Six Sigma at Ericsson

Six Sigma
@
Ericsson
”Operational Excellence in everything we do”

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18
Patrizia Ratto
 Laurea in Scienze dell’Informazione (Pisa)
 Lavoro in Marconi/Ericsson dal 1993
 Software Engineer (applicazioni militari)
 Team Leader (Sviluppo NMS per applicazioni militari)
 Responsabile sviluppo soluzioni di collaudo
 Operational Development Manager
 Gestione cambiamento/Corsi interni/Migliormamento ordinabilita’ prodotti
 6σ Black Belt
 Nata a Genova il 10/02/1966, sposata, due figli Lorenzo (2003)
Davide (2006)
 patrizia.ratto@ericsson.com

”
”
What brought us here
will not keep us here

Research show that only 16% of change
programs are successfully delivered
Most Transformations Fail … … Usually Due To Poor Ownership Building
16% Successful
(delivered on time and on budget)
45%
• Clear statement of requirements 31% Cancelled 41%
40%
• User involvement 40%
• Exec. Mgmt. support • Business Case invalid
• Proper training • Funding 35% 33%
• Prioritization
30%
25% 23% 23%
20%
15%
Source: Standish Group International 10%

53% Underperform
5%
(late, over budget and/or deliver less than the requirement)
• Incomplete requirements 0%
• Lack of Exec Mgmt support and commitment Lack of Snr Lack of Lack of Lack of a Clear Lack of Clear
• Poor communications Mgmt Communication Consistent Integrated Realistic
• Lack of consistent follow-through Commitment Follow - Implement. Objectives
• Lack of implementation capacity Through
• Unclear, unrealistic objectives

What is Six Sigma?
1. A strategy for:
 For cutting costs, increasing quality, shortening lead-
times, boosting efficiency etc in a very rapid manner.
2. A methodology and a tool-box.
 Well proven quality tools packed in effective project
models.
 A common vocabulary and language.
3. A mindset and cultural change.
 Reveals non-value add costs to operational leaders and
brings “a sense of urgency” culture to the organization.
 A non-firefighting approach that is focusing on critical
business areas.

The history of Six Sigma
‘74 MATSUSHITA takes over loss-making Quasar (Television

manufacturer) from Motorola (150-180 defects per 100 TV’s)
‘79 Defects reduced to 3 per 100 TV’s
‘80 Quasar reports success to ASQC (Hitzelberger Report)
‘84 Bill Smith visits Quasar & recommends to Galvin (CEO) the Six
Sigma process
‘88 Motorola wins 1st Malcolm Baldridge Award
‘89 Onwards Six Sigma adopted by other companies Allied Signal,

GE, Rank Xerox, Kodak, ABB, Siebe,…

Why Six-Sigma ?
99% Good (3,8 99.9997% Good (6

• 20,000 lost articles of mail per hour • Seven articles lost per hour
• Unsafe drinking water for almost 15 minutes • Unsafe drinking water one minute every
seven months
each day
• 1.7 incorrect surgical operations/week
• 5,000 incorrect surgical operations/week
• One short or long landing every five years
• Two short or long landings at most major
airports each day
• 68 wrong drug prescriptions/year
• 200,000 wrong drug prescriptions/year
• One hour without electricity every 34 years
• No electricity for almost 7 hours/month

Six Sigma Trained People at
Ericsson
3000
Green Belt::
Belt:
Trained Six Sigma employees
2500 A six to nine day DMAIC or IDDOV selected

tools training for people who apply Six Sigma
in daily operations and drives smaller project. e-Belts
2000 Yellow Belt::

Belt:
A three to five day DMAIC and simple Six Green Belts
Sigma tools training for people who apply Six
Sigma in daily operations.
1500 Yellow Belts
Manager Training:
A two to three day training in
coaching/managing improvements
1000 and efficient sponsorship Managers
Black Belts:
Change agents trained 20 days in
change mgmt, statistical tools and
500 qualitative methods. Black Belts
Requirement: 1MSEK saving
Peter Häyhänen
Six Sigma at Ericsson– organic growth
1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07
Problemsolving
Problemsolving Problemsolving Problemsolving Problemsolving Problemsolving Cost. reduc.
Purpose
Cost. reduc. Cost. reduc. Cost. reduc. Cost. reduc. Lead time reduc.
Lead time reduc. Lead time reduc. Lead time reduc. HR, Forecasting
Product develop. HR, Forcasting MU Efficiency & C.S
Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly

Test + Sourcing Test + Sourcing Test + Sourcing Test + Sourcing Test + Sourcing
Process
R&D - HW R&D - HW R&D - HW R&D - HW

Logistics Logistics Logistics Logistics
R&D - SW R&D - SW R&D - SW
Support Support
Services
Black Belt Black Belt Black Belt Black Belt Black Belt Black Belt
Trainings
Mngrs training Mngrs training Mngrs training Mngrs training Mngrs training Mngrs training
Yellow Belt Yellow Belt Yellow Belt Yellow Belt Yellow Belt
Champion Champion Champion Champion
White Belt White Belt White Belt White Belt
Green Belt Green Belt
Results
~750 Ksek/proj ~1,2 MSEK/proj ~1,2 MSEK/proj ~10 MSEK/proj ~10 MSEK/proj ~10 MSEK/proj
~10 proj ~100 proj ~250 proj ~350 proj ~400 proj ~500 proj

Six Sigma Deployment Structure
Champions: Master Black Belts:

A Business aligned two day add-on Is a Black Belt trainer, project- and
training to the line managers training. management team (MT) coach.
Gives you deployment strategies, Six Runs typically cross functional
Sigma to business alignment and Six projects, is a methodology coach
Sigma program support. for ~10 Black Belts, helps M.T. to
align the Six Sigma initiatives with
the business strategy.
Six Sigma Line Mgrs:

A two day training in tools
and project models to Black Belts:
Belts:
coach and drive Six 1-2 % of the staff is
Sigma work in projects trained in 20 days in
and processes. You learn defining and driving
what to expect from your business goals aligned
Black-, Yellow and projects selected and
White belts is you do sponsored by the top
your share of the work. management.
White Belts: Yellow-

Yellow / Green Belts:
Is an universal training for blue collar workers and everybody A three or six day DMAIC and simple Six Sigma tools training is for
who only wants an introduction. In one day you get an people who wants to apply Six Sigma in daily operations and drive
understanding of COPQ and Variation. tasks in Black Belt projects.

New Tools Same Behaviours?

