0.05 per cent. brainstormed. A brief description of the sleeving pro-

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 21

cess is given below to understand the suspected sources
of variations (SSVs) better.
The Filament Sleeving Process
The basic unit of the filament is a tungsten wire. To en-
able the tungsten filament to be welded to the conduct-
ing pins of the lamp, the connecting ends of the tungsten
filament are wrapped in small moly foil/moly wire
tubes, which aid in the welding. This process is called
‘sleeving process’ (Figure 3). The moly sleeve also pro-
tects the filament from vibrations generated when the
vehicle is on the road. This process was considered as
most likely to cause the bend in the sub-filament. Fur-
ther, a protective heat shield is welded over the lamp
and is electrically connected to the filament within the
Figure 3 : The Sleeved Filament in Project A
Source: Quality Control Department of the Selected Company.
Figure 4: Cause-and-Effect Diagram for Filament Bend in Project A
METHOD
Electrode setting method
is not correct
Gauge is not made for
setting
Bridge wire not aligned
Bridge machine heads wear out
Sleeve angle not OK
(leg angle with sleeve)
MATERIAL
Filament angle not OK
22 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
glass envelope. Because of this connection, a shield tilt
could also adversely impact the filament.
Identification of SSVs
A cause-and-effect diagram (Figure 4) was used to iden-
tify the key sources of variation during the sleeving proc-
ess.
Three potential SSVs were finally listed as:
i) Filament leg angle without sleeve
ii) Filament leg angle with sleeve
iii) Shield tilt
Shainin DOE Product/Process Search
Since the SSVs were related to the sleeving process, a
Shainin DOE product/process analysis seemed to be the
most appropriate tool in this case. In product/process
search technique, initial data can be generated in two
ways. According to the first method, a list of all SSVs
that affect the response, is prepared. In case the SSV is
related to the process parameter, the actual value of the
parameter is measured after the part has been processed.
And finally, the response is measured after the part has
been processed. Based on this response, a decision is
taken about whether the part is a Best of Best (BOB) or a
Worst of Worst (WOW) part. This process is continued
till 8 BOB and 8 WOW parts are obtained. Alternatively,
WORKER
Jig movement
Electrode not aligned
Filament
bend
Electrode positioning
not correct
Electrode holder design
inclined
Shield tilt
Heads are not at same
reference MACHINE
Electrode push to wire
sample selection can be done by deciding on the lot size
to be produced and then selecting 8 BOB and 8 WOW
parts from this lot based on the response variable.
In this case, the second method was used. A lot size of
100 pieces was manufactured and 16 units – 8 BOB and
8 WOW – were selected based on the response variable,
i.e., the leg angle in this case. The BOB pieces were de-
cided from among the ones with minimum to no bends
in the sub-filament and the WOW pieces were chosen
from among the ones with considerable amount of bend
in the leg angle, thus providing a comparison of extreme
values of the response. All the three SSVs were meas-
ured. The observations for each of the SSVs arranged in
ascending order are shown in Table 4.
The observations were analysed by using the endcount
technique, given by Bhote and Bhote (2000) (see Tukey,
1959 for more on endcount). This technique is briefly
described now. First of all, the top count is the number
of BOBs before changeover to WOWs. The bottom count
is the number of WOWs from the bottom until the first
changeover to BOB. The endcount is defined as the sum
of the top count and the bottom count. As an example,
in Table 4, if we consider the response for leg angle with
sleeves, the number of Bs from the top before changeover
to G is 6. This is the top count. And the number of Gs
from the bottom before changeover to B is also 6. This is
the bottom count. And, therefore, the total count is 12.
Similarly, the count for the leg angle with sleeve is 10
and for the shield tilt is 11. Further, if the endcount is
≥ 6, then the parameter is considered significant at 90
per cent level of significance and if total count ≥ 7, it is
considered significant at 95 per cent level of significance.
In this case, endcount for all three parameters were sig-
nificant. So, the team identified and studied the specifi-
cations for the good range for all three SSVs. An analysis
and comparison of these values with the design specifi-
cation indicated that the leg angle of the sleeving ma-
chine required certain modifications. As a counter
measure to improve the leg angle, the sleeving machine
heads were suitably modified. Samples taken from the
process after this modification indicated that the wast-
age from sub-filament bend had come down signifi-
cantly, but not to the target figure of 0.05 per cent as
desired.
Shainin DOE Mult-Vari Analysis
Once the angle was taken care of, the team now moved
on to investigate the third SSV, i.e., the shield tilt. It took
up a Shainin DOE multi-vari analysis, which has been
described in the tools overview section. All three varia-
tions, viz., part–to-part, head–to-head, and time-to-time
variations were studied for the third SSV, i.e., the shield
tilt. The part-to-part variation based on the range was
2.23. The head-to-head variation and the time-to-time
variation came out as 0.79 and 0.530333 respectively.
Thus, the highest variability was coming from the part-
to-part variation.

