Six Sigma Project For Improving Reaction Force

DMAIC
Project Name : Black Belt Project for improving Reaction Force

Project Owner : Dipak Pandey.
1 10/10/20
Define
1. Map the Project

2. Project Charter
3. Terms and Acronyms Used
4. ARMI & Communication Plan
5. RASIC Model
6. Details process map
7. SIPOC
2 10/10/20
Map the Project Define
Key Output Characteristics

Customer Sample Comments
Important to Customer (CTQ's)
Compressor Assy. During the working of the AC cycle Improper reaction Force.
Area in charge improper clutching & clutch noise
observe in model-A compressor.
Due to improper clutching & clutch Customer complaints &
noise customer complaints & line Line Rejection PPM.
rejection PPM has been increased too
much.
3 10/10/20
Project Charter Define
Business Case: Mark Ltd is a leading car AC In Scope: : This Project is for Compressor Model A HUB
manufacturing company of India & Located in Gurgaon. Line .
Since last couple of month it has been observed that
customer complaints & Line rejection PPM has been
increased due to improper clutching & clutch noise in
model-A compressor .Due to which line rejection PPM Out of Scope: All other models & Lines.
has been increased & customer is very much dissatisfied .
& company is also loosing revenue.
Problem Statement: It has been observed that since

High Level Project Plan
Jan-13 month due to improper reaction force in M-A hub
assy. Customer complaints for improper clutching & clutch Start Date End Date
noise has been exceed the target 0 & reached up to 6 no's Define 10.03.13 31.03.13
& hub assy line rejection PPM has been exceeds the
Measure 1.03.13 15.04.13
target 1000 ppm & reached till 8526 ppm . Due to this
repeating problem, production for the same model is Analyze 16.04.13 16.05.13
hampering too much & customer is very much dissatisfied Improve 17.05.13 31.05.13
due to repeated complaints & also company is loosing Control 1.06.13 20.06.13
their revenue & business.
Goal Statement: The goal of this project will be to

eliminate the improper clutching & clutch noise problem
by improving the reaction force & hence reduce the
customer complaint up to the target 0 & line rejection
PPM within target 1000 ppm by 20th June-13.
4 10/10/20
Terms and Acronyms Used Define
Definitions:
Indicators Definition
PPM Part per million opportunity
DPMO Defect per million opportunity
DPO Defect per opportunity
mm Millimeter
5 10/10/20
ARMI & Communication Plan Define
ARMI Worksheet
Key Stakeholders Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Sponsor- CEO A/I A/I A/I A/I A/I

Champion-SGM R/I R/I R/I R/I R/I
MBB A/I A/I A/I A/I A/I

BB M M M M M
GB M M M M M
Team Members R R R R R
Communication Plan
Message Audience Media Who When

Project Status Leadership E-mails Black Belt Weekly Basis
Project Review GB,BB,MBB & E-mails or Meetings Black Belt As per Project Plan
Champion
Project Deliverables or Members Emails, Meetings Black Belt Weekly
Activities
When Populating the Stakeholder, consider the ARMI:

• A= Approver of team decisions
• R= Resource or subject matter expert (ad hoc)
• M= Member of team
• I= Interested Party who will need to be kept informed 6 10/10/20
RASIC Chart Define
7 10/10/20
Details Process Flow Diagram Define
8 10/10/20
Process Map Define
Brahma Hub, rivet, Hub Sub Assy- Compressor

(supplier) armature, Hub Riveting 1 assy. line
spring plate,
washer
NA
Hub Sub, Assy Hub Grinding Hub Sub Assy- Compressor
2 assy. line
NA
Hub Sub Assy- Reaction Force Hub Assy Compressor
2 testing assy. line
NA Hub balancing
Hub Assy Compressor
Hub Assy assy. line
Slip Torque Hub Assy Compressor

NA Hub Assy Testing assy. line
9 10/10/20
Measure
1. Data Collection Plan

2. Measurement System Analysis
3. Process Capability
10 10/10/20
Data Collection Plan Measure
Y Operational Defect Performance Specification Opportunity

Definition Definition Standard Limit
Improper Reaction force is the Sticking of Hub with Reaction force should LSL= 90N & 10 Pcs/shift
Reaction force load required to Rotor due to less lie between 90~130 N USL=130N
deflect the hub by Reaction force. within 0.5mm
0.5 mm with respect deflection.
to outer armature
when load is applied
centrally on hub
surface.
Mode of collecting Data