Six Sigma is a systematic, pragmatic
and focused approach to fulfill
business objectives Well proven tools
& techniques
SPS QFD
7QCT
Exposure of Non-value add

Operations &
DoE
Yield
T-test
Taguchi
FMEA
7MT
PDSA
Regression
Cost Of Poor Quality Costs ANOVA

Capability
Benchmark
and Non Value-Add 

applied in
thoroughly defined
operations Value add
project assignments
Design Improvement
Ericsson’s view
objectives objectives
An customer of corporate
contribution Identify Define
focused Define Measure
Outside In Design Analyze
thinking Customer view of

Ericsson contribution Optimize Improve
Not an vague philosophy and religion that many un-trained Validate Control
people tends to think. A statistical toolbox used to focus on

variation, probability for defects and cost of failures
A proper definition of the program is critical for
successful performance
Activities from
DMAIC - Define
Problem
statement
 Why is this change needed?
Baseline
analysis
 Understand where do we stand today?
Business
case
 What is the financial value of this change?
Goal
statement
 Which performance results has to be achieved?
Stakeholder
mgmt
 From whom do we need strong commitment?
Risk
analysis
 What can go wrong and hinder success?
Project
 How is the change program going to be undertaken? plan
Project
 How can the project easily be summarized? charter
”A problem well stated is a problem half solved”

What is Quality?
Why measure?
We don't know
what we don't know ...
If we can’t put number to it

we really do not know much about it…
If we don't know much about it

we can not act ...
If we can not act,

we are at the mercy of chance ...
Dr Mikel J Harry
”Six Sigma founder Motorola”

“Good quality does not
necessarily mean high quality. It
means a predictable degree of
uniformity and dependability at
low cost with a quality suited
to the market.”
Dr. W. Edwards Deming

Why do we need to work with
quality?
 Customer satisfaction
 Market share
 Revenue
 Operational Efficiency
 Cost reduction
 Higher profitability
 Less claims
 Less rework
 Less material
 Higher ITO (Inventory Turn Over)

Six Sigma is a systematic way to
Operational Excellence
Change
Management
Successful
Deployment
Results Methodology

I have no time for any salesman.
I’m going to war!

The hidden change barriers
-Formal authority-
-Logic- -Procedures-
Change leaders
-Organization charts- -Budget-
-Time schedule- -Tools/Methods-
-Fear- -Trust- -Informal authority-

-Self esteem- -Previous experiences-
-Private life- -Social networks-
-Hierarchy- -Personal perspective-
-Personal & Organizational self confidence-
-Insecurity- -Culture and atmosphere-
-Unclear communication- -Conservatism-
-Status- -Disbelief- -Prestige-
-Rumors- -Unspoken consequences-

Change Management distribution
Terrorists &
Resistors “Change Leaders”
50%
5% 20% 20% 5%
I will If I I’ll go!
I’ll wait and see May I,
never! absolutely
Can I?
must

Change
Management
Successful
Deployment
Results Methodology

Existing
Business
Goals
Six Sigma
Design Integrated Improvements

IDDOV Tool by tool DMAIC
Well proven tools

& techniques
Black Belts SPS QFD
7QCT
Line Managers DoE
Yield Taguchi
FMEA
7MT
• Coaching
Champions
T-test
ANOVA
Regression
Capability
PDSA
Benchmark • External Benchmark
Yellow Belts
 • Best practice data base

Change
Management
Successful
Deployment
Results
Methodology

Project models within Ericsson
D F SS V
ign s-
d es O
Ne w D
D
I
K G E A Improvements
M L J I D M A I C
D B H
F C Oth
e r ”J
P u st
do
R it” P
r oje
O cts
/Pr
P ogr
am
S s

Design For Six Sigma (IDDOV – the concept)
Validate Product & Process
Stakeholders Validate product (and process) performance
to CTQ’s and customer and stakeholder
Use Corporate Business
Goals and flow down to Customers requirements.
Understand and quantify Set up appropriate product and process
Design financial goals
control mechanisms to establish long
Identify
and Business Case Customers needs and TG5
requirements term quality assurance
History
Evaluate historical
TG1 Validate
Define
external & internal
data to find CTQs TG4
TG2 Optimize
Define “Critical To Quality”
characteristics Design TG3 Optimize Product
& Process design
Flow-down Customer,
Stakeholder, Governmental Run experiments, analyze data
and History critical to Design Product & Process concept and set design and process
Satisfaction Y´s down to parameters to optimize for
Build concepts and judge them to robustness.
tangible CTQ’s and
CTQ’s and X’s.
design X’s
Simulate and explore product robustness to manufacturing
and usage variation.
Simulate and explore process robustness to product and
manufacturing variation.

Design For Six Sigma (IDDOV – the tools)
Validate Product & Process
DOE Anova
Gauge R&R P-diagram
Stakeholders Customers SPC Regression analysis
Stakeholder map, Surveys, VOC Poke-Yoke Fault trees
Capability analysis DMAIC
Identify
Business Case Taguchi Loss functions TG5
CTQ-tree Kano-model PCM (yield matrix)
History
7QCT,
Capability analysis
TG1 CTQ-scorecard
CTQ Requ Sim. P.1 P.2 Pre.S PRA
Validate
Define
X tol//
Regression analysis Y tol// TG4
Optimize
Z dpmo
etc..
Find “Critical To Quality” TG2
characteristics
QFD
Design TG3 Optimize Product
& Process design
CTQ-tree
Build a Product & Process concept DOE Robust engineering
Cause& Effect matrix
Gauge R&R Regression analysis
Taguchi Loss functions
Pugh Concept Selection Matrix Poke-Yoke Fault trees
Business case
Process mapping Capability analysis PCM (yield matrix)
CTQ-scorecard
Taguchi Loss functions Anova DMAIC
Benchmarking
Simulations (Lead-times, Yield, Cost etc)
PCM (yield matrix)
FMEA (Product, Process, Supply-chain)
Capability analysis
Robust engineering
PCM (yield matrix)

IDDOV What should we
offer and is it a What is our
What is the market economical previous design
(n * customer) need beneficial deal for track record?
behind the us?
requirements?
Surveys, Kano-model Process

focus groups, Business Case Capability
interviews Loss Functions
Identify Voice of the Customer Voice of the Business Voice of the Process
Customer
Satisfaction

satisfied
r
tte
We understand what has to be done or
ei
s be
from a product, process and financial standpoint. delight M

Offerings
omitted included
Process Variation Quality Loss Function Must b
e
Equip. Order/ Pick-Up & Customer
More Less 
Billing
Less
Mgmt. Leasing Delivery Service
correct Correct correct Customer

CSR
CSR Branch Servicer
CSR
CSR
calls for
qualifies
Enters case shedules fixes
verifies
completes dissatisfied
Process map
customers customer
repair in CIS repair problem case
need satisfaction
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

IDDOV
Voice of the Voice of the
Customer Voice of Process
the
Business Quotations
Accessible sales staff
No errors (did
Benchmark
Define
understand custiomer
Responsivness
needs)
Meets customer needs
Cause & Effect diagram, 7MT Delivery

No updates
Loss functions,
Shorter lead-times
To site delivery
Installation Short assambly time
Stakeholder map,
Equip. Order/ Pick-Up &Customer
Billing
Mgmt. Leasing Delivery Service
Test trail done
same day as site
Customer
CSR
qualifies
CSR Branch Servicer
CSR
verifies
CSR CTQ tree, QFD, installation
calls for Enters caseshedules fixes completes

repair
customers
need
in CIS repair problem
customer
satisfaction
case
Q systemization
Step-10
Correlation
Matrix
Ytot = 85% Target Yield Key specific goals critical to Step-5 Technical Descriptors -"Voice of the Engineer"
Step-6 Direction of Improvement
achieve in the design work (CTQ). Step-1

Customer
Requirements
A: Yield=? B: Yield=? C: Yield=? D: Yield=? Step-4
Step-7 Relationship Matrix
Customer
defects X1 defects X2 defects X1,5 defects X1 Rating of the
How, when and who must we assure Step-2 Step-3 Competition

Regulatory Customer
Requirements Importance
Ratings
Functions
CTQs trough the design activities?