Table 4: Response of the Three SSVs Arranged in Ascending Order

Sl.No. Leg Angle WO Sleeve Response Leg Angle W Sleeve Response Shield Tilt (0) Response
1 80.23 B 81.75 B 0 G
2 81.54 B 81.78 B 0.1 G
3 81.78 B 82.78 B 0.45 G
4 82.78 B 83.25 G 0.75 G
5 83.5 B 83.49 B 0.96 G
6 83.56 B 84.28 B 1 B
7 84.55 G 84.78 B 1.35 G
8 85.23 B 85.26 B 1.78 G
9 85.96 G 85.36 B 2.1 B
10 86.39 B 88.56 G 2.1 G
11 86.48 G 89.5 G 2.78 B
12 86.54 G 90.05 G 3.5 B
13 86.78 G 90.12 G 3.78 B
14 87.56 G 90.56 G 4.25 B
15 87.95 G 90.78 G 5.36 B
16 88.02 G 91.23 G 6.36 B

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 23

A cause-and-effect diagram along with some brain-
storming now pinpointed towards two suspected
sources of part-to-part variation in shield tilt, viz.,
i) Electrode wear-out
ii) Electrode length
After analysing a little further, the team finally identi-
fied the final root cause as electrode wear-out. As per
the latest information available, from the company, at
the close of 2008, this process is currently reporting a
wastage of 0.09 per cent.
Project B
The second case was a black belt project. This project
was completed by a team of four, which included one
team leader and three team members. Process capabil-
ity analysis was initially used to study the process per-
formance. The breakthrough in terms of identifying the
root cause emerged by application of two very interest-
ing tools from the Shainin family, viz., paired compari-
son analysis and B vs C analysis.
For this project, the problem was based on customer
complaints regarding a particular model of halogen lamp
fitted in two-wheelers. Based on a study of the com-
plaints, the team defined the problem as: High current
in main and sub-filament of the model. The current de-
sign specification for the lamp was 2.50-2.78 ampere. The
actual current recorded by the team was 2.84 ampere.
High current results in more wattage, which leads to
premature lamp failure. This was a major concern for
the company as customers were rejecting lots and the
financial impact of these rejections was considerable
apart from loss of goodwill with its clients. The prob-
lem clearly needed immediate attention.
The team now moved on to the next phase, i.e., the Meas-
ure Phase. In this phase, it was important to understand
all the process variables that were affecting the output.
Therefore, first a capability analysis of the process (Fig-
ure 5) was conducted by using MINITAB to gauge the
current capability of the process. The process capability
ratio Cp was 1.70 and the process capability index, Cpk
was 0.05. Cpk is generally considered a superior indica-
tor of process capability as it takes into consideration
the shifts in the process average over time. In this case, a
Cpk value less than the Cp value definitely indicates that
the process variability is high. While the PPM below the
LSL was in control, the PPM above the USL was 533333
indicating that the Sigma level of the process was below
1.
Identifying the SSVs
Once the problem was identified and quantified, the next
step was to list the potential sources of variation. After

