IE 3265

R. Lindeke, Ph. D.
Quality Management in POM
Part 2
Topics
Managing a Quality System
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Achieving Quality in a System
Look early and often
6 Sigma an approach & a technique
Make it a part of the process
The Customers Voice in Total
Quality Management
QFD and the House of Quality
Quality Engineering
Loss Function
Quality Studies
Experimental Approaches
T.M.; FMEA; Shainin
Taguchis Loss Function
Taguchi defines Quality Level of a
product as the Total Loss incurred
by society due to failure of a
product to perform as desired
when it deviates from the delivered
target performance levels.
This includes costs associated
with poor performance, operating
costs (which changes as a product
ages) and any added expenses
due to harmful side effects of the
product in use
Exploring the Taguchi Method
Considering the Loss
Function, it is quantifiable
Larger is Better:


Smaller is Better:


Nominal is Best:
2
1
( ) L y k
y
(
=
(

2
( ) L y ky =
( )
2
( )
:
m is the target of the
process specification
L y k y m
where
=
Considering the Cost of Loss
k in the L(y) equation is found from:
0
2
0
0
0
is cost of repair or replace
a product and must include
loss due to unavailability
during repair
is the functional limit on
y of a product where it would
fail to perform its function
half the
A
k
A
=
A
A
time
Loss Function Example: (nominal is
best)
We can define a processes average
loss as:




s is process (product) Standard
Deviation
y
bar
is process (product) mean

( )
2
2
L k s y m
(
= +
(

Example cont.
A
0
is $2 (a very low number of this type!)
found by estimating that the loss is 10% of
the $20 product cost when a part is exactly
8.55 or 8.45 units
Process specification is: 8.5+.05 units
Historically: y
bar
= 8.492 and s = 0.016


Example Cont.
Average Loss:





If we make 250,000 units a year
Annual Loss is $64,000

( )
( ) ( )
2 2
2
2
0.016 8.492 8.500
.05
800 .00032 $0.256
L
L
(
= +

= - =
Fixing it
Shift the Mean to
nominal



Reduce variation
(s = 0.01)



Fix Both!
( )
2
2
800 .016 0 $0.2048
Annual Loss is $51200 about 20% reduction
L
(
= + =

( )
2
2
800 .010 .008 $0.1312
Annual Loss is $32800 about 50% reduction
L
(
= + =

( )
2
2
800 .010 0 $0.08
Annual Loss is $20000 about 66% reduction
L
(
= + =

Taguchi Methods
Help companies to perform the Quality Fix!
Quality problems are due to Noises in the product or
process system
Noise is any undesirable effect that increases
variability
Conduct extensive Problem Analyses
Employ Inter-disciplinary Teams
Perform Designed Experimental Analyses
Evaluate Experiments using ANOVA and Signal-
to noise techniques
Defining the Taguchi Approach
The Point Then Is To Produce
Processes Or Products The Are
ROBUST AGAINST NOISES
Dont spend the money to eliminate all
noise, build designs (product and
process) that can perform as desired
low variability in the presence of
noise!
WE SAY:
ROBUSTNESS = HIGH QUALITY
Defining the Taguchi Approach
Noise Factors Cause Functional Variation
They Fall Into Three Classes
1. Outer Noise Environmental Conditions
2. Inner Noise Lifetime Deterioration
3. Between Product Noise Piece To Piece
Variation
Taguchi
Method is
Step-by-
Step:
Defining the Taguchi Approach
TO RELIABLY MEET OUR DESIGN
GOALS MEANS: DESIGNING
QUALITY IN!