Existing or If New when Plan start
Data Base
new data data base date for
Container
Decimal to base would be DCP
Y Data Type Unit
be Used ready.
Improper Max up to three -

Reaction force Variable mm, Newton Excel sheet Existing -
placed.
Equipment Equipment Any

Operator
Used for Calibration Responsibility Training
Information
measurement Information need
Vernier caliper Equipment was Line QA in
calibrated with charge - - - - -
Bharti
automation on
dated 10.09.12.
11 10/10/20
Measurement System Analysis Measure
12 10/10/20
APPRISER - A APPRISER - B APPRISER - C KPI Data Type
GRR% ≤
10 Continuous
NDC ≥ 5
% Tolerance = 9.01
Number of Distinct
Categories = 15.59
%Contribution
CONCLUSION: As per MSA study carried out we get GRR%= 9.01 & NDC=15.59 which
satisfy the AIAG Requirement (GRR% ≤ 10, NDC ≥ 5). It shows that our Measurement
System is good enough for measuring the variation of the measurement System.
13
13 10/10/20
14 10/10/20
Rule Rule Description Acceptable Result
A R&R % of Tolerance <10% 9.01
% Contribution (R&R Std Smaller than Part-to-

B 99.59
deviation) part variance
C Number of distinct categories >4 15.59
Overall Gage result- Measurement system is accepectable for

taking measurement.
15 10/10/20
Process Capability for current Reaction force Measure
 Current process is
incapable since current
process potential
capability & actual
capability are 0.80 & 0.63
respectively & which is
not acceptable as per
AIAG guideline.
 Current process potential
performance & actual
performance are 0.51 &
0.40 respectively Which is
also not acceptable as per
AIAG guideline.
unstable & also not in
statistical control.
16 10/10/20
Z-Value & PPM for current process Measure
not acceptable as
long term process
capability (ZLT) is
1.06 & short term
process capability
(ZST) is only 2.56 .
also unstable & also
not in statistical
control.
 The current process
PPM has been
exceeds the current
PPM target 1000 &
has been reached till
PPM 8526.31.
17 10/10/20
Defect Pareto in Hub assy. Area During Feb-13 to April-13 Month Measure
Six sigma project has

been started to
eliminate the same.
CFT is working
on the same.
18 10/10/20
Model wise defect in Hub assy. Area During Feb-13 to April-13 Month Measure
19 10/10/20
Analyse
1. DCP for Potential Xs

2. Identify Potential Xs
3. DCP for Potential Xs
4. Basic Analysis for Project Y
5. Checking for Impact of ...... on Y
6. Hypothesis Summary
7. MSA results of Impacting Factors
20 10/10/20
Identify Potential Xs Analyse
21 10/10/20
DCP for Potential Xs Analyse
Potential Cause Type of Data Collection Test to be Used Visualization plot

Method Used
Washer thickness Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot
Regression
Hub run out Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot
Regression
Rivet height Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Regression
Rivet dia. Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Regression
Spring plate dimple Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot
dimension Regression
Flatness of hub assy. Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot
Regression
Grinding surface Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

concavity Regression
Armature surface Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

flatness Regression
22 10/10/20
Basic Analysis of Project Y Analyse
Randomness Study
 As per run
chart we can
see that process
is unstable since
there are
clustering &
trends in given
data set.
 P value for
clustering &
trend is also less
than 0.05. (P
value <0.05)
 While P-value
for Mixtures &
oscillation >0.05.
23 10/10/20
Normality Study
 Anderson Darling
test for reaction
force shows that
data is non-
normal ,since data
points are not falling
on straight line & P-
value is less than
0.05.
 P-Value < 0.005 .
24 10/10/20
Normal Graphical Plot Measure
Central Tendency & spread study
 Reaction force data is

non-normal , since
mean & median is not
coinciding & data
point is also not
symmetrical about the
mean & P-value is less
than 0.05.
 P-value < 0.005
 Data variation is also
too much since
standard deviation is
13.05.
25 10/10/20
Frequency distribution of Reaction force
 Data for
reaction force is
not showing the
central tendency
& data is also
showing too
much variation.
Some data
points are also
falling out side
lower
specification
limit .
26 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Washer Thickness on Reaction force Analyse
Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result
Correlations: Reaction force vs. Washer thickness
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Washer

thickness = 0.882
P-Value = 0.000
Regression Test : RS = 6.19062 R-Sq = 77.7% R-

Sq(adj) = 77.5%
Inference : There is a strong positive co-relation between reaction force & washer thickness since
Pearson coefficient e = 0.882 & p value is 0.000 (< 0.05) & as per Regression test R-Sq is more than
62% , Hence there is a significant impact of washer thickness on reaction force. 27 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Dimple dimension on Reaction force Analyse
Corelations: Reaction force vs Dimple dimension
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Dimple

dimension = -0.194
P-Value = 0.053
Regression Test : S = 12.8664 R-Sq = 3.8% Sq(adj)

