Case Problem: XYZ Manufacturing Company - Defect Reduction in Direct Production

XYZ Manufacturing Company, a key player in electronic component production, is currently

confronted with a concerning upswing in defects within its direct production process, leading to
customer dissatisfaction and elevated rework expenditures. In a concerted effort to bolster product
quality, the company has initiated the application of seven essential quality control tools.

The business process for direct production at XYZ Manufacturing Company encompasses several
key stages. These are the following:

1. Initiate Production: Trigger production based on demand or schedules.

2. Material Procurement: Source and procure raw materials for direct production.
3. Supplier Quality Check: Conduct quality checks on incoming raw materials.
4. Inventory Management: Manage inventory levels for direct production.
5. Production Line Setup: Set up the production line with machinery, tools, and workstations.
6. Manufacturing Process: Execute the manufacturing process, including:
Soldering: Assemble electronic components.
Assembly: Integrate components to form the final product.
Quality Checks: Inspect for defects at each stage.
7. Defect Recording: Record defects identified during quality checks.
8. Root Cause Analysis: Conduct root cause analysis using the Ishikawa diagram and 5-why
analysis.
9. Process Improvement: Implement process improvements based on root cause analysis.
10. Production Line Monitoring: Continuously monitor the production line for efficiency and
quality.
11. Final Quality Check: Perform a comprehensive quality check on finished electronic
components.
12. Packaging: Package the final products securely for further processing.
13. Delivery: Deliver the to the customer.

Analyzing defect data over six consecutive weeks exposed issues across various categories,
including dimensional errors, soldering complications, scratches, circuitry problems,
contamination, and other miscellaneous defects. In Week 1, there were 5 instances of dimensional
errors, 3 soldering issues, 2 scratches, 4 circuitry problems, 1 case of contamination, and 2 other
miscellaneous defects. Moving to Week 2, the observations included 4 dimensional errors, 2
soldering issues, 1 scratch, 5 circuitry problems, no contamination, and 3 other miscellaneous
defects. Week 3 saw 3 dimensional errors, 5 soldering issues, 4 scratches, 3 circuitry problems, 2
instances of contamination, and 1 other miscellaneous defect. As the weeks progressed, fluctuations
continued, with Week 4 exhibiting 6 dimensional errors, 3 soldering issues, 3 scratches, 6 circuitry
problems, 1 case of contamination, and 2 other miscellaneous defects. Week 5 recorded 2
dimensional errors, 4 soldering issues, 2 scratches, 4 circuitry problems, 3 instances of
contamination, and 1 other miscellaneous defect. Finally, in Week 6, there were 4 dimensional
errors, 2 soldering issues, 1 scratch, 5 circuitry problems, 1 case of contamination, and 2 other
miscellaneous defects.
Through rigorous root cause analysis, the company identified challenges in multiple facets, such as
inadequate training for the workforce, irregularities in equipment calibration, absence of
standardized operating procedures (SOPs), subpar quality of soldering materials, ineffective
communication within management, and environmental conditions contributing to contamination.
Details of the RCA are the following:

Man:
Inadequate Training (Why: Lack of a comprehensive training program, Insufficient training
resources, Failure to provide continuous learning opportunities)
Machine:
Equipment Calibration Issues (Why: Irregular maintenance schedules, Lack of proper equipment
maintenance logs)
Method:
Lack of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (Why: Absence of a formalized process
documentation system, Insufficient emphasis on process documentation)
Material:
Poor-Quality Soldering Materials (Why: Vendor quality control issues, Lack of supplier quality
audits)
Management:
Ineffective Communication of Process Changes (Why: Lack of regular team meetings for updates,
Communication breakdowns in the hierarchy)
Mother Nature:
Environmental Conditions Causing Contamination (Why: Absence of a controlled production
environment, Lack of monitoring for environmental variables)

To delve deeper into the intricacies of the production process, a scatter diagram was devised to
ascertain the correlation between production line speed (X) and soldering issues (Y) for the initial
six weeks. The correlation coefficient (r) was calculated using the formula:

This formula aids in determining whether an increase in production line speed corresponds to
more soldering issues (positive correlation) or fewer issues (negative correlation).

The relationship between production line speed (X) and the occurrence of soldering issues (Y) is
detailed below:

Week Production Line Speed (X) Soldering Issues (Y)

Week 1 120 3
Week 2 130 2
Week 3 110 5
Week 4 140 3
Week 5 125 4
Week 6 135 2
In tandem with this, a control chart was formulated to illustrate the Upper Control Limit (UCL) and
Lower Control Limit (LCL) for each defect across the six-week span. These limits were computed
using the formula:

UCL=Mean+(3×Standard Deviation)
LCL=Mean−(3×Standard Deviation)

Using historical data, here are the details to support control charts:
• For Dimensional Errors: Mean = 4, Standard Deviation = 1.58
• For Soldering Issues: Mean = 3, Standard Deviation = 1.15
• For Scratches: Mean = 2, Standard Deviation = 1.07
• For Circuitry Issues: Mean = 4, Standard Deviation = 1.58
• For Contamination: Mean = 1, Standard Deviation = 0.71
• For Other Issues: Mean = 2, Standard Deviation = 0.89

As the Industrial Engineer of the company, create an improvement and control plan to reduce the
defects in direct production.