Functions Functions Function
Y1=? Y1=? Y1=? s Step - 8 Technical Analysis of Competitor Products
Y2=? Y2=? Y2=?
Y3=? Y3=? Y1…Y
Y310=?
=? Step - 9 Target Values for Technical Descriptors
Y4=? Y4=? Y4=?
S&D=1,5 Step-11 Absolute Importance
Y5=? Y5=? Y5=99.993
F6=50 dpmo F6 = 25 dpmo
S&D=1,5 F7=150 dpmo F7 =15 dpmo
F8 =90 dpmo
S&D=0,9
S&D=1,6

IDDOV CTQ-scorecard
DFSS Scorecard
X tol//
Y tol//
Pugh
2 4 Z dpmo
Parameter/ Concept 1. Functional 2. Project 3. Matrix- 4. Product- etc..

Importance
organisation organisation organisation of generation

(description) (description) functions and top organisation
five customers (description)
Montecarlo & statistical

(description)
Knowledge development 1 S W S W
Concept
Flexibility 1 S B S S
Customer focus 1 S B B S
simulations
Cost control 2 SS BB SS WW
Co-operation 1 S B B S
Simplicity for new 1 S W S B

employees.
Long term continuity 1 S W W W
Sum
1
0W 3W/5B 1W/2B
3
4W/1B
Selection Matrix (functions, Lead-times, Yield, Cost etc)
DOE
FMEA (Design, Process, Supply-chain) Noise parameters
Potential
Failure Effects E
S
Potential Causes O
C
Current Controls D R
E P
Actions
T N Recommended Resp.
P-diagrams
C
V
Motor frame is unstable
1 Operator 6 1 Coding chart to
Out-put
System
Design
3 Operator skill/training knowledge
Ticket specifies -
8 be issued & Darren
displayed
Input
but coded by machine
Wooler
parameters parameter (
(x’s)
Engineering (design) parameters
Taguchi Loss
Statistical tolerancing
functions Transfer
Quality Loss Function
Process Variation Q systemization 12  22  32   2 Total
Less More Less
functions
correct Correct correct Sum of all
Material
Process.
Rework
ScrapTotal Yield (fp)
Part Part Part

...
TK (sek)10700 2360 1523 79315376 25%
SMD RF-TXRF-RXSUBET - 1ET - 2ET - 3SYST

SYST SYS
E1 E2
Final ETotal
Production tariff (sek)
Reparation tariff (sek)
Material cost (sek)
Repair material cost
3000 4200 4200 3000 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
525 525 525 525 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
3500 3000 3000 200
400 400
1000 10700 / / / parts
syst syst syst
Processtime (min) 4,0 6,0 6,0 2,5 4,6 6,0 9,0 7,0 24,0 10,0 35,0
1:st reparationtime (min) 0,0 20,0 20,0 5,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 0,0 60,0 120,0 60,0
2:nd reparationtime (min) 20,0 20,0 5,0 45,0 60,0 60,0 0,0 60,0 90,0 60,0
3:rd reparationtime (min) 20,0 20,0 5,0 90,0 90,0 90,0 0,0 60,0 90,0 60,0
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 4:th reparationtime (min)
Processtime after rep.
Yield 1:st pass (%)
Yield 2:nd pass (%)
0,0 0,0 0,0 90,0 90,0 90,0 0,0 60,0 90,0 60,0
0,0 6,0 6,0 5,0 4,6 6,0 9,0 7,0 24,0 10,0 35,0
75% 80% 89% 90% 98% 95% 90% 85% 95% 85% 90%
100% 90% 95% 95% 99% 98% 95% 100% 98% 93% 95% em em em
Yield 3:rd pass (%) 100% 95% 97% 98% 100% 99% 98% 100% 99% 96% 98%
Yield 4:th pass (%) 100% 98% 99% 100%100%100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 100%
1 2 3
Scrap % 1,00%2,00%2,00%0,75%0,01%0,01%1,00%0,00%0,01%1,00%0,01%
Rejections from later steps3,00%
(%) 15,00% 15,00%1,00%0,00%0,00%
10,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%0,00%
Processing cost (sek) 1:st200,0 420,0 420,0125,0 57,5 75,0112,5 87,5 300,0125,0437,5 2360
Capability
Lower Spec
Upper analysis
Spec
Capability analysis
Reparation cost (sek)
Scrapp cost (sek)
0,0 87,5 59,9 8,1 8,8 38,5136,5 0,0 45,2 240,9 88,6 714
37,0 76,8 74,9 90,3 1,2 1,2 126,4 0,0 1,3 146,2 1,5 557
Lower Capability
Spec
Upper
Lower SpecSpec
Upper analysis
Spec
Proc. cost after repair (sek) 0,0 334,1 263,3 43,8 1,7 6,6 21,1 0,0 27,1 33,9 77,6 809
Capability
Lower analysis
Spec
Upper SpecSpec
Capability analysis
Material cost repair (sek)
Total cost
135,0 101,3
3737 4053 391912177122461236712764
0,0
12851,4142251477115376
236
10.65
10.75
10.85
Short-Term
Cp
2.83
Targ
11.0010.95
11.05
11.15
11.25
11.35
Capability
10.9525
%>USLPPM>USL
Exp Lower
Exp Spec Upper
3.17
CPU
CPL
CpkUSL
L
2.50
Cpmk
1.91
n SLsMean
11.40
0.1211.0937
10.65
5360.00
Cp
2.83 10.75
Mean+3s
10.60 10.85
10.8113
MUSL
ean-3s
Short-Term
0.0471
Targ
3.17
CPU 11.00 0.00
10.95
%<LSL11.05
Obs
0.00
Mean 11.15
10.65 11.25
10.75
Obs 11.35
PPM<LSL
10.85
10.9525
Short-Term
11.40
Obs
Exp
Capability
10.95
%>USL11.05
Obs
11.15 Exp
11.25
PPM>USL 11.35
Exp
Capability Exp
Extra processtime (min) 0,00 3,15 2,14 0,93 0,14 0,53 2,59 1,05 2,17 2,71 6,20
CPL
Cpk
CpmkL
nSL
2.50
1.91 CpsMean+3s
10.60
0.12
3.17
CPU
5360.00
CPL
Cpk
2.50
Cpm n
11.0937
MUSL
2.83Lean-3s
10.8113
kTarg
0.0471
SL 0.00
%<LSL
11.00 Obs
PPM<LSL
10.9525
sMean
10.65
Mean+3s
0.00
11.40 Obs
11.0937
Mean-3s
10.60
10.8113
Short-Term
0.12
5360.00
Cp 0.0471
Targ
%>USL
10.75
10.85
%<LSL
11.00
Obs
Exp
PPM>USL
10.95
11.05
Obs
0.00
Obs Exp
Exp
11.15
11.25
11.35
PPM<LSL
0.00
Obs Obs
Exp
Capability
Obs Exp
Exp
Capacity loss due to repair 0% 34% 26% 27% 3% 8% 22% 13% 8% 21% 15%
1.91 2.83
CPU
3.17
CPL
Cpk USL
kL
2.50
Cpm
1.91
n SL sMean
11.40
0.12
5360.00
Cp
2.83
CPU
3.17
CPL
10.9525
10.65
Mean+3s
10.60
LSL
%>USL
10.75
11.0937
MUSL
ean-3s
10.8113
Short-Term
0.0471
Targ11.00
0.00
10.85
Mean
11.40
PPM>USL
10.95
11.05
%<LSLObs Exp
11.15
11.25
11.35
Obs
PPM<LSL
Exp
Capability
0.00
Mean+3s
M Obs
10.9525
%>USL
11.0937
ean-3s
10.60 ObsExp
PPM>USL
0.00
10.8113
%<LSLObs
Exp
Exp
Exp
PPM<LSL Exp
Obs Exp
Cpk
2.50
Cpm
1.91k 0.12
s
n 5360.00 0.0471
0.00
Obs Obs