= 2.8%
Inference : Since P-Value is 0.053(>0.05) so there is no significant co-relation between reaction force
& dimple dimension & as per Regression test also R-Sq is 3.8% (<62% ) ,Hence there is also no
significant impact of dimple dimension on reaction force. 28 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Armature flatness on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Armature flatness
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Armature

flatness = -0.168
P-Value = 0.095
Regression Test- S = 12.9286 R-Sq = 2.8% R-

Sq(adj) = 1.8%
Inference : Since P-Value is 0.095 (>0.05) so there is no significant co-relation between reaction force &
armature flatness & as per Regression test also R-Sq is 2.8% (<62% ) ,Hence there is no significant
impact of armature flatness, on reaction force.
29 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of flatness of Hub assy.on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Flatness of hub assy.
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Flatness of

hub assy. = 0.115
P-Value = 0.256
Regression Test - S = 13.0284 R-Sq = 1.3% R-

Sq(adj) = 0.3%
Inference : Since P-Value is 0.115 (>0.05) so there is no significant co-relation between reaction force
& flatness of hub assy & as per Regression test also R-Sq is 1.3% (<62% ) , Hence there is no
significant impact of flatness of hub assy on reaction force. 30 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Concavity on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Grinding surface concavity
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Grinding surface

concavity = 0.073
P-Value = 0.469
Regression Test - S = 13.0797 R-Sq = 0.5% R-Sq(adj) =

0.0%
& grinding surface concavity & as per Regression test also R-Sq is o.5 % (<62% ) , Hence there is
no significant impact of grinding surface concavity of on reaction force.
31 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Rivet Height on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Revit height
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Revit

height = 0.054
P-Value = 0.593

Sq(adj) = 0.0%
Inference : Since P-Value is 0.593(>0.05) so there is no significant co-relation between reaction force &
Rivet height& as per Regression test also R-Sq is 0.3% (<62% ) , Hence there is no significant impact
of Rivet height on reaction force.
32 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Rivet dia on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Revit dia
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Revit dia =

0.138
P-Value = 0.171

Sq(adj) = 0.9%
& Rivet dia & as per Regression test also R-Sq is 1.9% (<62% ) , Hence there is no significant
impact of Rivet dia on reaction force. 33 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of Hub Run out on Reaction force Analyse
Correlations: Reaction force, Hub run out
Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Hub run out

= 0.120
P-Value = 0.234

Sq(adj) = 0.4%
Inference : Since P-Value is 0.234(>0.05) so there is no significant co-relation between reaction force &
Hub run out & as per Regression test also R-Sq is 1.4% (<62% ) , Hence there is no significant impact
of Hub run out on reaction force. 34 10/10/20
Checking for Impact of other Potential cause on Reaction force Analyse
35 10/10/20
Hypothesis Summary Analyse
Graphical Tool
Sl. No. Factor P Value
Used
Inference Next Steps
100 pcs hub sub
Significant impact as assembly need to
1 Washer thickness 0.000 Scatter plot R-Sq=77.5 % (R-Sq done with washer
>62%) having thickness
higher side.
Scatter plot Non-significant

2 Dimple dimension 0.053 N.A
impact (R-Sq <62%)
Non-significant
3 Armature flatness 0.095 Scatter plot impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
Non-significant
Scatter plot
4 Hub assy flatness 0.256 impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
Non-significant
Scatter plot
5 Grinding surface concavity 0.469 impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
Non-significant
Scatter plot
6 Rivet height 0.593 impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
Non-significant
Scatter plot
7 Rivet dia 0.171 impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
Non-significant
Scatter plot
8 Hub run out 0.234 impact (R-Sq <62%) N.A
36 10/10/20
MSA Results of Impacting Factors Analyse
MSA
RCA for
Sl. No. Factor Method Result Next Steps
Problems
Used
ANOVA Pass (% R&R