Figure 5: Process Capability Analysis in Project B

LSL LSL
Process Data

USL 2.78000 Within

Target *
LSL 2.51000 Overall
Mean 2.78442
Sample N 120
StDev (Within) 0.0264870
StDev (Overall) 0.0288687

Potential (Within) Capability

Cp 1.70
CPU -0.06
CPL 3.45
Cpk -0.06
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
Overall Capability
Observed Performance Exp. “Within” Performance Exp. “Overall” Performance
Pp 1.56
PPU -0.05 PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM < LSL 0.00
PPL 3.17 PPM > USL 53333.33 PPM > USL 566216.02 PPM > USL 560797.47
Ppk -0.05 PPM Total 53333.33 PPM Total 566216.02 PPM Total 560797.47

24 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
brainstorming, the suspected sources of variation were given by Shainin (1993b) and Bhote and Bhote (2000).
identified as: Here is a brief description of an application of this
method. In this method, 10 units — 5 BOB and 5 WOW
i. Resistance of the wire — were first identified from the existing process based
ii. Pitch variation
on the response variable. All SSVs were then measured
Further, the resistance of the coil wire depends on four for each part. The response variable, i.e., current, in this
parameters, viz., case, was also measured.

a) Coil diameter Analysis of the Main-Filament Data

b) Coil length The observations of the main-filament parameters are
c) Number of turns shown in Table 5.
d) MG of the wire.
The specification for the coil diameter is (1.00 ± 0.02)
Some of these parameters are shown in Figure 6. mm. The coil diameter values although well within speci-
fications show significant variability ranging from 0.98
Figure 6: Variables for SSV of High Current in Project B
to 1.01 across the BOB and the WOW units. The number
Pitch Variation of turns is constant at 22 for all the 10 units. The coil
length and the pitch variability seem significant while
the MG of the coil shows no variability. The next step in
paired comparison analysis is to measure the endcount
for each of the SSVs. This is done by first arranging the
Coil Diameter

observations in ascending order and then calculating the

Coil Length
Shainin DOE Paired Comparison
This is a universal Shainin DOE tool and can be applied
to identify the root cause as long as the SSVs are meas-
urable. A complete description of this method has been
top count and the bottom count. The two counts are then
added to get the endcount. If the endcount is less than
six, it can be concluded at 90 per cent confidence level
that the particular SSV is not significant. The count for
coil diameter is 10; therefore, it is a significant SSV. The
count of the other two parameters, viz., the number of
turns and the length of the main-filament, are 0 and 4
respectively. These two parameters can be eliminated
from the list of potential SSVs, as the counts are not sig-
nificant. Thus, for the main-filament, the coil diameter
has emerged as the dominant source of variability in
the response.

Table 5: Main-Filament Observations in Project B

S.No. Coil DIA No. of Turns Coil Length Pitch Variation MG Response (Current)
1 0.98 22 4.22 0.191 48.4 2.84 WOW
2 0.978 22 3.96 0.18 48.4 2.84 WOW
3 0.995 22 3.78 0.171 48.4 2.83 WOW
4 0.959 22 3.98 0.18 48.4 2.82 WOW
5 0.987 22 3.87 0.175 48.4 2.81 WOW
6 1.01 22 4.01 0.182 48.4 2.74 BOB
7 1.01 22 3.88 0.174 48.4 2.74 BOB
8 1.01 22 4.32 0.196 48.4 2.75 BOB
9 1.01 22 4.08 0.185 48.4 2.75 BOB
10 1.01 22 3.78 0.171 48.4 2.75 BOB