IDDOV CTQ-scorecard DFSS Scorecard Risk Priority Number
(RPN)
X tol//
Potential Causes O Current Controls D R Actions
Potential
Gage n am e: Y tol// S C E P
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Meas ure
Date of s tud y : Failure Effects E T N Recommended Resp.
Repo rte d by :
C
Toleran c e :
V
Motor frame is unstable
Mi sc : Z dpmo 1 Operator 6 1 Coding chart to
Components of Variation
4 4.25
B y Part ID 3 Operator skill/training knowledge 8 be issued & Darren
etc..
100 %Con tri bu ti on
%Stu d y Var Ticket specifies - displayed Wooler
%T ole ran c e 4 4.15
but coded by machine
Perc e n t
50
4 4.05
0 4 3.95
Gag e R&R Rep ea t Re p rod Pa rt -to -Part Pa rt ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SEV * OCC * DET = RPN
R Chart by Name
4 4.25
By Name
SEV * OCC * DET = RPN
(3 *1*6 = 18)
Joe M ar y Pat
0.04 UCL =0.0 418 2
Recommended actions
Sa m ple Ra ng e
(3 *1*6 = 18)
FMEA
0.03 4 4.15
0.02
4 4.05
and person responsible
0.01 R=0 .0 12 80
0.00 L CL =0 4 3.95
for implementation.
0 Na m e Joe M ary Pat
X bar Chart by Name Name*P art ID Interaction

Joe M ar y Pat Na m e
44 .2 J oe
Gauge R&R
44 .2
Sa m p l e M ea n
M a ry
UCL =44 . 14
M e an =4 4.1 1 Pat
Av e ra g e
44 .1 L CL =44 . 09 44 .1
44 .0
44 .0
43 .9
0 Pa rt ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Error type
Error type
Poke-Yoke
DOE
Optimize
Harm
Harm
Adapted from
James Reason’s
Managing the
Hypothesis testing Risk of

Organizational
Accidents
Anova
Capability analysis Power & Sample Size

Process Capability Analysis
Ho Truth Ha
Process Data
LSL USL Truth
USL 57,0000
Within
Target *
LSL 32,0000 Overall
Mean
Sample N
44,6165
80
Correct Type II
Ho
StDev (Within) 1,29107
StDev (Overall) 1,79818
Decision Error
risk
Potential (Within) Capability
Cp 3,23
CPU 3,20
Decision
CPL 3,26
Cpk 3,20
Decision
Cpm *
30 35 40 45 50 55
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
Type I
Pp 2,32 PPM < LSL 12500,00 PPM < LSL 0,00 PPM < LSL 0,00
PPU 2,30 PPM > USL 0,00 PPM > USL 0,00 PPM > USL 0,00
PPL 2,34 PPM Total 12500,00 PPM Total 0,00 PPM Total 0,00
Ha Error Correct
Ppk 2,30
risk Decision

IDDOV CTQ-scorecard
X tol//
DFSS Scorecard
Validate
Y tol//
Z dpmo
etc..
Power & Sample size

Gag e n ame :
Date of s tudy :
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Meas ure Rep orted by :
T ol e ranc e:
M is c :
Components of Variation By Part ID

44.25
100 % Con tri b uti on
% Study Va r
% Tol era nc e 44.15
Perc en t
50
44.05
0 43.95
Gage R&R Re peat Repro d Part-to-Part Part ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R Chart by Name By Name
Gauge R&R
Joe M ar y Pat 44.25
0.0 4 UCL=0 .0 4182
Sa m pl e Ra nge
0.0 3 44.15
0.0 2
R=0.0 12 80 44.05
0.0 1
0.0 0 L CL=0 43.95

0 Na me J oe M ary Pa t
Xbar Chart by Name Name* Part ID Interaction

Joe M ar y Pat Na me
44 .2 44 .2 J oe
Sam pl e M e an
Ma ry
UCL=4 4.14
M e an =4 4.11 Pat
Av erag e
44 .1 L CL=4 4.09 44 .1
44 .0
44 .0
43 .9
0 Part ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Design Of Experiments
Capability analysis
Process Capability Analysis
2002 0,10

95000
År 2003 0,20 2004 Välj 100000
2004 0,25 105000
Process Data
LSL USL antal
USL 57,0000
4000
Within
Target *
LSL 32,0000 Overall
Mean 44,6165
3500
Sample N 80 EWMA
StDev (Within) 1,29107
StDev (Overall) 1,79818
+3S
+2S
3000
Potential (Within) Capability +1S
Statistical Process Control

Cp 3,23
Linest
CPU 3,20
CPL 3,26 2500 Profile
Cpk 3,20
-1S
Cpm *
30 35 40 45 50 55 -2S
Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance
2000 -3S
Pp 2,32 PPM < LSL 12500,00 PPM < LSL 0,00 PPM < LSL 0,00 >3S
PPU 2,30 PPM > USL 0,00 PPM > USL 0,00 PPM > USL 0,00
9pt
PPL 2,34 PPM Total 12500,00 PPM Total 0,00 PPM Total 0,00
Ppk 2,30 1500 +/- 6Pt
14Pt alter
2(3) +/-2S
1000
4(5) +/-1S
15Pt In S
8Pt +/- 1S
500
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
11
27
IDDOV Chart
I dentify
Identify Customers,
D efine
Find “Critical To
D esign
Build a product &
O ptimize
Optimize Product &
V alidate
Validate Product &
Stakeholders & Quality” Process concept. Process design. Process.
History. characteristics.
•Surveys, VOC •QFD •Pugh Concept •DOE •DOE

•Taguchi Loss •CTQ-tree Selection Matrix •Gauge R&R •Gauge R&R
functions •Cause & Effect •Process Mapping •Poka-Yoke •SPC
•Kano-model matrix •Taguchi Loss •Capability analysis •Poka-Yoke
•Stakeholder map •Taguchi Loss Functions •Anova •Capability analysis
•Business case functions •Simulations (Lead- •P-diagram •Anova
•7QCT •Business case times, Yield, Cost •Regression analysis •P-diagram
•Capability analysis •CTQ scorecard etc.) •Fault trees •Regression
•Regression •Benchmarking •FMEA (Product, •PCM (yield matrix) analysis
analysis •PCM (yield matrix) Process, Supply- •DMAIC •Fault trees
•Capability analysis chain) •DMAIC
•Fishbone diagram •PCM (yield matrix)
•PCM (yield matrix)
•Team training & • Team training &