1 Washer thickness
Method <9.01)
37 10/10/20
Improve
1. Screening of the Impacting Factors

2. Action Plan for Improving the Factors
3. Basic Analysis of Improved Y
4. Pre–Post Analysis of Project Y
5. Pre-Post Analysis of Factor
6. Improve Summary – Take Aways
38 10/10/20
Improve
1. Screening of the Impacting Factors
Impact
High Medium Low
(2) Machine Load Cell Variation

In Control (1)Washer Thickness - (3) Flatness of Resting fixture
Control
Out of

Control
39 10/10/20
Screening of the Impacting Factors Improve
Trial -1,with washer thickness size 1.44~1.50.
Step1- Take 30 pcs of washer thickness having range size of 1.44~1.50 & assembled
with hub & Armature & made a hub assy.
Step 2- Check the reaction force for this hub assy.
Step 3- Made graphical summary for observed reaction force to see the variation &
central tendency of the data.
Step 4- Also draw histogram to understand the frequency distribution of reaction force.
Step5- Do normality plot of observed reaction force to understand the normal behaviour
of the reaction force data.
Step 6- Draw scatter plot to understand the nature of relationship between reaction
force & washer thickness.
40 10/10/20
41 10/10/20
Trial-1 , Take 30 pcs of washer thickness with range of 1.44~1.50
Conclusion : When we take 30 pcs of washer thickness with range 1.44~1.50.We get improper
reaction force. At this range most of the times reaction force get at lower side & some time it goes
below specification limit .
42 10/10/20
Conclusion : 1. Normality test shows that the observed reaction force is non-normal since the P-value is
less than 0.05 (P-value<0.05).
2. Scatter plot Reaction force & washer thickness shows the positive relationship. 43 10/10/20
Trial conclusion- When we take the washer range 1.44 to1.50 mm ,we get improper
reaction force i.e some time reaction force is below specification limit.
However, by increasing the washer thickness, reaction force is also increasing.
44 10/10/20
Trial -2,with washer thickness size 1.51~1.56 mm
of the reaction force.
45 10/10/20
46 10/10/20
Conclusion : When we take 30 pcs of washer thickness with range 1.51~1.56,We get reaction force at
lower side of specification , the current date is non-centric, 47 10/10/20
Conclusion : The normality plot shows that current data set is non-normal since P-value is less than
0.05,
2. The scatter plot shows that there is a positive relation ship between reaction force & washer
thickness. 48 10/10/20
Trial conclusion- When we take the washer range 1.51 to1.56 mm ,we get
reaction force lower side of specification.
49 10/10/20
Trial -3,with washer thickness size 1.56~1.63 mm.
50 10/10/20
51 10/10/20
Conclusion : When we take 30 pcs of washer thickness with range size of 1.56~1.63 mm , We get that
reaction force observed is below nominal value & process is left hand skewness. 52 10/10/20
Conclusion : 1.The normality plot shows that current data set is normal since P-value is greater than
that 0.05,
2.The scatter plot shows that there is a positive relation ship between reaction force & washer
Trial conclusion- When we take the washer range 1.56 to1.63 mm ,we get
reaction force lower side of nominal value i.e less than 110 Newton.
54 10/10/20
Trial -4,with washer thickness size 1.64~1.70.
Step1- Take 30 pcs of washer thickness having range size of 1.64~1.70 mm &
assembled with hub & Armature & made a hub assy.
55 10/10/20
56 10/10/20
reaction force is falling around mean & also variation in data point is less. 57 10/10/20
that 0.05 ( P-value>0.126)
Trial conclusion- When we take the washer range 1.64 to1.70mm ,we get
reaction force is normally distributed around mean.
59 10/10/20
Trial -5,with washer thickness size 1.71~1.76 mm
60 10/10/20
61 10/10/20
reaction force are normally distributed as P-value is greater than 0.05. 62 10/10/20
that 0.05 ( P-value>0.077)
Trial conclusion- When we take the washer range size of 1.71to1.76mm , we

get reaction force observed is above nominal value but within specification limit.
64 10/10/20
Trial-6 , If we take Washer thickness greater than>1.76 mm
If we take washer thickness more than 1.76 mm ,we face following problems-
1.Insufficient Rivet height – If we increase the washer thickness above 1.76 mm, then we
have to also increase the rivet height for proper hub sub assy.
2. Spring plate dimple dimension need to change- If we increase the washer

