Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Case Study: To Reduce Process Variability of Valve Seat Depth in Cylinder Head Using Six Sigma Methodology
A Case Study: To Reduce Process Variability of Valve Seat Depth in Cylinder Head Using Six Sigma Methodology
Darshak A. Desai
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
G.H. Patel College of Engineering and Technology (GCET),
VallabhVidyanagar 388 120, Anand, Gujarat, India
Email: darshak301@yahoo.com
Abstract: The research has been carried out to introduce Six Sigma
methodology in India, particularly in manufacturing SMEs. This paper
deliberates the quality and productivity improvement in a cylinder head
manufacturing enterprise through a case study and deals with an application of
Six Sigma methodology in an industry which offers a framework to identify,
quantify and abolish sources of variation in the manufacturing process of
cylinder head, to optimise the operation variables, improve and endure
performance viz. process yield through well-executed control plans. To support
in the fulfilment of the purpose a practical DMAIC project was conducted. Six
Sigma will provide a structure and training in tools, thereby ensuring that the
tools are used at the right time and in the right way at the machining division.
Application of Six Sigma methodology has resulted in enormous financial
savings for the industry.
Keywords: case study; cylinder head; define-measure-analyse-improvecontrol; DMAIC; Indian manufacturing SMEs; Six Sigma.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Parsana, T.S. and
Desai, D.A. (2016) A case study: to reduce process variability of valve seat
depth in cylinder head using Six Sigma methodology, Int. J. Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.474506.
Biographical notes: Tejaskumar S. Parsana is an Assistant Professor in
Mechanical Engineering Department of V.V.P. Engineering College, Rajkot,
Gujarat, India. He is a certified Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt and has authored
four papers in various international journals. He has completed his Master of
Engineering in Industrial Engineering from G.H. Patel College of Engineering
and Technology and Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering from
C.U. Shah College of Engineering and Technology.
475
Introduction
In order to correctly direct the research project, the authors exploited an extensive
literature survey encompassing ten books and more than 50 papers on Six Sigma
published in international journals. Many companies, such as General Electric, Allied
Signal, Raytheon and Delphi Automotive have implemented Six Sigma programmes and
claimed that these programmes have transformed their organisations.
Brun (2010) in the recent years, many papers and books has been written on the Six
Sigma methodology in manufacturing SMEs. Many papers are presenting case studies of
Six Sigma implementation. A valuable exercise was to sort out the various traits that,
according to the authors, are at the base of a successful Six Sigma implementation. Beatty
476
(2006) stressed hard on measuring current performance of the organisation. This is in line
with Six Sigma philosophy of measure phase. Improvements can be possible only after
knowing the current performance. Summarised as whether organisations are planning on
installing a quality programme such as TQM, lean manufacturing, ISO, Six Sigma or
Baldrige, they will need a commitment and a starting point from which to examine
progress.
Reid (2006) presenting a structured framework for implementing the CI philosophy in
improving the productivity and quality of work performing processes in organisations
came out with three phase programme, which is more or less coinciding with Six Sigmas
define-measure-analyse-improve-control (DMAIC) methodology.
Antony et al. (2005) Although, Six Sigma has been implemented with success in
many large corporations, there is still less documented evidence of its implementation in
smaller organisations. Roy (2013) as the businesses are influenced by globalisation, the
competition is arising more and more and so, to sustain in the global business every
organisation needs to maintain appropriate quality level. The Six Sigma framework
provides an impetus for establishing best practice with the company.
Desai (2008) small scale jobbing industries are inherently capable of adopting Six
Sigma as breakthrough strategy but they need to show the roadmap. The multiple gains
achieved by this initial effort of Six Sigma improvement methodology on one of the
problems of the company are attractive enough for them to deploy Six Sigma
companywide. Dambhare (2013) Six Sigma is one of the simplest and most powerful
methodology used worldwide for quality and process improvement. The methodology
can be applied to find the critical causes of process variation. Hekmatpanah et al. (2008)
SMEs may have to implement Six Sigma slightly in a different way compared to large
companies with plenty of resources. Resources used for the Six Sigma projects by SMEs
should be optimised and attaining maximum organisational effectiveness.