• Team training & •Team training & • Team training & coaching coaching
coaching coaching coaching

Merging Behavior Change and Operational
Change into one Improvement Process
Leading
Leading
change Creating
D M A I C
Making
change Creating aa
Making shared
shared need
need
itit last
last Low High Busine
Stakeh 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13
Define
TGO
Successful
High
ss
older
Problem stated
Cause
Comm
Decisi
Customer,
Baseline Sponsor and
estimation
Successful
Risk
Proces
project team
Case
Measu
analysi
Goal statement

Delivery perfo mance
Individual EArea manager B

C Keep Satisfied D Key players TG1
unicati
Project time plan TG0-
on
&
analysi
TG2
s map
rement
Individual A Proces
Milesto
s
100,0%
90,0%
Update
Data
Decisi
on plan
Timepl
Effect
Start to
80,0%
Measu
s
Root-
70,0%
Change
Individual D system
s
ne map
plan
60,0%
project
Bench
collecti
50,0%
on
an
relation
Shaping
40,0%
30,0%
measu
re
Cause
analysi
"As Is"
Change
20,0%
definiti
Low
Analyz
mark
on plan
10,0%
Shaping
(Impro
s
0,0%
re
2004w45
2004w 46
2004w 47
2004w 48
2004w49
2004w50
2004w52
2004w53
2005w 01
2005w 02
2005w04
2005w05
2005w06
2005w 07
2005w 08
2005w09
2005w10
2005w11
2005w13
2004w51
2005w03
2005w12
analysi
Analyz
s
Individual B on
e
ve-of/incl
others
Goal
(7MT)
TG2
s perf.

e
final
data
Process Individual F Control

review
aa vision
Decisi
gap
Improv
goals)
Individual C
Process vision All line-operators
A Minimal effort B Keep informed )on
e
Monitoring
Monitoring
progress
progress
Mobilizing
Mobilizing
Modifying
Modifying systems
systems committment
committment P rocess D ata
Process Capability of Buffer level (last 2 months)
LSL USL
Within
Im
pro
ve
me
nt
na
Imp
rov
em
ent
Dri
ver
Spo
nso
r:
Ref
ere
nce
nu
mb
er:
High Probability High Probability

me
Sta Team members: (Name /
Big
and
and structures
LS L 10 :rt
Over all function / %-time) ges
T arget * day t
Potential (Within) C apa bility risk
structures
USL
S ample M e an
20
17.2456 Cp
C PL
1.53
2.21 G E
High
C
Impact Low Impact
F
:
De
fin
s:

S ample N 57
S tDev (Within) 1.09233 C PU 0.84 B e

rev
S tDev (O v erall) 1.44831 C pk 0.84 iew
Problem statement:
O v erall C apability :
Me
Pp 1.15
asu
Goal statement:
PPL 1.67 re
Low Probability Low Probability

‘’
PPU 0.63
P pk 0.63 :
C pm * An Business case:
D High Impact A Low Impact aly

ze
‘’
H Spo Improvement Scope:
:
Imp Lin Me
nso rov e ntor
Im
r: eme man /co
10.5 12.0 13.5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.5 pro
(Si nt age ach
ve
gn/ lead r: :
‘’
SMART
O bserv ed P erform ance Exp. Within Performance E xp. O v era ll P erformanc e dat er: (Sig (Sig
e) (Sig n/da n/d
P PM < LSL 0.00 PP M < LS L 0.00 PP M < LSL 0.28 :
n/da te) ate)
Co
P PM > U SL 52631.58 PP M > U S L 5841.45 PP M > US L 28598.99 te)
ntr
P PM T otal 52631.58 PP M Total 5841.45 PP M T otal 28599.27 ol
‘’
:
Clo
sur
e
day
TG0 TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG5

Steering Decision Process
Project Monitoring and Support Process
Project Project Project Execution Phase Project
Analysis Planning Establishment Realization Hand-over Conclusion
Phase MS MS
Phase MS MS MS MS MS
Phase
MS
1 1.1 1.2 2 3 4 5 6
Improvement Process
Measure
Improve
Analyze
Control
Define

DMAIC – Ericsson Improvement
DEFINE MEASURE process
ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
Understand Understand Identify Make it happen Make it stick
need of change reality root-causes
Delivery perf omance
100,0%
90,0% Company B
80,0% 6 0 0. 0 70
70,0%
60
5 0 0. 0
60,0%
50,0% 4 0 0. 0
50
Customer,
40,0%
Sponsor
40
30,0%
3 0 0. 0
HW changes at CDC Gävle, new production Problem

Baseline
week
Project
Define
and time
project 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13

30
4
Goal
20,0% 2 0 0. 0
35 stated
Business
estimation Delivery Precision Supplier 2004-2005w17
plan TG0-
20
10,0%
team
TGO
statement
Process
Case
10 0. 0
0,0% 30 10
Stakeholder
2004w47
2004w48
2004w49
2004w50
2004w51
2005w01
2005w02
2005w03
2005w07
2005 w08
2005 w10
2005w13
TG2
2004w 45
2004w46
2004w 52
2004w53
2005w 04
2005w 05
2005w06
2005w 09
2005w 11
2005w12
0 .0
25 0
Communica
Decision
Risk
map 20
1 2 3
Milestone
analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 0 31 32 33 3 4 35 36 37
20 Data
TG1
tion plan
Cause&
Indiv idual Value

TOT TOT raw mtrl TOT TOT Work in progress TOT TOT Finis hed goods analysis
Measureme
Update
Process
plan
15
8 w eek inv days Inv days collection
Decision
Effectto
Start
Measure
10 nt system
project
map "As Is"
Benchmark
plan 10
1
relations
measure
Root-Cause
1
5
analysis
definitionof
Analyze
others
Timeplan
UCL=4,2 20
0 (7MT)
analysis
Analyze 0
Me an =1 ,652
/incl final
data LCL=-0, 9170
RFIF
Othe
ETM4
BBIF
AIU
ETMC
Back
ETM1
TRX
Fan
MCPA
(Improve-
TX
PSU
RAX
CU
GPB
PCU
SCB
Goal
TG2
perf. review
gap
goals)
Control)
Decision
Improve
Sub grou p 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
We ek W 041 0 W 042 0 W0 43 0 W0 442 W04 52 W 05 09
1 2 3
15
Mov ing Range

10
5 1
After phase completion you will have clear answers on the following questions:
UCL=3,1 56
R=0,965 8
0 LCL=0
•Why do we need •What’s the current •What are the root- •Will you fulfill the goal •Has the goal been
to change? way of working? causes? with selected solution? fulfilled?
•What’s the goal? •How do we •How do they •How do you •How to secure that
•Who needs to be measure this? influence the goal implement this with the implementation
involved? fulfillment? people commitment? will stick?
•How do you track
progress?
”Do the right things the right way”

DEFINE MEASURE ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
Understand
need Understand Identify Make it Make it
of change reality root-causes happen stick
DEFINE Understand need of change

