Lean Six Sigma Small Examples

Questions and Answers
How Relevant Questions

Obtain
Useful Answers
March 2014
Confidential and Proprietary to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
1
J udson B. Estes
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
March 2014
2
Weave the wisdom from many available tool sets into a package of
training, certification and project work
1. Collect
Currently available facts relevant to problem.
Listen for what is already known and suspected.
Communicate to entire team the current facts to get on the same page.
2. Contrast
A Measurable difference in performance.
How do you measure the performance?
How Big is the difference?
3. Converge
Use Logical Strategies to isolate the candidate cause.
What split are you making?
How does that narrow the possible causes?
4. Confirm
Test the candidate cause to prove it is the true root cause.
What is your Statistical Confidence?
When can we implement the fix?
Focus on the 4 Cs
March 2014
3
Collect Phase
Describe Problem
Identify Possible Causes
Evaluate Possible Measurements
March 2014
4
Collect Phase
Describe the Problem
State the Problem naming the deviation for
which you want to find the cause
To help stay on track, ask:
What object (or group of objects) has the deviation?
What deviation does it have?
What do we see, feel, hear, taste, or smell that tells us there is a
deviation?
Write a short statement in Object/Deviation format
Use one object and one deviation
Be specific, separate if needed
March 2014
5
Collect Phase
Specify the Problem
Describe the deviation
factually to increase
understanding of the
deviation
Ask questions in 4 areas:
WHATIdentity
WHERELocation
WHENTiming
EXTENTSize
IS IS NOT
Describe the
problem in
detail.
Tighten IS data.
Help eliminate
possible causes.
March 2014
6
Other potential lab conclusions could have
been but were not "cold shock", "high
voltage" & "wear out"
LOP 085032 Needs
replacement Some examined
from Field, Hot shock is the
main conclusion from the
Sylvania lab report
2
. Defect
Magnums and 300C's. Also WK, PT use
same Pt #low beam bulb, All other bulbs
in the Click here to see ID of vehicle,
subassemblies, bulb and field warranty
performance.
low beam bulb #L0009006
used in LX 300 models
LXCH48, LXCP48, LXFP48 .
Click here to see VIN list
1
. Object
WHAT:
(IS NOT observed/reported) (IS observed / reported) facts
NON-PROBLEM AREA PROBLEM ARPEA Description
LX low beam bulb infant failure
Problem Statement:
[
1] PROBLEM AREA
PROBLEM SOLVING
Collect Phase Example
I often say that when you can measure
what you are speaking about, and express it
in numbers, you know something about it;
but when you cannot measure it, when you
cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind;
-Lord Kelvin
March 2014
7
March 2014
8
Contrast Phase
0 1 4
Length (mm)
Current
Required
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0
-3
3
Flushness (mm)
Current
Required
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-1.5 1.5
March 2014
9
Contrast Phase
Cloth seats
Seat back
Seam A
BOB/WOW seam
WOW cushion
Other
strategies
Seam B
Seat cushion
Driver side Passenger side
Front seat Rear seat
Leather seats
Open seams on DR
seats resulting in high
warranty costs
0 1
4 Width (mm)
Current
Required
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Problem Definition Statement
90% of returns are leather
83% of returns are front seats
71% of returns are driver side seats
92% of returns and narratives are seat cushions
Examination of returned product shows
seam B accounts for 42 out of 54 claims
See Strategy Diagram
Find and eliminate the Red X
causing open seams on the DR
front driver side leather seats
March 2014
10
Contrast Phase
What is a BOB and a WOW?
Best of the Best and Worst of the Worst
Not necessarily a good and bad part but really
parts that are as different as possible in the
way they effect the Customer.
We are looking for contrast in order to see
differences
March 2014
11
Measure twice and
get the same answer
on BOB and WOW
Contrast Phase example
March 2014
12
Converge Phase
Once we make sure our measurement system isnt
fooling us then we start generating clues
We then use certain tools to begin to converge on
the Red X candidate
Concentration diagram
Component search Stage 1 and 2
Operation Search
Paired and Group comparisons
Event to Energy transform
March 2014
13
5 Whys to the Root Cause
Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram
IS/ IS Not Problem Specifications
Shainin Red X Strategies
Classical and Taguchi
Design of Experiments
Six Sigma
Pure Statistics
TRIZ and
Systemology
Reactive Problem Solving Hierarchy
Innovation and Evolution
No Strategy and All Tools
Simple Strategy and Most Tools
Multiple Variables and
Interactions
Multiple Strategies, Easy Statistics
Distinctions and Changes
Organized Brainstorming
Simple Questioning
Use the Right Tool for the Problem
March 2014
14
5 Whys to the Root Cause
Ishikawa Fishbone Diagrams
Critical Thinking
Shainin
Classical and Taguchi
Design of Experiments
Six Sigma
Pure Statistics
TRIZ and
Systemology
Problem Solving Hierarchy
Easiest to
Grasp
Hardest to Grasp
Most Widely
Used
Least Widely Used
More Variables
and Interactions
Increased
Variation and
Environment
Changes
March 2014
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
x
xxx
xxx
xxxx
x
x
xx
xx
xx
xxx
xx
Concentration Diagram example
Paint Craters on B pillar
March 2014
16
Component Search Stage 2
Plotting
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
G
r
e
e
n