Raghunath and Jayathirtha (2013) specifically large concerns have efficaciously tried
breakthrough improvement strategy to get clarifications in many of their ongoing
problems. But small and medium enterprises are still unknowing regarding strengths of
this improvement drive. Antony (2009) delivers an admirable source for those people
who have faith in that Six Sigma is principally intended for large organisation and also
makes an effort to eradicate one of the collective myths of Six Sigma. The upshots of his
study openly direct that Six Sigma is similarly appropriate to both large corporations and
small companies. In fact, the results are quicker and much more visible in smaller
companies than in larger corporations.
Desai (2012a) basic manufacturing sectors such as foundries and other metal
working/forming industries need breakthrough improvements in quality as well as in
productivity. Six Sigma is one of the most effective breakthrough improvement strategies
having direct impact on operational excellence of an organisation. Chakravorty (2009)
provided a model to effectively guide the implementation of Six Sigma philosophies for
reducing variation or waste from the operation. Successful implementation of this
management technique must bring huge positive impacts to the organisation. Jin (2011)
proposes a Six Sigma-based framework to deploy high product reliability commitment in
distributed subcontractor manufacturing processes, proposed model was demonstrated on
the reliability deployment of the PCB manufacturing chain in the semiconductor testing
industry.
Shafer and Moeller (2012) utilising a sample of 84 Six Sigma firms represent a wide
variety of industries and firm characteristics, utilising rigorously constructed control
477
groups to ensure the validity of comparisons and conclusions and investigating the impact
of adopting Six Sigma on corporate performance over a ten year period.
Desai et al. (2010) presents two real life case studies highlighting Six Sigma
implementation difficulties in Indian industries. Six Sigma was applied on to their
chronic problems keeping in view the findings of the analysis of Six Sigma
implementation barriers in Indian industries. Easton and Rosenzweig (2012) analyses
successful and failed Six Sigma improvement team projects at a Fortune 500 consumer
products manufacturer with multiple business groups.
de Mast and Lokkerbol (2012) Six Sigma methodologies provide guidelines which
could help the workers understand how to carry out the job and train them to solve
potential problems, compares critically the DMAIC method with insights from scientific
theories in the field of problem solving and highlighted the characteristics of the DMAIC
approach and its limitations, specifically from a problem solving perspective.
Chakrabortty (2013) now-a-days many leading manufacturing industry have started
to practice Six Sigma and Lean manufacturing concepts to boost up their productivity as
well as quality of products. To achieve the Six Sigma level for any manufacturing firm is
a laborious and time consuming task.
Small-scale manufacturing industries are inherently capable of adopting Six Sigma as
breakthrough strategy but they need to show the roadmap. The multiple gains achieved
by this initial effort of Six Sigma improvement methodology on one of the problems of
the company are attractive enough for them to deploy Six Sigma companywide.
478
Table 1
Sigma
Six sigma
DPMO
Process yield
COPQ
Capability
3.4
30.23%
World class
Five sigma
233
69.13%
10 to 15% of sales
Four sigma
6,210
93.32%
15 to 20% of sales
Three Sigma
66,810
99.9379%
20 to 30% of sales
Two Sigma
308.7700
99.97600%
30 to 40% of sales
One Sigma
697,672
99.999660%
Industry average
Non-competitive
Gupta and Bharti (2013) DMAIC is a systematic Six Sigma project management practice
inspired by Demings plan, do, check and act (PDCA) cycle. The process consists of the
five phases called define, measure, analyse, improve and control.
The define phase concentrates on forming the team, defining the projects goals,
mapping the process, identifying customers and identifying the high impact
characteristics or the critical to quality (CTQs).
The Measure phase consists of defining and executing a systematic data collection
plan for the key measures (CTQs) for the targeted process. Data collected in the measure
phase are analysed in the analyse phase to identify the root causes behind the gap
between the current performance and the goals identified in the first phase by defining the
479
main type of wastes embedded within the production processes and the root causes for
these wastes. The improve phase focuses on identifying expected solutions, suggest set of
alternative solutions to enhance performance and implement some of these solutions
according to the available budget and the expected cost for each alternative.