Create shared need Define wanted position Mobilize commitment
Why do we need to What’s the goal? Who needs to be
change? involved?
Delivery perfomance
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
High Probability
High Probability
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
High Impact Low Impact
10,0%
0,0%
GE C B F
2004w45
2004w46
2004w47
2004w50
2004w51
2004w52
2004w53
2005w03
2005w04
2005w05
2005w09
2005w10
2005w12
2004w48
2004w49
2005w01
2005w02
2005w06
2005w07
2005w08
2005w13
2005w11
Low ProbabilityLow Probability

High
D
Impact Low Impact
A
H
 Identify sponsor & change  Define Goal statement  Perform stakeholder analysis
leader  Perform risk analysis  Define communication/
 State problem/opportunity  Benchmark similar involvement plan
 Calculate business case improvement initiatives  Involve key stakeholders to
 Evaluate change readiness make change happen
 Complete improvement charter
”A problem well stated is a problem half solved”

Define Phase - Key Steps
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Define the Develop and Analyze the Generate Ensure that
task and its validate root causes and the results
financial measurement implement will last
impact method solutions
Define week 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13
Level of true Individual Interest Problem stated
Customer,estimation
Sponsor and project
Low High Baseline
Formal or informal authority

team
Goal statement
Business Case
C Keep Satisfied D Key players
Project time plan TG0-TG2
TGO Decision
Individual E Process map
Delivery perfomance
1 00 ,0%
Area manager B Stakeholder analysis
High
90,0%
Communication plan
Individual A
80,0%
Risk analysis
Area manager B
70,0%
60,0%
Milestone plan
TG1 Decision
50,0%
Individual D
40,0%
30,0% Measure
20,0%
Process map "As Is"
10,0%
Data collection plan
Start to measure
0 ,0%
2004w48
2004w49
2004w50
2004w52
2004w53
2005w04
2005w05
2005w06
2005w07
2005w08
2005w09
2005w12
2005w13
2004w45
2004w46
2004w47
2004w51
2005w01
2005w02
2005w03
2005w10
2005w11
Measurement system analysis

Benchmark others
Savings
Cause& Effect relations (7MT)
Costs
Individual B Analyze
Analyze of data
Low
Goal
Updatereview
project definition
Root-Cause analysis perf./incl
gap
Individual F final goals)
Timeplan (Improve-Control)

TG2 Decision
Individual C Improve
All line-operators
A Minimal effort B Keep informed
Change need Business case Stakeholder map Time & resource plan
Analysis
of current base line
Process Capability of Buffer level (last 2 months) Goal statement Risk analysis Project charter
LSL USL S i x S i g m a D M A IC p r o je c t c h a r t e r
P rocess D ata Within High Probability High Probability P r o je c t n a m e : P r o je c t le a d e r : S p o n s o r: P r o je c t n u m b e r :
LS L 10 Ov erall L e a d - tim e re d u c t io n o n te st J o rg e A d u n a J o h a n E r ik s s o n
Target *
P otential (Within) C apability
High Impact Low Impact d e v e lo p m e n t p r o je
S ta rt d a y : 2
D e f in e r e v ie w : 2
c ts
0 0 5 -0 9
0 0 5 -0 9
-0 7
-2 0
P r o je c t m e m b e r s : ( N a m e / f u n c t i o n / % - t i m e )
J o r g e A d u n a / P r o je c t L e a d e r / 5 0 %
K e y w o rd s :
US L 20 M e a s u r e ‘’ : 2 0 0 5 -1 0 -3 1
Cp 1.53
GE C BF
A n a ly z e ‘’ : 2 0 0 5 -1 2 -3 1
Sample M ean 17.2456 Im p ro v e ‘’ : 2 0 0 6 -0 1 -3 1
Sample N 57 C P L 2.21 C o n tro l ‘’ : 2 0 0 6 -0 2 -2 8
C lo s u r e d a y : 2 0 0 6 -0 3 -3 1
StD ev (Within) 1.09233 C P U 0.84 P r o b le m / o p p o r t u n i t y s t a te m e n t:
L e a d - t im e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r i n d u s t r i a l iz a t i o n p r o j e c t s a r e d e c r e a s in g d u e t o m a r k e t s it u a t io n . L o w y i e ld d u r i n g i n d u s t r ia l iz a t i o n a n d b e g in n in g o f
StD ev (O v erall) 1.44831 C pk 0.84 v o l u m e p r o d u c t i o n is o b s e r v e d . M a n y o f t h e y i e l d p r o b l e m s c a n b e r e la t e d t o in c o m p l e t e t e s t d e s ig n a n d im p l e m e n t a t io n . T h e t e s t d e v e lo p m e n t
l e a d - t i m e s s h o u ld d e c r e a s e t o m e e t t h e n e w r e q u i r e m e n t s .
O v erall C apability
G o a l s t a te m e n t:
Pp 1.15   7 0 % Y i e ld o n L N A t e s t f o r t h e F U 1 7 0 0 a t t h e b e g i n n in g o f v o lu m e p r o d u c t i o n , 1 0 % in c r e a s e i n c o m p a r is o n w it h F U 1 9 0 0 ( 6 0 % ) . A s a r e s u lt
PPL 1.67 Low Probability Low Probability

o f a f i n a l iz e d t e s t d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i m p le m e n t a t i o n ( i n c l u d in g a u t o m a t i c t e s t f i x t u r e s ) .
  F U 1 7 0 0 v o lu m e p ro d u c t io n is e x p e c t e d to s ta r t Q 2 2 0 0 6
B u s in e s s c a s e :
PPU 0.63
D Impact
B a s e d o n a p r o d u c t i o n v o lu m e o f 3 6 0 0 L N A u n it s p e r m o n t h :
P pk 0.63
High Low Impact
st
  A 1 0 % 1 p a s s y i e l d i n c r e a s e in t h e L N A t e s t m e a n s 1 2 0 0 0 0 S E K i n r e d u c e d o p . t im e d u e t o le s s r e - t e s t in g .
H
  I m p l e m e n t a t io n o f t h e a u t o m a t ic L N A t e s t f i x t u r e m e a n s 8 0 0 0 0 S E K i n r e d u c e d o p . t im e d u e t o s h o r t e r p r e p a r a t i o n t im e .
C pm * P r o je c t c o s t s : 1 0 0 0 0 0 S E K
S a v i n g s i n 3 m o n t h s p r o d u c t io n : 6 0 0 0 0 0 – 1 0 0 0 0 0 S E K = 5 0 0 0 0 0 S E K
A P ro je c t S c o p e :
SMART
L N A t e s t f o r F U 1 7 0 0 . O t h e r F U t e s t s ( T u n e , V S W R , F i n a l) n o t in c l u d e d .
S p o n s o r: P r o je c t l e a d e r : L in e m a n a g e r : B B -m e n to r/c o a c h :
J o h a n E r ik s s o n J o rg e A d u n a C h r is t e r J o h a n s s o n C h r is tia n L e n n e b la d
( S ig n /d a te ) ( S ig n / d a t e ) ( S ig n /d a te ) ( S ig n /d a t e )
10.5 12.0 13.5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.5

O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
PP M < LS L 0.00 P P M < LS L 0.00 P P M < LSL 0.28
PP M > U S L 52631.58 P P M > U S L 5841.45 P P M > U SL 28598.99
Tools:
PP M Total 52631.58 P P M Total 5841.45 P P M Total 28599.27
VoC-tree, Process maps, Sampling, Capability analysis, SMART, Business Case, Stakeholder map, Mini-risk brainstorm/FMEA