more than 1.76 , then we have to also increase the spring plate dimple
dimension for getting proper reaction force.
65 10/10/20
Trial-6 , If we take Washer thickness greater than >1.76 mm
Trial conclusion- Since for washer thickness more than 1.76mm,we have to change
rivet height & spring plate dimple dimension so we could not take this opportunity for
trial to check reaction force. Because it involve high cost .
66 10/10/20
Trial conclusion- By different trials we get the following results-
Trial Washer Thickness Obtained Reaction force (N) Required Rxn Force (N)Spec.
Trial-1 1.44~1.50 mm 88~95 90-130
Trial-2 1.51~1.55 mm 90~98 90-130
Trial-3 1.56~1.63 mm 95~105 90-130
Trial-4 1.64~1.70 mm 104.30~112.50 90-130
Trial -5 1.70~1.76 mm 110~120.50 90-130
Trial-6 >1.76 mm Can not check
Result- By above observations we have decided to revised washer thickness from 1.44-1.76 mm to
1.56~1.76 mm.
67 10/10/20
Child part used in Hub sub assy. Improve
Hub Spring plate Rivet-1
Rivet-2 Washer Hub
Armature
Hub sub assy.
68 10/10/20
Impact of changing washer thickness Improve
Before After
Comments- Washer having Comments- Modified washer

thickness 1.60±0.16 mm. thickness with specification
1.66±0.1 mm.
Benefit- - Clearance between spring plate, hub & armature will ensured .
- Modified washer thickness helped in reduction of reaction force NG
Problem.
69 10/10/20
Impact of changing washer thickness specification to other part specification Improve
Hub
Comments- Hub dimension no need to change.
Armature
Comments- Armature dimension no need to change.
70 10/10/20
Impact of changing washer thickness specification to other part specification Improve
Spring plate
Comments- Spring plate dimension no need to change
Revit-1
Comments- Rivet-1, dimension no need to change .
Revit-2
Comments- Rivet-2, dimension no need to change .
71 10/10/20
Action Plan for Improving the Factors Improve
Implementatio
Implementatio
# Pain Area Root Cause Improvement Idea n
n Status
Owner
Washer thickness required

Less washer
specification range revised &
thickness cause
Washer thickness new washer thickness range
more clearance
having lower side defined with less variation • Mr. Amit
between spring
1 specification ,Current specification Sharma/Dipak Done
plate, hub &
cause improper was1.44~1.76 mm which has pandey
armature create
reaction force. been revised to new
improper
specification 1.56 ~1.76 mm,
reaction force.
to get proper reaction force,
72 10/10/20
Basic Analysis of Improved Y Improve
Randomness Study
 Improved Reaction force

shows that process is
stable since data are
randomly distributed
around mean.
 P-Value for clustering,
mixtures, trends ,
oscillation are greater
than 0.05.
Spread Study
 P-Value for-
Clustering> 0.286
Mixtures>.714
Trends>0.197
Oscillation>0.803
73 10/10/20
Graphical summary
 Graphical summary
for improved
Reaction force shows
that process is
normally distributed
around mean since
P-Value >0.05 .
 P-value for
improved process is
0.062.
74 10/10/20
 Anderson Darling test for improved reaction

force shows that data points are falling on
 Histogram for improved Reaction force
straight line & data is normal since P-value > shows that date points are normally
0.05 distributed around mean ,
 P-value for improved reaction force P=0.062  Process is centric & process variation is
also less.
75 10/10/20
 Improved process is
capable since current
process potential
capability & actual
capability are 3.01 &
2.30 respectively &
which is acceptable as
per AIAG guideline.
 Current process
potential
performance &
actual performance
are 2.61 & 1.99
respectively Which is
also acceptable as per
AIAG guideline.
Stable & also in
statistical control.
76 10/10/20
acceptable as long
term process
capability (ZLT)
is 5.97 & short
term process
capability (ZST) is
7.47.
stable & also is in
stastical control.
 PPM has been
reduced till 937.5
i.e within given
target.
77 10/10/20
Before Improved project After Improved project
Six sigma project