We find that Taguchi considered
THREE LEVELS OF DESIGN:
level 1: SYSTEM DESIGN
level 2: PARAMETER DESIGN
level 3: TOLERANCE DESIGN
Defining the Taguchi Approach
SYSTEM DESIGN:
All About Innovation New
Ideas, Techniques,
Philosophies
Application Of Science And
Engineering Knowledge
Includes Selection Of:
Materials
Processes
Tentative Parameter Values
Defining the Taguchi Approach
Parameter Design:
Tests For Levels Of Parameter
Values

Selects "Best Levels" For Operating
Parameters to be Least Sensitive to
Noises

Develops Processes Or Products
That Are Robust

A Key Step To Increasing Quality
Without Increased Cost
Defining the Taguchi Approach
Tolerance Design:
A "Last Resort" Improvement Step
Identifies Parameters Having the
greatest Influence On Output
Variation
Tightens Tolerances On These
Parameters
Typically Means Increases In
Cost
Selecting Parameters for Study and
Control
Select The Quality Characteristic
Define The Measurement Technique
Ennumerate, Consider, And Select The
Independent Variables And Interactions
Brainstorming
Shainins technique where they are determined by
looking at the products
FMEA failure mode and effects analysis
Preliminary Steps in Improvement
Studies

To Adequately Address The Problem At
Hand We Must:
1. Understand Its Relationship With The Goals
We Are Trying To Achieve
2. Explore/Review Past Performance compare
to desired Solutions
3. Prepare An 80/20 Or Pareto Chart Of These
Past Events
4. Develop A "Process Control" Chart -- This
Helps To Better See The Relationship
between Potential Control And Noise
Factors
A Wise Person Can Say: A Problem
Well Defined Is Already Nearly Solved!!
Going Down the Improvement
Road
Start By Generating The Problem
Candidates List:
Brainstorm The Product Or Process
Develop Cause And Effects (Ishikawa)
Diagrams
Using Process Flow Charts To
Stimulate Ideas
Develop Pareto Charts For Quality
Problems

DEVELOPING A Cause-and-Effect
Diagram:
1. Construct A Straight Horizontal Line (Right Facing)

2. Write Quality Characteristic At Right

3. Draw 45 Lines From Main Horizontal (4 Or 5) For Major
Categories: Manpower, Materials, Machines, Methods And
Environment

4. Add Possible Causes By Connecting Horizontal Lines To 45
"Main Cause" Rays

5. Add More Detailed Potential Causes Using Angled Rays To
Horizontal Possible Cause Lines
Generic Fishbone C&E Diagram
Methods Manpower
Materials Machines
Effect
under
Study
Environment
Main Causes
Primary Cause
Primary Cause
2
nd
Cause
2
nd
Cause
2
nd
Cause
Building the Experiment Working
From a Cause & Effect Diagram
Fine Grained
Chemical Yield
Raw Material
Reaction
Transportation
Moisture
Content
Catalyzer
Crystallization
Package
Over Weight
Shortage of
Weight
Discharge
Method
Sol. A Conc.
Sol. B Temp.
pH
Time
Stir RPM
Sol A
Pour Speed
Quality
Type
Quantity
Spillage
Road
Container
Cover
Time
Concentration
Temperature
Weight
Size
Maint. Of
Balance
Accuracy of
Balance
Operator
Type of
Balance
Method of
Weighing
Mother Crystal
Steam
Press.
Steam
Flow
RPM of
Dryer
Charge Speed
Wet Powder
Temperature
Designing A Useful Experiment
Taguchi methods use a cookbook
approach!! Building Experiments for
selected factors on the C&E Diagram
Selection is from a discrete set of
Orthogonal Arrays
Note: an orthogonal array (OA) is a special
fractional factorial design that allows study
of main factors and 2-way interactions
T.M. Summary
Taguchi methods (TM) are product or
process improvement techniques that
use DOE methods for improvements
A set of cookbook designs are available
and they can be modified to build a
rich set of studies (beyond what we
have seen in MP labs!)
TM requires a commitment to complete
studies and the discipline to continue in
the face of setbacks (as do all quality
improvement methods!)