The control phase concentrates on creating and implementing monitoring and
response plans for sustaining improvements, spread out the outcome and the
methodology for the whole organisation, insure the establishment of a new culture within
the organisation.
DMAICs roadmap has been used as a general framework for process improvement
and lean tools have been embedded within these phases. Lin and Chen (2013) Six Sigma
DMAIC process is defined as follows:
1
define: define the core focuses that will involve clarifying the results being sought,
confirming value to the business, establishing boundaries and resources,
communicating goals and plans and identifying the customers and their needs
measure: gather data to validate and to quantify the problem/opportunity with the
aims at setting priorities and making good decisions about what criteria are needed
analyse: find the root causes by delving into the details, enhancing its understanding
of the process and problem and identifying the culprit behind the problem
improve: develop solutions and modify the problems and goal statements to reflect
the discoveries
control: ensure a long term impact on the way people work by the aids of developing
a monitoring process to keep track of the changes they have set out and created.
The chapter presents the DMAIC project and there are sections for each phase in the
DMAIC improvement cycle. This section presents the results of the DMAIC project
concerning the C cylinder head production line. Each phase of the DMAIC process
improvement cycle is presented in a subsection.
480
The customer complaints records at the machining unit of company are reviewed and
the 15 complaints received, until august 2013, are distributed over the different
production channels as shown in Table 2. The table also describes the increase of
customer complaints of C cylinder head over the last three years.
Table 2
Production line
2012
2013 (August)
5
4
4
3
16
4
2
6
4
16
3
3
7
2
15
A
B
C
D
Total
Pareto chart illustrating the customer complaints in 2013 (august) (see online version
for colours)
Customer complaints during 2013
16
100
14
No. of Complaint
10
60
8
40
6
4
Percent
80
12
20
2
0
Production Line
No. of Complaint
Percent
Cum %
7
46.7
46.7
3
20.0
66.7
3
20.0
86.7
2
13.3
100.0
Production line C contributes with seven of the 15 customer complaints. This is further
illustrated by forming a Pareto chart over the customer complaints in the different
channels. In Figure 2 it is obvious that C cylinder production line has received the largest
number of customer complaints during 2013. The authors decided, in deliberation with
personnel concerned, to take a closer look at the customer complaints in C cylinder head
production channel. The following Pareto chart, illustrated in Figure 3, shows the
identified reasons for the seven customer complaints stated in the internal complaint
records at the C channel.
Four of the seven customer complaints in C cylinder head production channel are
caused by the valve seat parameter. This indicates that valve seat is a problem area in the
production process in C channel.
The production technicians of production section C is sources of knowledge about the
different processes. They also pointed out the quality problems in the C cylinder head as
a possible candidate for a Six Sigma project.
481
Pareto chart for customer complaints in C production line (see online version
for colours)
C - Cylinder Head
7
100
80
5
4
60
40
20
1
0
Types of complaint
ve
al
V
at
Se
pt
De
h
To
t
gh
ei
H
l
ta
z
No
e
zl
pt
De
No. of complaint
Percent
Cum %
Table 3
Percent
No. of complaint
3
42.9
42.9
2
28.6
71.4
ve
al
Se
at
1
14.3
85.7
e
et
am
i
D
1
14.3
100.0
Opportunity statement
Project scope
Team
Start
Define
End
September 13
October13
Measure
October 13
November 13
Analyse
November 13
January 13
Mr. XUV
Improve
January 13
February 13
Mr. SFG
Control
March 13
482
SIPOC diagram
Supplier
Input
Process
Output
Customer
Foundry
store
utility
Machining
operation,
cleaning,
inspection,
packing
Cylinder head
Oil engine/diesel
engine
manufacturer
Machine
Man
Tool insert
Fixture measurement
gages, etc.
Compressed air
Power
To understand the problem clearly and to identify all the relevant elements of this study,
SIPOC diagram was used. After focusing on the operations in cylinder head
manufacturing unit, machining process is found as pain area where process variation was
occurred.