has been started
to eliminate the
same.
78 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Project Y Reaction force Improve
Graphical Description Before: Improvement Graphical Description After Improvement
 The pre & post graphical distribution shows that pre-project the mean was 105.66 & post
project this is 108.39, pre project the std. Dev was 13.05 & post project it is 6.06,also the P-value
for pre project of improving reaction force was<0.05 & post project P-value is >0.05 i.e. 0.062,
79 10/10/20
Pre-Post Analysis of Factor washer thickness Improve
Washer Thickness Before improvement Washer Thickness After improvement
 The pre & post graphical distribution of washer thickness shows that before project the washer thickness
variation is more & std. deviation is 0.0865 & the mean of the given data set is 1.589, while after improvement
project the washer thickness variation is less & the std.dev is .0591 & the mean of the given date set is 1.668.
80 10/10/20
Improve Summary – Take Aways Improve
Since low washer thickness cause improper reaction force so to get the correct washer thickness
range, six trials for different washer thickness range done & used different statistical tool to see
the relationship of getting reaction force with washer thickness. The result of all six trials are
following-
Trial Washer thickness Observed RXn force Specification limit
Trial-1 1.44~1.50 mm 88~95 90-130
Trial-2 1.51~1.55 mm 90~98 90-130
Trial-3 1.56~1.63 mm 95~105 90-130
Trial-4 1.64~1.70 mm 104.30~112.50 90-130
Trial -5 1.70~1.76 mm 110~120.50 90-130
Trial-6 >1.76 mm Not feasible
Since for washer thickness range 1.44~1.50 & 1.51~1.55 whatever the reaction force get that is
either lower side or out side of desired specification.
While by using washer thickness range 1.56~1.76 mm get better reaction force required for
proper clutching.
Trial for washer thickness range >1.76 mm can not do because for this washer thickness range
,rivet height & dimple dimension have to change so this is not feasible.
So finally washer thickness range revised & decided a new washer thickness range of 1.56~1.76
mm, Made 100 pcs with modified washer thickness & checked reaction force ,Then draw the run
chart found that data is stable, by graphical summary observed that data is normal & also calculate
the capability of the process & is found that process is mature , stable & predictable.
81 10/10/20
Control
1. Control Plan & FMEA on Control Plan

2. Time Series Study of Y – Pre & Post
3. Control Charts & Inference for Y – Pre & Post
4. Basic Analysis of Improved Y
5. Establish Process Capability
6. Control Charts & Inference (for X1)
7. Control Charts & Inference (for X2)
8. Cost Benefit Analysis and Sign Off
82 10/10/20
Control Plan & FMEA on Action Plan Control
Decision
What’s Goal/Spec Who/What Where Rule /
Control Method SOP
Controlled Limits Measures Recorded Corrective
Action
Work
instruction
5 Pcs check per lot in Washer updated &
1. Washer SQIG & Control chart SQIG Team/Washer Inspection thickness displayed at
1.66±0.1mm
Thickness implemented to monitor thickness check sheet must be within station for
the same. speciation. modified
washer
thickness.
Work
5 Pcs checked per shift &
Line Reaction force instruction
2. Reaction control chart implemented Product audit
110±20 N Engineer/Reaction must be within updated &
force for monitoring the washer check sheet
force specification. displayed at
thickness.
station
83 10/10/20
FMEA Review updating as per change washer thickness Improve
84 10/10/20
Quality Plan Review Control
(1) Change in Washer thickness Dim. In Drawing & Inspection Test Plan.
85 10/10/20
Control chart for Reaction Force Control
86 10/10/20
Control Charts for Washer Thickness Control
87 10/10/20
Basic Analysis of Improved Y Control
 The pre & post graphical distribution shows that pre-project the mean was 105.66 & post project
this is 108.39, pre project the std. Dev was 13.05 & post project it is 6.06,also the P-value for pre
project for reaction force was<0.05 & post project P-value for same is >0.05 i.e 0.062.
88 10/10/20
Establish Process Capability Control
Process Capability – Post Implementation
 Improved process is
capable since current
process capability is
Cp=3.01 & Cpk =2.30
& current process
performance is
Pp=2.61 & Ppk =1.99
 ZLT=5.97 &
ZST=7.47
Z Bench Short Term Sigma