Y

=

l
b
s
.
Orig. 1
st
D/R 2
nd
D/R 3
rd
D/R S1 orig
*
*
*
*
+
+
+
+
WOW
BOB
.
Stage 1
*
+
+
*
Stage 2
March 2014
17
Confirmation Phase
Once we identify the Red X candidate it is now time
to use statistics to confirm our candidate.
Some tools types that are used for this:
Six Pack B vs. C
Tukey test
Barrier B vs. C
Spike B vs. C
5 Penny test
Factorial Experiment (DOE)
Binomial probability
March 2014
18
Six Pack B vs. C
B
B is the Betterpart or
process or sub-assembly or
material
C
C is the Currentpart or
process or sub-assembly or
material
March 2014
19
Six Pack B vs. C Example 1
The required confidence level is 95%, which therefore requires a
sample size of 3 Bs and 3 Cs and an end count of 6.
Run Order B or C Diameter
(mm)
1 C 10.6
2 B 8.3
3 C 11.2
4 C 9.8
5 B 9.1
6 B 8.8

B 8.3
B 8.8
B 9.1
C 9.8
C 10.6
C 11.2

Rank Order
The end count equals 6. Therefore, it
can be stated with 95% confidence that
the Bs are better than the Cs.
March 2014
20
Six Pack B vs. C Test Example
Distribution of two groups looks something like this.
8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
B B B C C C
March 2014
Confidential and Proprietary to Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles
Reliability
by Design
March 2014
22
Reliability
Prediction of
Performance
Verification of
Performance
Improvement of Prediction
The best Prediction methods are quantative.
The best Verification is actual parts and systems in real usage.
The best Improvement eliminates all discrepancy between prediction and reality.
Deterministic Design
Design parameters are deterministic, i.e., they have unique values
CTQs are also deterministic, and are calculated as functions of the design
variables by transfer functions, Y = f (X
1
, X
2
, , X
N
)
Design
Parameters
(Xs)
CTQs (Ys)
Y
1
.
.
.
Y
N
Transfer Function
Y = f (X
1
, X
2
, X
N
)
Most engineering design is deterministic
X
1
X
2
.
X
N
March 2014
23
Statistical Design
Design parameters are statistical in nature, with mean values and variation
(e.g., standard deviation)
CTQ variations determined by statistical analysis (e.g., Monte Carlo), using the
transfer function and statistical variations in design parameters
Design
Parameters
(Xs)
X
1
X
2
.
X
N
Noise
Parameters
X
N1
. . X
Nn
CTQs (Ys)
Y
1
.
.
.
Y
N
Transfer Function
Y = f (X
1
, X
2
, X
N
)
DFSS uses statistical design to understand and control variation
March 2014
24
March 2014
25
Statistical Design
Why Prototyping Doesn t Reveal Problems
Prototyping does not verify product robustness
It assesses functionality of a single, often hand-selected, sample
Reality: Multiple Product Copies Prototyping: Single Product Copy
Range of
possible
inputs
USL
LSL
X
1
X
2
Y=f(X
1
,X
2
...)
Y
X
n
Input
variability
not captured,
defects masked
Selected
prototype
inputs
USL LSL
Y
Realistic
distribution
of product
Y (CTQ)
Defects
X
1
X
2
X
n
Y=f(X
1
,X
2
...)
Statistical Design
Mechanical Example: Simply Supported Box Beam
P
L
1
L
T
W
P
F
t
h
w
Performance Requirements:
Applied load: 200 kg/m over 1.5 m
Overhang = L
T
-L
1
= 4.5 m
Design margin must be positive,
i.e., yield strength > max stress
6 quality
Low cost
Performance Requirements:
Applied load: 200 kg/m over 1.5 m
Overhang = L
T
-L
1
= 4.5 m
Design margin must be positive,
i.e., yield strength > max stress
6 quality
Low cost
Analysis: Transfer function
Margin = Yield strength - Max stress
= Yield strength - (Max stress from tensile load + Max stress from bending)
F 3hPW
p
(2L
T
- 2L
1
- W
p
)
Margin = S
y
- ____________ - ____________________
2ht + 2wt - 4t
2
wh
3
- (w - 2t) (h - 2t)
3
Baseline Design
March 2014
26