Simplified DOE
Shainin Tools these are a series of
steps to logically identify the root
causes of variation
These tools are simple to implement,
statistically powerful and practical
Initial Step is to sample product (over
time) and examine the sample lots for
variability to identify causative factors
this step is called the multi-vari chart
approach
Shainin refers to root cause factors as the
Red X, Pink X, and Pink-Pink X causes

Components
Search
Multi-vari
Charts
Paired
Comparisons
Variables Search
Full Factorials
B vs. C
Scatter Plots
20 - 100 Variables
5 - 20 Variables
4 or Less
Variables
Validation
Optimization
Shainins
Experimental
Approaches
to Quality
Variability
Control:
Shainin Ideas exploring
further
Red X the primary cause of
variation
Pink X the secondary
causes of variation
Pink-Pink X significant but
minor causes of variation (a
factor that still must be
controlled!)
Any other factors should be
substituted by lower cost
solutions (wider tolerance,
cheaper material, etc.)
Basis of Shainins Quality
Improvement Approaches
As Shainin Said: Dont ask the engineers, they
dont know, ask the parts
Contrast with Brainstorming approach of Taguchi
Method
Multi-Vari is designed to identify the likely home
of the Red X factors not necessarily the factors
themselves
Shainin suggests that we look into three source
of variation regimes:
Positional
Cyclical
Temporal
Does the
mean shift
in time or
between
products
or is the
product
(alone)
showing
the
variability?
Positional Variations:
These are variation within a given
unit (of production)
Like porosity in castings or cracks
Or across a unit with many parts like a
transmission, turbine or circuit board
Could be variations by location in
batch loading processes
Cavity to cavity variation in plastic injection
molding, etc.
Various tele-marketers at a fund raiser
Variation from machine-to-machine,
person-to-person or plant-to-plant
Cyclical Variation
Variation between consecutive
units drawn from a process
(consider calls on a software
help line)
Variation AMONG groups of
units
Batch-to Batch Variations
Lot-to-lot variations
Temporal Variations
Variations from hour-to-hour
Variation shift-to-shift
Variations from day-to-day
Variation from week-to-week
Components Search the
prerequisites
The technique is applicable (primarily) in
assbly operations where good units and
bad units are found
Performance (output) must be measurable
and repeatable
Units must be capable of disassembly and
reassembly without significant change in
original performance
There must be at least 2 assemblies or
units one good, one bad
The procedure:
Select the good and bad unit
Determine the quantitative parameter
by which to measure the units
Dissemble the good unit
reassemble and measure it again.
Disassemble and reassemble then
measure the bad units again. If the
difference D between good and bad
exceeds the d difference (within
units) by 5:1, a significant and
repeatable difference between good
and bad units is established
Procedure (cont.)
Based on engineering judgment, rank the
likely component problems, within a unit, in
descending order of perceived importance.
Switch the top ranked component from the
good unit to the bad unit or assembly with
the corresponding component in the bad
assembly going to the good assembly.
Measure the 2 (reassembled) units.
If there is no change: the good unit stays good
bad stays bad, the top guessed component (A) is
unimportant go on to component B
If there is a partial change in the two
measurements A is not the only important
variable. A could be a Pink X family. Go on to
Component B
If there is a complete reversal in outputs of the
assemblies, A could be in the Red X family. There
is no further need for components search.
Procedure (cont.)
Regardless of which of the three
outcomes above are observed,
restore component A to the original
units to assure original conditions
are repeated. Then, repeat the
previous 2 steps for the next most
important components: B, C, D, etc.
if each swap leads to no or partial
change
Ultimately, the Red X family will be
IDd (on complete reversal) or two or
more Pink X or pale Pink X families
if only partial reversals are observed
Procedure (cont.)
With the important variables
identified, a capping run with the
variables banded together as good
or bad assemblies must be used to
verify their importance
Finally, a factorial matrix, using data
generated during the search, is
drawn to determine, quantitatively,
main effects and interactive effects.
Paired Comparisons
This is a technique like
components search but
when products do not lend
themselves to disassembly
(perhaps it is a component in a
component search!)
Requires that there be several
Good and Bad units that can
be compared
Requires that a suitable
parameter can be identified to
distinguish Good from Bad
Steps in Paired Comparison
1. Randomly select one Good and one Bad unit call
it pair one
2. Observe the differences between the 2 units these
can be visual, dimensional, electrical, mechanical,
chemical, etc. Observe using appropriate means (eye,
optical or electron microscopic, X-ray, Spectrographic,
tests-to-failure, etc)
3. Select a 2
nd
pair, observe and note as with pair 1.
4. Repeat with additional pairs until a pattern of
repeatability is observed between goods & bads
Reviewing:
The previous (three methods) are ones that
followed directly from Shainins talk to the
animals (products) approach
In each, before we began actively specifying
the DOE parameters, we collect as much
information as we can from good or bad
products
As stated by one user: The product solution
was sought for over 18 months, we talked to
engineers & designers; we talked to
engineering managers, even product
suppliers all without a successful solution,
but we never talked to the parts. With the
component search technique we identified
the problem in just 3 days
Taking the Next step: Variables
Search
The objective is to
Pinpoint the Red X, Pink X and one to three (more) critical
interacting variables
Its possible that the Red X is due to strong interactions between
two or more variables
Finally we are still trying to separate the important variables from
unimportant ones
Variables search is a way to get statistically significant
results without executing a large number of experimental
runs (achieving knowledge at reduced cost)
It has been shown the this binary comparison technique
(on 5 to 15 variables) can be successful in 20, 22, 24 or
26 runs vs. 256, 512, 1024, etc. runs using traditional
DOE
Variables Search is a 2 stage
process:
1. List the important input variables as chosen by
engineering judgment (in descending order of
ability to influence output)
2. Assign 2 levels to each factor a best and
worst level (within reasonable bounds)
3. Run 2 experiments, one with all factors at best
levels, the second with all factors at worst
levels. Run two replications sets
4. Apply the D:d > 5:1 rule (as above)
5. If the 5:1 ratio is exceeded, the Red X is
captured in the factor set tested.
STAGE 1:
Stage 1 (cont):
6. If the ratio is less than 5:1, the right factors are not
chosen or 1 or more factors have been reversed
between best & worst levels. Disappointing, but not
fatal!