(Long Term Sigma) (Long Term Sigma +1.5)
5.97 7.47
89 10/10/20
Project Summary Control
Define: It observed that hub assy Line rejection PPM reached up to 8526 PPM against target 1000 PPM
due to improper clutching & clutch noise , caused by insufficient Reaction force between Hub & Rotor
which leads to increase in customer complaints & hence customer dissatisfaction .
Measure: Before Analysing the Problem we did-
1) validation of the measurement System by R & R Study and observed that the Measurement System is
good enough for measuring the variation of the measurement System.
2) Normality Test for the current Process data of Reaction Force which is found Non-Normal & very low
Process Capability with one side skewness and draw run chart found that process is unstable.
Analyze: During analysis we did brainstorming and validate all Potential Causes and found the
Significant root Cause as improper reaction force is low washer thickness as reaction force is very much
dependent on Washer thickness and check its effectiveness by performing co-relation & regression test.
Improve: Since during analysis we found that assy line rejection PPM & customer complaint is due to
improper clutching & clutch noise caused by insufficient Reaction force between Hub & Rotor and found
that Improper clutching &clutch noise is due to less reaction force which we found is directly dependent
on washer thickness.
so we reduced the variation of the washer thickness to improve the reaction force.
After implementation of new washer with revised thickness we checked the normality of Reaction force
and found ok & Process capability of Washer thickness & Reaction force which is found more than 1.67
which confirms that the action taken has eliminated the root cause & hence reduce the assy line rejection
PPM up to within target & customer complaint up to zero.
Control: We Control the Action Plan taken by implementing the-
1) Quality Plan for Washer thickness at Incoming Quality Stage.
2) Control Chart for monitoring the Reaction Force & washer thickness and same has been updated in
Control Plan & PFMEA.
90 10/10/20
Project Benefits Control
Compression Chart Pre & Post improvement
 As per above comparison chart , we can see Line rejection PPM before improvement project
was 8526 & customer complaint was 6 no's while after improvement project PPM is 937 ( which
is within target) & customer complaint is 0.
91 10/10/20
Cost Benefit Analysis Control
92 10/10/20
Thanks
Analysis
93 10/10/20

Six Sigma Project For Improving Reaction Force

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma Project For Improving Reaction Force

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DMAIC

Project Name : Black Belt Project for improving Reaction Force

1. Map the Project

Key Output Characteristics

Area in charge improper clutching & clutch noise

observe in model-A compressor.

Due to improper clutching & clutch Customer complaints &

noise customer complaints & line Line Rejection PPM.

rejection PPM has been increased too

Problem Statement: It has been observed that since

Goal Statement: The goal of this project will be to

PPM Part per million opportunity

DPMO Defect per million opportunity

DPO Defect per opportunity

Key Stakeholders Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Sponsor- CEO A/I A/I A/I A/I A/I

MBB A/I A/I A/I A/I A/I

Message Audience Media Who When

When Populating the Stakeholder, consider the ARMI:

Brahma Hub, rivet, Hub Sub Assy- Compressor

Slip Torque Hub Assy Compressor

1. Data Collection Plan

Y Operational Defect Performance Specification Opportunity

Mode of collecting Data

Improper Max up to three -

Equipment Equipment Any

APPRISER - A APPRISER - B APPRISER - C KPI Data Type

Rule Rule Description Acceptable Result

A R&R % of Tolerance <10% 9.01

% Contribution (R&R Std Smaller than Part-to-

C Number of distinct categories >4 15.59

Overall Gage result- Measurement system is accepectable for

Six sigma project has

1. DCP for Potential Xs

Potential Cause Type of Data Collection Test to be Used Visualization plot

Rivet height Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Rivet dia. Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Grinding surface Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Armature surface Continuous Check sheet Co-relation & Scatter plot

Central Tendency & spread study

 Reaction force data is

Frequency distribution of Reaction force

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Correlations: Reaction force vs. Washer thickness

Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Washer

Regression Test : RS = 6.19062 R-Sq = 77.7% R-

Corelations: Reaction force vs Dimple dimension

Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Dimple

Regression Test : S = 12.8664 R-Sq = 3.8% Sq(adj)

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Correlations: Reaction force, Armature flatness

Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Armature

Regression Test- S = 12.9286 R-Sq = 2.8% R-

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Correlations: Reaction force, Flatness of hub assy.

Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Flatness of

Regression Test - S = 13.0284 R-Sq = 1.3% R-

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Correlations: Reaction force, Grinding surface concavity

Pearson correlation of Reaction force and Grinding surface

Regression Test - S = 13.0797 R-Sq = 0.5% R-Sq(adj) =

Graphical Depiction Hypothesis Result

Correlations: Reaction force, Revit height