Statistical Design
Deterministic Design of Beam
F 3hPW
p
(2L
T
- 2L
1
- W
p
)
Analysis: Margin = S
y
- ____________ - ____________________
2ht + 2wt - 4t
2
wh
3
- (w - 2t) (h - 2t)
3
Choose values for
design parameters
and applied loads:
Substituting: Margin = + 9,726 kg/m
2
Design Parameter/Load Value
Beam length, L
T
(m) 12
Support length, L
1
(m) 7.5
Beam height, h (m) 0.75
Beam width, w (m) 0.25
Section thickness, t (m) 0.05
Yield strength, S
y
(kg/m
2
) 89,600
Uniform load density, P (kg/m) 200
Uniform load width, W
p
(m) 1.5
Tensile load, F (kg) 100
March 2014
27
Baseline design meets positive design margin requirement,
but quality level unknown
Statistical Design
Simply Supported Box Beam
Design Parameter/Load Mean Std Dev Tolerances
Lower Upper
Beam length, L
T
(m) 12 0.017 0.05 0.05
Support length, L
1
(m) 7.5 0.013 0.04 0.04
Beam height, h (m) 0.75 0.0033 0.01 0.01
Beam width, w (m) 0.25 0.0033 0.01 0.01
Section thickness, t (m) 0.05 0.0025 0 0.01
Yield strength, S
y
(kg/m
2
) 89,600 3,200 7,500 0
Uniform load density, P (kg/m) 200 3.3 5 5
p
(m) 1.5 0.07 0.2 0.2
Tensile load, F (kg) 100 1.65 5 5
Design parameters & applied loads are statistical in nature
Choose mean values and a variability measure (e.g., std deviation)
Consider tolerances
F 3hPW
p
(2L
T
- 2L
1
- W
p
)
y
- ____________ - ____________________
2ht + 2wt - 4t
2
wh
3
- (w - 2t) (h - 2t)
3
March 2014
28
Statistical Design
Simply Supported Box Beam
Design margin may be positive or negative!
Do a statistical analysis (e.g., Monte Carlo), using transfer function
and statistical parameter & load values
Results:
Margin mean 9,726 kg/m
2
Margin std dev 5,466 kg/m
2
Defect probability 3.8%
Design 3.3
F 3hPW
p
(2L
T
- 2L
1
- W
p
)
y
- ____________ - ____________________
2ht + 2wt - 4t
2
wh
3
- (w - 2t) (h - 2t)
3
.000
.010
.020
.030
.040
-5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 0
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Design Margin (kg/m
2
)
Mean = 9,726
Defects
March 2014
29
Design optimization analysis:
Use transfer function to understand the shape of the response surface
and the design margins sensitivity to each design parameter
Reduce defects by shifting mean values or reducing variances of the
most sensitive design parameters
Sensitivities found by partial differentiation of transfer function and
evaluation at design point
Statistical Design
Reaching 6
Design Parameter/Load Mean Std Dev Sensitivity
Beam length, L
T
(m) 12 0.017 - 21,003
Support length, L
1
(m) 7.5 0.013 21,003
Beam height, h (m) 0.75 0.0033 180,205
Beam width, w (m) 0.25 0.0033 181,676
Section thickness, t (m) 0.05 0.0025 1,158,739
Yield strength, S
y
(kg/m
2
) 89600 3200 1
Uniform load density, P (kg/m) 200 3.3 - 393.8
p
(m) 1.5 0.07 - 42,007
Tensile load, F (kg) 100 1.65 - 11.1
Margin most
sensitive to t,
with w and h next
March 2014
30
Design margin results:
Beam width, w 0.25 0.30 0.35
Mean 9,726 17,879 24,518
Std deviation 5,466 5,124 4,853
Defect prob, % 3.8 0.024 0.00002
Design 3.3 5.0 6.5
Statistical Design
Reaching 6
Improving the design margin:
In general, design can be improved by shifting means of the most
sensitive parameters or reducing their variabilities
Although t is the most sensitive parameter, we elect to shift the mean of w
(next most sensitive) because box beams come in only a few standard
thicknesses (the next thicker beam would be too costly and heavy)
.000
.010
.020
.030
.040
-5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 0
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Design Margin (kg/m
2
)
w = 0.25
w = 0.30
w = 0.35
Defects
March 2014
31