a. If the wrong factors were chosen in opinion of design team
decide on new factors and rerun Stage 1
b. If the team believes it has the correct factors included, but some
have reversed levels, run B vs. C tests on each suspicious
factor to see if factor levels are in fact reversed
c. One could try the selected factors (4 at a time) using full
factorial experiments could be prone to failure too if
interacting factors are separated during testing!
Moving on to Stage 2:
1. Run an experiment with A
W
(a at worst level) and the
rest of factors at best levels (R
B
)
a) If there is no change in best results in Stage 1 step 3, factor A is
in fact unimportant
b) If there is a partial change from best results toward Worst
results A is not the only important factor. A could be Pink X
c) If a complete reversal in Best to Worst results in Stage 1 step 3,
A is the Red X

2. Run a second test with A
B
and R
W

a) If no change from Worst results in Stage 1 the top factor A is
further confirmed as unimportant
b) If there is a partial change in the worst results in Stage 1
toward Best results A is further confirmed as a possible Pink
X factor
c) If a complete reversal Best results in Stage 1 are
approximated, A is reconfirmed as the Red X
Continuing Stage 2:
3. Perform the same component search swap of
step 1 & 2 for the rest of the factors to separate
important from unimportant factors
4. If no single Red X factor, but two or three Pink
X factors are found, perform a capping or
validation experiment with the Pink Xs at the
best levels (remaining factors at their worst
levels). The results should approximate the
best results of Step 3, Stage 1.
5. Run a second capping experiment with Pinks
at worst level, the rest at Best level should
approx. the worst results in Step 3, Stage 1.
Variables Search Example:
Press Brake Operation
A press brake was showing high variability with poor C
PK

The Press Brake was viewed as a Black Magic
operation the worked sometimes then went bad for no
reason
Causes of the operational variability were hotly debated,
Issues included:
Raw Sheet metal
Thickness
Hardness
Press Brake Factors (some which are difficult or impossible to
control)
The company investigated new P. Brakes but observed
no realistic and reliable improvements
Even high cost automated brakes sometimes produced poor
results!
A Variables Search was
Performed
Goal was to consistently achieve a .005
tolerance (or closer!)
6 Factors were chosen:
A. Punch/Die Alignment B: Aligned, W: not
Specially Aligned
B. Metal Thickness B: Thick, W: Thin
C. Metal Hardness B: Hard, W: Soft
D. Metal Bow B: Flat, W: Bowed
E. Ram Storage B: Coin Form, W: Air Form
F. Holding Material B: Level, W: Angle
Results reported in Process Widths which is
twice tolerance, in 0.001 units