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 25

Analysis of the Sub-Filament Data
A similar paired comparison analysis was carried out
for the sub-filament. The observations are listed in Ta-
ble 7. The count for the sub-filament coil diameter is 10.
This implies that the coil diameter has a significant im-
pact on the current. The count of the number of turns is
0 and for the coil length it is 4. Both these counts are not
significant. Thus paired comparison for both the filament
data sets indicate that ‘variability in coil diameter’ is the
root cause of the current problem.
The Improvement Phase
The purpose of the improvement phase is to implement
a solution to address the root cause of the problem. After
brainstorming for potential solutions, modification of
coil diameter seemed to be the most feasible solution.
The specifications for the coil diameter were re-set for
testing the response at the following levels:
• For the main-filament: At 1.02mm and 1.03mm
• For the sub-filament: At 0.97mm and 0.99mm
Since the coil diameter directly impacts the lumen of the
lamp, the lumen is also measured at each of the above
levels. Minimum lumen standards as per EC 37R regu-
lations are:
• Main-filament: 825 ± 15%
• Sub-filament: 525 ± 15%
Five pieces of each filament were made according to the
above coil diameter combination. Both the current and
the lumen were measured for each of these units. Since
lumen was a limiting factor, the best results were ob-
tained for the current and the lumen at coil diameter
1.03 for the main-filament and 0.99 mm for the sub-fila-
ment.
Better vs. Current (B vs. C) Analysis of Coil Diameter
Once the root cause has been addressed, it is necessary
to validate it. This was done, by using the Shainin B vs.
C analysis, which is a confirmation tool to verify whether
the actions taken have actually improved the process.
Some typical applications of this tool are to validate the
cause, product/process changes, and improvement ac-
tions or to compare between two entities who could be
suppliers, two machines and so on.
B vs. C analysis is based on the theory of combinations.
The following justification and description of this analy-
26 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
sis is taken from Bhote (1991). If we choose 2 B units and
2 C units, the number of possible ways in which we can
arrange them in rank order is 6 (Box 1).
Box 1: Possible Arrangement of Bs and Cs
B B B C C C
B C C C B B
C B C B C B
C C B B B C
Now, suppose that the null hypothesis and the one-sided
alternative hypothesis are as follows:
Null There is no significant difference
hypothesis: between the B and C processes
Alternative Process B is better than
hypothesis: process C
If we examine all possible arrangements of Bs and Cs in
Box 1, it may be seen that there is only one way in which
all the Bs can come out on top followed by the Cs, indi-
cating significant difference in the two processes being
compared. If this were true, our null hypothesis would
be rejected. Therefore, statistically, the probability of
rejecting the null hypothesis is 1/6 i.e., 16.7 per cent.
Extending this concept, when there are three units each
of Bs and Cs, all possible combinations are 20 and once
again there is only one way in which all the Bs would
come on top followed by the Cs at the bottom. Thus,
concluding that B is better than C represents 1/20 or 5
per cent risk which Bhote (1991) describes as the α risk.
Bhote and Bhote (2000) calls the 3B vs. 3C plan the “six
pack test.” While choosing the 6 samples, it is very im-
portant to randomize the order of the six runs. The final
analysis is based on the endcount scheme already de-
scribed. When there is no overlap of the B and C values,
then the dominant source has been verified.
In this case, 3B vs. 3C, i.e., 3 units with modification and
3 units without modification (B – with modification and
C – without modification) was used to validate the im-
provement action, i.e., the modification of the coil di-
ameter. Both the main-filament data and the sub-
filament data exhibited no overlaps of the responses with
B condition and C condition (Table 6), the conclusion
being that the process has improved by changing the
specifications of the coil diameter.
The focus of the control phase is to sustain the gains of
the improvement phase. This is usually achieved by Table 8: Modifications in Coil Diameter Specifications
documentation and standardization of the control meas- in Project B
ures. To ensure that the solution worked, the following Coil Diameter Specifications
steps were undertaken. Before After
Main-Filament (1.00 ± 0.2) mm (1.03 ± 0.2) mm
Table 6: B vs. C Analysis in Project B
Sub-Filament (0.96 ± 0.2) mm (0.99 ± 0.2) mm
Main-Filament Data Sub-Filament Data
Sl.No. Response Units Sl.No. Response Units CONCLUSIONS
1 2.71 B 1 2.68 B The key phase of the DMAIC methodology is the meas-
2 2.72 B 2 2.69 B ure and analysis phase. The tools and techniques used
3 2.73 B 3 2.71 B in this phase determine the success or failure of the
4 2.79 C 4 2.78 C
project to a large extent. In both the projects, the Shainin
DOE tools have been very effectively used to pinpoint
5 2.8 C 5 2.79 C
the root causes and validate the improvement actions.
6 2.81 C 6 2.8 C
A classical DOE approach would have meant applica-
(The figures refer to values of current in Ampere.) tion of factorial designs requiring much more time and
effort, and above all, it would have required changes in
Modifications were made in the drawings of the main-
machine settings. Classical DOE requires large data col-
and sub-filament. The coil diameter specifications were
lection to conduct the analysis. In Shainin DOE, small
changed as shown in Table 8. Control charts were used
samples of 5 BOB and 5 WOW pieces were sufficient to
to display the main and sub-filament current to ensure
analyse the data as seen in both the projects. A very im-
continuous monitoring of the process. As per the latest
portant factor is that data collection was done for both
information available from the company in January 2009,
the projects online without disturbing the regular pro-
the current process capability values of this process for
duction. Also, what is more important is not always the
the main filament are: Cp = 4.09, Cpk = 1.96, amounting
exact Six Sigma results but the methodology followed
to remarkably low defects level of just 0.0025 PPM and
to achieve practically zero defects.
for the sub filament: Cp = 3.10 and Cpk = 1.67, amounting
to defects level of only 0.285 PPM indicating that both No statistical software was needed to be used to ana-
processes have capability well over Six Sigma. lyse the data. In fact, Shainin DOE does not even require
knowledge of difficult statistical tools. Simple operation
Table 7: Sub-Filament Observations in Project B like counts, additions, subtractions, etc., make calcula-
tions relatively easy. The projects were completed within
S. Coil No.of Coil MG Response
No. DIA Turns Length (Current) a span of two months. For the company, the estimated
savings from these two projects was more than Rs 2 lakh
1 0.96 22 4.51 48.4 2.75 BOB
per annum. In addition, the success of the projects had a
2 0.962 22 4.44 48.4 2.69 BOB
very positive effect on the morale of the employees in
3 0.962 22 4.56 48.4 2.74 BOB terms of convincing them that Six Sigma works without
4 0.959 22 4.62 48.4 2.66 BOB complex statistics and big jargons.
5 0.956 22 4.45 48.4 2.75 BOB
The subject of the Shainin methods is very vast and this
6 0.95 22 4.61 48.4 2.81 WOW paper highlights the applicability of only a few of the
7 0.951 22 4.51 48.4 2.84 WOW Shainin tools. However, there is a lot of scope for more
8 0.949 22 4.62 48.4 2.83 WOW research on this methodology particularly comparative
9 0.952 22 4.51 48.4 2.84 WOW research of some of the Shainin methods like Paired
Comparison and B vs C Analysis vis-a-vis the more popu-
10 0.951 22 4.51 48.4 2.82 WOW
lar statistical tools like factorial designs and non-para-
metric testing. Although these methods are not
necessarily the best, according to Steiner et al (2006), the