Understand Identify Make it
need Understand Make it
reality root-causes happen stick
of change
MEASURE Understand reality

Understand “AS-IS” process Measure “AS-IS” process
What is the current way of How can we measure this?
working?
 Build “AS-IS” process map  Plan and perform data collection

 Understand barriers to change  Validate measurements
 Setup potential cause & effect relations  Measure “AS IS” data
 Benchmark
”What gets measured gets done”

Measure Phase - Key Steps
S ix S ig m a D M A IC p r o je c t c h a r te r
P ro je c t n a m e :
L e a d - tim e r e d u c ti o n o n te s t
P r o je c t le a d e r :
J o rg e A d u n a
S p o n s o r:
J o h a n E rik s s o n
P ro je c t n u m b e r:
“Change of
product
d e v e l o p m e n t p r o je c t s
S ta rt d a y : 2 0 0 5 -0 9 - 0 7 P r o je c t m e m b e r s : ( N a m e / f u n c t i o n / % - t im e ) K e y w o rd s:
D e f in e r e v i e w : 2 0 0 5 - 0 9 - 2 0 J o r g e A d u n a / P r o je c t L e a d e r / 5 0 %
M e a s u r e ‘’ : 2 0 0 5 - 1 0 - 3 1
specifications
A n a ly z e ‘’ : 2 0 0 5 - 1 2 - 3 1
Im p ro v e ‘’ : 2 0 0 6 - 0 1 - 3 1
C o n tro l ‘’ : 2 0 0 6 - 0 2 - 2 8
request
C lo s u r e d a y : 2 0 0 6 - 0 3 - 3 1 estimation for
Yes 67%
”
customer for change level of level of
P r o b le m / o p p o r t u n ity s t a te m e n t: importance importance
execute 1
L e a d - t im e r e q u ir e m e n t s f o r i n d u s t r ia liz a t io n p r o je c t s a r e d e c r e a s i n g d u e t o m a r k e t s it u a t io n . L o w y i e ld d u r in g in d u s t r ia liz a t io n a n d b e g i n n in g o f change?
v o lu m e p r o d u c t io n is o b s e r v e d . M a n y o f t h e y ie l d p r o b le m s c a n b e r e la t e d t o i n c o m p le t e t e s t d e s ig n a n d i m p l e m e n t a t io n . T h e t e s t d e v e lo p m e n t
l e a d - t im e s s h o u ld d e c r e a s e t o m e e t t h e n e w r e q u i r e m e n t s .
No 33%
G o a l s ta te m e n t:
  7 0 % Y ie ld o n L N A t e s t f o r t h e F U 1 7 0 0 a t t h e b e g in n in g o f v o l u m e p r o d u c t io n , 1 0 % in c r e a s e in c o m p a r i s o n w it h F U 1 9 0 0 ( 6 0 % ) . A s a r e s u lt
o f a f in a liz e d t e s t d e v e lo p m e n t a n d im p l e m e n t a t io n ( in c lu d in g a u t o m a t i c t e s t f ix t u r e s ) .
  F U 1 7 0 0 v o l u m e p r o d u c t io n is e x p e c t e d t o s t a r t Q 2 2 0 0 6
think of
alternatives
B u s in e s s c a s e :
B a s e d o n a p r o d u c t io n v o lu m e o f 3 6 0 0 L N A u n i t s p e r m o n t h : Alternatives
s t
  A 1 0 % 1 p a s s y ie l d in c r e a s e in t h e L N A t e s t m e a n s 1 2 0 0 0 0 S E K in r e d u c e d o p . t im e d u e t o le s s r e - t e s t i n g .
  I m p le m e n t a t i o n o f t h e a u t o m a t ic L N A t e s t f ix t u r e m e a n s 8 0 0 0 0 S E K i n r e d u c e d o p . t im e d u e t o s h o r t e r p r e p a r a t io n t im e .
P ro je c t c o s ts : 1 0 0 0 0 0 S E K
new
S a v in g s i n 3 m o n t h s p r o d u c t io n : 6 0 0 0 0 0 – 1 0 0 0 0 0 S E K = 5 0 0 0 0 0 S E K changed
new specification feature flawless design
s product
P r o je c t S c o p e :
L N A t e s t f o r F U 1 7 0 0 . O t h e r F U t e s t s ( T u n e , V S W R , F i n a l) n o t in c lu d e d .
adjust design New features Test new
S p o n so r: P r o je c t l e a d e r : L in e m a n a g e r : B B - m e n to r /c o a c h : 1
specifications design design
Produce
customer
J o h a n E rik s s o n J o rg e A d u n a C h r is t e r J o h a n s s o n C h r is t ia n L e n n e b la d
review
(S ig n /d a te ) (S ig n /d a te ) (S i g n /d a te ) ( S ig n /d a te )
Old specifications New specifications
specifications file
Project charter Process measurements Benchmark
Process map ”As Is” Measurement system validation

“Change of
product
customer
request
for change
specifications”
estimation for
level of
importance
level of
importance
execute
Yes 67%
1
A measurement system is comparable to throwing darts at a
target. There are two categories of error…
change?
No 33%
think of
alternatives
Alternatives
new changed
new specification flawless design
features product

1
specifications design design
Produce
customer Precise Accurate Not Accu
but not but not accurat rate
review accurat precise e or and
e precise preci
Old specifications New specifications se
specifications file
Tools: Process maps, Sampling, Data collection, Capability analysis, MSA, Benchmark

DEFINE MEASURE
Understand ANALYZE IMPROVE CONTROL
of change reality root-cause happen stick
ANALYZE Identify root-causes

Identify key root-causes Verify influence on goal
What are the key root-causes How do they influence the goal fulfillment?
or contributors?
Company B
6 0 0. 0 70 Company B
600.0 70
60
5 0 0. 0
60
500.0
50
4 0 0. 0
50
40 400.0
3 0 0. 0
40
HW changes at CDC Gävle, new production 30
300.0
2 0 0. 0 HW changes at CDC Gävle, new production 30
35
20
200.0
35
20
10 0 . 0
30 10
10 0 . 0
0.0
25 0
30 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
20
0.0
1 2 3 4 5
25
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0
TOT TOT raw mtrl TOT TOT Work in progress TOT TOT Finished goods 20
15
8 w eek inv days Inv days TOT TOT raw mtrl TOT TOT Work in progress TOT TOT Finished goods
10 15
8 w eek inv days Inv days
5 10
0 5
Othe
RFIF
ETMC
ETM4
ETM1
BBIF
Back
MCPA
AIU
TRX
Fan
RAX
GPB
PCU
PSU
SCB
TX
CU
RFIF
ETMC
ETM4
ETM1
Othe
Back
BBIF
MCPA
AIU
Fan
TRX
GPB
PCU
PSU
RAX
SCB
TX
CU
 Analyze gap to wanted position  Verify influence on goal
 Assess change capabilities
”Study the past, shape the future”

Analyze Phase - Key Steps
“Change of
product
!
customer
request
for change
specifications”
estimation for
level of
importance
level of
importance
execute
change?
Yes 67%
1
No 33%
think of
alternatives
Alternatives
new changed
features product