Results:
STAGE 1 Process Width (x.001)
All Best All Worst
Initial 4 47
Rep 1 4 61
D = 50; d = 7 D:d 7:1 (> 5:1) so a significant
repeatable difference; Red X (or Pink Xs) captured
as a factor
Continuing to Stage 2
Test Comb. Results Conclusion
1 A
W
R
B
3
A. not Important
2 A
B
R
W
102
3 B
W
R
B
5
B. Not Important
4 B
B
R
W
47
5 C
W
R
B
7
C. Not Important
6 C
B
R
W
72
7 D
W
R
B
23
Pink X: Interaction w/ other
factor(s)
8 D
B
R
W
30
9 E
W
R
B
7
???
10 E
B
R
W
20
11 F
W
R
B
73
Prob. Red X + Interaction
12 F
B
R
W
18
Cap Run D
W
F
W
R
B
70
Complete Reversal Effected
Cap Run D
B
F
B
R
W
4
Factorial Analysis: D & F
D Best D Worst
F Best 4, 4, 3, 5, 7,
7, 4
Avg: 4.9
23, 18

Avg: 20.5
Row Sum:
25.4
F Worst 73, 20

Avg: 51.5
47, 102, 61
47, 72, 70,
20; Avg: 57.8
Row Sum:
109.3
Diagonal
Sum: 72
Column Sum:
56.4
Column Sum:
78.3
Diagonal
Sum: 62.7
Factorial Analysis:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
20.5 51.8 4.9 51.5
78.3 56.4
2 2
10.95
51.5 57.8 4.9 20.5
109.3 25.4
2 2
41.95
72 62.7
2
4.7
1 2
D. Sum D. Sum
(interaction)
2
D
F
DF
+ +

= =
=
+ +

= =
=

= =
=
Factorial Analysis:
Factor G is Red X: It has a 41.9 main effect
on the process spread
Factor D is a Pink X with 10.9 main effect on
process spread
Their interaction is minor with a contribution
of 4.9 to process spread
With D & F controlled, using a holding fixture
to assure level and reduction in bowing (but
with hardness and thickness tolerances
open up leading to reduced raw metal costs)
the process spread was reduced to 0.004
(.002) much better than the original target
of .005 with an observed C
PK
of 2.5!
Introduction to Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Tool used to systematically evaluate a product,
process, or system
Developed in 1950s by US Navy, for use with flight
control systems
Today its used in several industries, in many
applications
products
processes
equipment
software
service
Conducted on new or existing products/processes
Presentation focuses on FMEA for existing process
Benefits of FMEA
Collects all potential issues into one document
Can serve as troubleshooting guide
Is valuable resource for new employees at the process
Provides analytical assessment of process risk
Prioritizes potential problems at process
Total process risk can be summarized, and compared to other
processes to better allocate resources
Serves as baseline for future improvement at process
Actions resulting in improvements can be documented
Personnel responsible for improvements can gain recognition
Controls can be effectively implemented
Example: Horizontal Bond Process: FMs improved by 40%;
causes improved by 37%. Overall risk in half in about 3 months.
FMEA Development
Assemble a team of people familiar with
process
Brainstorm process/product related defects
(Failure Modes)
List Effects, Causes, and Current Controls
for each failure mode
Assign ratings (1-10) for Severity,
Occurrence, and Detection for each failure
mode
1 is best, 10 is worst
Determine Risk Priority Number (RPN) for
each failure mode
Calculated as Severity x Occurrence x Detection
Typical FMEA Evaluation Sheet
Capturing The Essence of FMEA
The FMEA is a tool to systematically
evaluate a process or product
Use this methodology to:
Prioritize which processes/ parameters/
characteristics to work on (Plan)
Take action to improve process (Do)
Implement controls to verify/validate
process (Check)
Update FMEA scores, and start focusing
on next highest FM or cause (Act
Plan)