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 27

guiding principles of the Shainin tools are powerful, and
at least, in combination, unique. Also, these tools are best
suited for medium to high volume production. In this
case, the company chosen may be considered as a high
volume production company and has used these tools
quite successfully. However, the downside is that most
REFERENCES
Abdo, J (2008). “Design of Experiments Technique for Char-
acterization of Friction in Dry Contact,” International Jour-
nal of Surface Science and Engineering, 2(1/2), 120-138.
Adams, Cary W; Gupta, Praveen and Wilson Jr, Charles E
(2003). Six Sigma Deployment, Butterworth: Heinemann.
Anawa, E M; Olabi, A G and Hashmi, M S J (2008). “Applica-
tion of Taguchi Method to Optimize Dissimilar Laser
Welded Components,” International Journal of Manufac-
turing Technology and Management, 15(2), 219-227.
Anthony, J (1999). “Spotting the Key Variables Using Shainin’s
Variable Search Design,” Logistics Information Manage-
ment, 12(4), 325-331.
Anthony, J and Cheng, A H Y (2003). “Training for Shainin’s
Approach to Experimental Design Using a Catapult,”
Journal of European Industrial Training, 7(8), 405-412.
Bhote, Keki R (1988). World Class Quality: Design of Experiments
Made Easier, More Cost Effective than SPC, New York:
American Management Association.
Bhote, Keki R (1990). “A More Cost-Effective Approach to DOE
than Taguchi,” Annual Quality Congress, San Francisco ,
44, 857-862.
Bhote, Keki R (1991). World Class Quality: Using Design of Ex-
periments to Make it Happen, New York: American Man-
agement Association.
Bhote, K R and Bhote, A K (2000). World Class Quality, 2nd
Edition, New York: American Management Association.
Bregfoyle, Forrest W III; Cupello, James M and Meadows, Beki
(2001). Managing Six Sigma. New York: John Wiley and
Sons..
De Mast, J; Schippers, W A J; Does, R J M M and Van den,
Heuvel E (2000). “Steps and Strategies in Process Im-
provement,” Quality and Reliability Engineering Interna-
tional, 16, 301-311.
De Mast, J; Roes, K C B and Does, R J M M (2001). “The Multi-
Vari Chart: A Systematic Approach,” Quality Engineer-
ing, 13, 437-448.
Does, R J M M; Roes, K C B and Trip, A (1999). Statistical Pro-
cess Control in Industry, Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Eckes, George (2001). The Six Sigma Revolution, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Evans, James R and Lindsay, William M (2004). The Manage-
ment and Control of Quality, Singapore: Thompson South
Western.
Goodman, J and Wyld, David C (2001). “The Hunt for Red X:
A Case Study in the Use of Shainin Design of Experiments
(DOE) in an Industrial Honing Operation,” Management
28 SIMPLIFYING THE SIX SIGMA TOOLBOX THROUGH APPLICATION OF SHAININ DOE TECHNIQUES
of the terminology is trademarked and legally protected,
limiting academic debate and discussion on this system
of problem solving, which despite many criticisms and
having been largely overshadowed by the classical and
Taguchi techniques in the past, is now gradually being
given its due recognition.
Research News, 4(8/9), 1-17.
Harry, Mikel and Schroeder, Richard (2000). Six Sigma: The
Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the
World’s Top Corporations, New York: Currency.
Ledolter, J and Swersey, A (1997). “Dorian Shainin’s Variable
Search Procedure: A Critical Assessment,” Journal of Qual-
ity Technology, 29, 237-247.
Logothetis, N (1990). “A Perspective on Shainin’s Approach