March 2014
32
Problem Solving or Problem Prevention
Discussion and Questions ??
Statistical Design
Electronics Example: Switching Power Supply
Baseline Design
Isolated switching converter/
feedback section
Baseline design combines
power MOSFET & control circuit
in a 3-pin package
Input Filter
Isolated Switching
Converter
Feedback
V
o
= 5 V
dc
, +/-5%
V
in
= 85 - 275 V
ac
Performance Requirements
Output voltage, V
o
: 5 V, +/-5%
Input voltage, V
in
: 85 - 275 V
6 quality
Low cost
R
2
R1
CTRL
V
o
PWM IC
OPTO
V
ref
I
b
R
1
March 2014
33
Statistical Design
Deterministic Design of Power Supply
Baseline design meets 5V, +/- 5% performance requirement,
but quality level unknown
Choose values for
design parameters:
Substituting: Output voltage = 5.04 volts
Design Parameter Value
LM 431I ref voltage, V
ref
(volts) 2.495
R
1
(ohms) 10,000
R
2
(ohms) 10,000
Bias current, I
b
(amps) 5.0E-06
V
ref
V
o
= V
ref
+ R
2
____ + I
b
R
1
( )
March 2014
34
Statistical Design
Switching Power Supply
Design Parameter Mean Std Dev Tolerances
Lower
Upper
LM 431I V
ref
(volts) 2.495 0.0283 0.085 0.085
R
1
(ohms) 10,000 33.33 1% 1%
R
2
(ohms) 10,000 33.33 1% 1%
Bias current, I
b
(amps) 5.0E-06 1.15E-06 2.00E-06 2.00E-06
(unchanged)
Design parameters are
statistical in nature. Choose
mean values and a variability
measure (e.g., std deviation):
Baseline design meets 5V, +/- 5% performance
requirement, but quality level is not 6
Do a statistical analysis
(e.g., Monte Carlo), using the
transfer function and the
statistical parameter values
Results:
V
o
mean 5.04 volts
V
o
std dev 0.059 volts
Defects/million 188 (5.06)
V
ref
V
o
= V
ref
+ R
2
____ + I
b
R
1
( )
4.75 4.875 5.00 5.125 5.25
Volts
.000
.009
.017
.026
.035
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
March 2014
35
Design optimization analysis:
Use transfer function to understand the shape of the response surface
and the output voltages sensitivity to each design parameter
Reduce defect rate by shifting mean values or reducing variances of
design parameters
Statistical Design
Reaching 6
Design Parameter Mean Std Dev Sensitivity
LM 431I V
ref
(volts) 2.495 0.0283 2
R
1
(ohms) 10,000 33.33 -0.0002495
R
2
(ohms) 10,000 33.33 0.0002545
Bias current, I
b
(amps) 5.0E-06 1.15E-06 10,000
Design Mod 1: Center distribution
by increasing R
1
to 10,160 ohms
Results:
V
o
mean 5.00 volts
V
o
std dev 0.058 volts
Defects/million 20 (5.61)
4.75 4.875 5.00 5.125 5.25
Volts
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Base Centered
.000
.009
.019
.028
.038
March 2014
36
Statistical Design
Reaching 6 (contd)
Summary
Statistical design enables performance, quality
& cost prediction during the design process
Design Mod 3: Mod 2 plus LM 431AI
MOSFET to reduce V
ref
variance
Base 0.1% Resistors
MOSFET Upgrade
.000
.012
.025
.037
.050
4.75 4.875 5.00 5.125 5.25
Volts
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Design Mod 2: Mod 1 plus 0.1%
resistors to reduce resistor variance
Centered 0.1% Resistors
.000
.009
.019
.028
.038
4.75 4.875 5.00 5.125 5.25
Volts
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mean Std Dev DPMO
Z
ST
Cost
Baseline Design 5.04 0.059 189 5.06 100%
Mod 1: Centered via R
1
5.00 0.058 20 5.61 100%
Mod 2: 0.1% Resistors 5.00 0.057 13 5.7 101%
Mod 3: LM 431AI 5.00 0.041 ~0 7.58 105%
March 2014
37

Lean Six Sigma Small Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Lean Six Sigma Small Examples

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lean Six Sigma Small Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Questions and Answers

How Relevant Questions

You might also like