1 Produce
specifications design design customer
review
specifications file
Reliable process measurements Found areas to address
Analysis of causes
Scatter Plot/Fitted Line Regression
130
Score
120
110
Y = 3 .3 1 28 4 + .1 67 5 46 X
100 R-Squared
90 = 0.906
35 40 45 50
Putts
Tools: Process maps, Capability analysis, Regression analysis, Hypothesis testing, Correlation analysis

Understand
IMPROVE Make it happen

Identify “To-Be” process Plan and implement Monitor progress
and test possible solutions solution
• Will you fulfill the goal with • How do you implement this • How do you track
selected solution? with people commitment? progress?
“Change of
product
specifications”
request estimation for
customer level of level of Yes 67%
for change
execute 1
I Chart for C205

importance importance
change?
• Mobilize broad commitment

No 33%
2 1 1
think of
1 11
alternatives
2 222
2 2 UCL=1,5
22 22 2 2
Alternatives
222 2 22
• Plan implementation
1
Individual Value
new changed
2
features product
22
2
2
1 Produce
specifications design design customer
review 0 Mean=0
• Competence and resource

specifications file
-1
LCL=-1,5
allocation
-2
0 50 100 150
Observation Number
• Identify possible solutions to • Create & follow-up Process & IT

address key contributors demands • Monitor improvement
• Perform cost/benefit evaluation • Execute implementation plan progress & people
• Perform solution risk analyses • Embed changes in management commitment
• Test solution system
”Words don’t move mountains. People do.”

Improve Phase - Key Steps
week
Define 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

“Change of Problem
Customer,
Baseline
stated
Sponsor and
estimation
project team

product Goal statement

Business Case
Project time plan TG0-TG2

specifications”
request estimation for TGO Decision
customer for change level of level of
execute
Yes 67%
1 Process map
Stakeholder analysis
importance importance
change?
Severity x Occurrence x Detection

Communication plan
No 33%
Risk analysis
Milestone plan
TG1 Decision
think of Measure
alternatives Process map "As Is"
Alternatives Data collectionsystem
Measurement plan
Start to measure
analysis
new specification
new
features
flawless design
changed
product
= RPN (Risk Priority Number) Cause& Effect
Benchmark
(7MT)
Analyze
relations
others

1
adjust design
specifications
New features
design
Test new
design
Produce
customer Analyze
Root-Causeof data
analysis perf.
Goal
Updatereview
project definition /incl
review
gap
final goals)
Timeplan (Improve-Control)
TG2 Decision
specifications file Improve
Found areas to address Risk analysis of solutions Implementation plan
Cost/savings
analysis of solutions Resource allocation Implementation fulfilled?
INSTRUCTION
INSTRUCTION
INSTRUCTION
Savings Costs
Tools: Process maps, Cost/benefit template, FMEA

Understand
CONTROL Make it stick

Validate results Secure sustainability Transfer good practice
Has the goal been fulfilled? Will the solution stick? Can someone else benefit
from your experiences?
• Validate improvement effect • Anchor & handshake solution • Communicate results

• Evaluate lesson learned ownership • Transfer good practices
• Ensure competence capability • Celebrate achievements
for
new way of working/solution
• Ensure mechanism for
continuous monitoring and
improvements
” When yesterday's future becomes business as usual.”
Control Phase - Key Steps
I Chart of Total by process by Process

1 2
95
UCL=92,64
90
85
_
Individual Value
80 X=80,99
75
70 LCL=69,34
65
60
55
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Observation
2005-08-29
Learning's
Implementation fulfilled? Are solution robust? & best practice transfer
Results
validated towards goal statement Responsibility transfer Celebrate
Delivery Precision Supplier 2004-2005w17
1 2 3
20
Indiv idual Value
10
1
1
UCL=4,220
Mean=1 ,652
0 LCL=-0, 9170
Sub group 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
W eek W 041 0 W 0420 W0 430 W0442 W 04 52 W0509
1 2 3
15
Mov ing Range
10
Tools: 5 1
UCL=3,156
R=0,965 8
SPC, P-diagram
0 LCL=0

DMAIC Chart
D efine
Understand the task
M easure
Develop and execute
A nalyze
Find the root
I mprove
Generate and
C ontrol
Ensure that the
and its financial an appropriate data causes. implement solutions. results will last.
impact. collection method.
• Task selection • Process map • Fishbone diagram • FMEA risk analysis • Documentation,
• Data collection • Correlation • Process map
Light
matrix standardization and

• SMART review table analysis training
• Stakeholder map •Pareto diagram
• Risk Management
• SWOT analysis • 7QCT • 7QCT • Poka-Yoke • 7QCT

Comprehensive
• Process map • Measurement • Hypothesis testing • Hypothesis testing • SPC

• VOC and break system analysis • Regression- • Loss functions • Business case
down to CTQs • Sampling technique analysis • Cost/Benefit verification
• 7MT • SIPOC • DOE selection
• Affinity diagram • Gauge R&R, Gauge • Anova •Pugh Concept
attribute • 7MT Selection
• Capability analysis • Data
• Benchmark transformations
• Tagushi loss • Simulations
functions

Six ways to fail…
D … D … D … D …
D I … D I … D I… …
M A … M A … M …
A …
D M A … D M A …
D M A I … D M A I …
I D … I D … I …
D …

Key elements for a DMAIC
project
 Has a measurable and verifiable result.
 Cut cost in...
 Reduce lead-time in…
 Reduce variation in...
 Improve quality in...
 Able to be defined by Y=f (x1, x2, x3….. xn)
 Possible influencing factors is...
 They can be controlled by...
 Or you can make the Y robust to them by…
 Has a significant impact.
 Is important to the business, organization etc.


Six Sigma at Ericsson

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 at Ericsson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma

”Operational Excellence in everything we do”

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

will not keep us here

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

25% 23% 23%

Source: Standish Group International 10%

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

‘74 MATSUSHITA takes over loss-making Quasar (Television

‘79 Defects reduced to 3 per 100 TV’s

‘80 Quasar reports success to ASQC (Hitzelberger Report)

‘88 Motorola wins 1st Malcolm Baldridge Award

‘89 Onwards Six Sigma adopted by other companies Allied Signal,

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

99% Good (3,8 99.9997% Good (6

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

2500 A six to nine day DMAIC or IDDOV selected

2000 Yellow Belt::

Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly

R&D - HW R&D - HW R&D - HW R&D - HW

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Champions: Master Black Belts:

Six Sigma Line Mgrs:

White Belts: Yellow-

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Exposure of Non-value add

Cost Of Poor Quality Costs ANOVA

and Non Value-Add 

focused Define Measure

Outside In Design Analyze

thinking Customer view of

people tends to think. A statistical toolbox used to focus on

”A problem well stated is a problem half solved”

If we can’t put number to it

If we don't know much about it

If we can not act,

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

-Fear- -Trust- -Informal authority-

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Design Integrated Improvements

Well proven tools

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Find “Critical To Quality” TG2

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Surveys, Kano-model Process

from a product, process and financial standpoint. delight M

Equip. Order/ Pick-Up & Customer

correct Correct correct Customer

0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

© Ericsson AB 2009 Commercial in confidence 01. Six-Sigma Concept 2009-03-18

Cause & Effect diagram, 7MT Delivery

Installation Short assambly time