to Experimental Design for Quality Improvement,” Qual-
ity and Reliability Engineering International, 6(3), 195-202.
Moore, D (1993). Review of World Class Quality, by K Bhote,
1991. Journal of Quality Technology, Volume 21, 76-79.
Nelson, L S (1991). Review of World Class Quality, by K Bhote,
1991. Journal of Quality Technology, Volume 25, 152-153.
Pyzdek, Thomas (2001). The Six Sigma Handbook, USA:
McGraw-Hill/Quality Publishing Tucson.
Rao, R S; Kumar, C G; Prakasham, R S and Hobbs, P J (2008).
‘The Taguchi Methodology as a Statistical Tool for Bio-
technological Applications: A Critical Appraisal,” Biotech-
nology Journal, 3(4), 510-523..
See, P C and Wong, K Y (2008). “Using Statistical Design of
Experiments to Decide the Effective Parameter Values for
a New Hybrid ant Colony Algorithm,” International Jour-
nal of Applied Decision Sciences, 1(3), 282-304.
Shainin, D and Shainin, P D (1990). “Analysis of Experiments,”
45th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, ASQC, 1071-
1077.
Shainin, P D (1992a). “Managing SPC, A Critical Quality Sys-
tem Element,” 46th Annual Quality Congress Proceed-
ings, ASQC, 251-257.
Shainin, R D (1992b). “Technical Problem Solving Strategies,
A Case Study,” 46th Annual Quality Congress Proceed-
ings, ASQC, 876-882.
Shainin, P D (1993a). “Managing Quality Improvement,” 47th
Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, ASQC, 554-560.
Shainin, R D (1993b). “Strategies for Technical Problem Solv-
ing,” Quality Engineering, 5, 433-438.
Shainin, R D (1995). “A Common Sense Approach to Quality
Management,” 49th Annual Quality Congress Proceed-
ings, ASQC, 1163-1169.
Shainin, P D; Shainin, R D and Nelson, M T (1997). “Manag-
ing Statistical Engineering,” 51st Annual Quality Con-
gress Proceedings, ASQC, 818-832.
Singh, S; Maheswari, S and Pandey, P C (2007). “Optimiza-
tion of Multiperformance Characteristics in Electric Dis-
charge Machining of Aluminium Matrix Composites
(AMCs) using Taguchi DOE Methodology,” International
 Journal of Manufacturing Research, 2(2), 138-161.
Steiner, S H and MacKay, R J (1997-1998). “Strategies for Varia-
tion Reduction,” Quality Engineering, 10, 125-136.
Steiner S.H and Mackay, R J (2005). Statistical Engineering: An
Algorithm for Reducing Variation in Manufacturing Processes,
Milwaukee: Quality Press.
Steiner, S H; MacKay, R J and Ramberg, J S (2008). “An Over-
view of the Shainin System for Quality Improvement.”
Quality Engineering, 20(1), 6-99.
“Shainin Techniques,” http://www.qsconsult.be/ESTShainin.
htm.
Thomas, A J and Anthony, J (2005). “A Comparative Analysis
of the Taguchi and Shainin DOE Techniques in an Aero-
space Environment,” International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, 54(8), 658-678.
Traver, R W (1995). Manufacturing Solutions for Consistent Qual-
ity and Reliability, New York: American Management
Association.
Tukey, J W (1959). “A Quick, Compact, Two-sample Test to
Duckworth’s Specifications,” Technometrics, 1, 31-48.
Verma, A K; Srividya, A; Mannikar, A V; Pankhawala, V A
and Rathanraj, K J (2004). “Shainin Method: Edge over
other DOE techniques,” Engineering Management Confer-
ence 2004 Proceedings, IEEE International, 3(18-21), 1110-
1113.
Wang, X and Ren, H (2007). “Vehicle Power-train Noise Re-
finement Using Taguchi Method,” International Journal of
Vehicle Noise and Vibration, 3(3), 286-301.
Zeigel, E R (2001). A Review of World Class Quality, 2nd Edi-
tion by K Bhote and A Bhote, Technometrics, Volume 43,
112-113.

Acknowledgements. The authors express thanks and are indebted to Mr. Sandeep Mathur, GM, Corporate Quality, Phoenix
Lamps Limited and Mr. Muneesh Babu and other executives of the Quality Control Department of Phoenix Lamps Limited, for
sharing crucial information contained in this case. No part of this article may be used without prior permission of the authors
and the company.

Sunil Sharma has been a Senior Reader in the Production &
Operations Management Area at the Faculty of Management
Studies (FMS), University of Delhi, for about two decades. He
received his Ph.D. in Total Quality Management from the same
institution prior to which he had completed his MBA and
M.Tech. He specializes in TQM, TPM, and Supply Chain Man-
agement in which areas he has presented papers at many in-
ternational and national conferences of which at least three
being at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. He
received the UGC Research Award in 2003-05 to work on Sup-
ply Chain Management Practices in India based on which he
is currently authoring a book.
e-mail: ssharma@fms.edu
Anuradha R Chetiya is a Lecturer in the Department of Statis-
tics, Ramjas College, University of Delhi. Prior to this, she had
been associated with the Department of Statistics, Lady Shri
Ram College as a Lecturer. She completed her M.Phil in the
area of Sample Surveys from the University of Delhi and is
currently pursuing her Ph.D. from the Faculty of Management
Studies (FMS), University of Delhi. She has presented papers
at a number of conferences on Six Sigma methodology and its
implementation on which her research is also based.
e-mail: anuradha_rc@hotmail.com

Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In

that space lies our freedom and power to choose our
response. In our response lies our growth and
freedom.
— Viktor Frankl

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 29