483
Process map for C cylinder head (see online version for colours)
484
Operation/process
Measuring gage
Specification limit(mm)
57 + 0.025
54 + 0.025
11.60 + 0.10
11.60 + 0.10
18 + 0.018
18 + 0.018
Nozzle depth
17.5 0.20
Total height
Height gage
110 0.050
485
X and S chart of inlet valve seat depth sample data (see online version for colours)
Inlet valve seat depth Xbar-S Chart
11.73
U C L= 11.7271
Sample M ean
11.70
_
_
X= 11.6721
11.67
11.64
LC L= 11.6170
11.61
1
15
22
29
36
Sa m p le
43
50
57
64
U C L= 0.08060
Sample StDev
0.08
0.06
_
S = 0.03858
0.04
0.02
0.00
LC L= 0
1
Figure 7
15
22
29
36
Sa m p le
43
50
57
64
X and S chart of exhaust valve seat depth sample data (see online version for colours)
Exhaust Valve seat Depth Xbar-S Chart
Sample M ean
11.73
U C L= 11.7243
11.70
_
_
X= 11.6712
11.67
11.64
LC L= 11.6182
11.61
1
15
22
29
36
S a m p le
43
50
57
64
Sample StDev
0.08
U C L= 0.07764
0.06
_
S = 0.03716
0.04
0.02
0.00
LC L= 0
1
15
22
29
36
S a m p le
43
50
57
64
486
As shown in the Figures 6 and 7graph the process mean is stable, no subgroup is out of
control on either X or S chart. There is no need to be concerned about the precision limit
because 100 or more data points are included in calculation. If the data are correlated you
may see increase number of false alarm. Because less than 2% of sub group are outside
the control limit on the x chart, the correlation test is not needed.
Six pack Minitab analysis of inlet valve seat depth sample data (see online version
for colours)
Xbar Chart
Capability Histogram
11.72
UCL=11.7271
11.68
_
_
X=11.6721
LSL
Specifications
LSL 11.6
USL 11.7
11.64
LCL=11.6170
1
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
Sample Range
R Chart
0.2
UCL=0.2019
0.1
_
R=0.0955
0.0
LCL=0
1
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
11.5
Last 25 Subgroups
Within
StDev 0.04105
Cp
0.41
Cpk
0.23
PPM
287587.93
11.68
11.60
50
55
60
Sample
11.6
11.7
11.8
Capability Plot
11.76
Values
USL
65
70
Within
Overall
Specs
StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM
Overall
0.04104
0.41
0.23
*
287510.72
487
But from the capability plot, you can see that the process tolerance falls above the upper
specification limit. This means sometimes see valve seat depth that encounters the upper
specification of 11.7 mm.
Ppk is similar to the Cpk statistic and a value of 0.23 indicates that this process is not
capable for the longer term. Figure 8, as per calculation the values obtained for inlet
valve seat depth process capability are Cp = 0.41, and Cpk = 0. 23. It can be seen that
the process uses up more than the specification band. It can also be deciphered that the
process is off-centred, but capable. From the measurement phase it is observed that
current sigma level is 2.06, defects per million are 287,587.93, process yield 71.24%.
Figure 9
Six pack Minitab analysis of exhaust valve seat depth sample data (see online version
for colours)
Sample Mean
Xbar Chart
11.72
UCL=11.7243
11.68
_
_
X=11.6712
LSL
USL
Specifications
LSL 11.6
USL 11.7
11.64
LCL=11.6182
1
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
Sample Range
R Chart
0.2
UCL=0.1945
0.1
_
R=0.0920
LCL=0
0.0
1
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
11.5
Values
Within
StDev 0.03954
Cp
0.42
Cpk
0.24
PPM
269207.67
11.68
11.60
55
60
Sample
11.7
11.8
Capability Plot
Last 25 Subgroups
11.76
50
11.6
65
70
Within
Overall
StDev
Pp
Ppk
Cpm
PPM
Overall
0.03955
0.42
0.24
*
269344.23
Specs
Figure 9, as per calculation the values obtained for inlet valve seat depth process
capability are Cp = 0.42, and Cpk = 0. 24. It can be seen that the process uses up more
than the specification band. It can also be deciphered that the process is off-centred, but
capable. From the measurement phase it is observed that current sigma level is 2.12,
defects per million are 269,207.67, process yield 73.08%.
488
project. Objectives are defined, the independent variables are identified and sources of
variation are analysed.
Parts: ten
Operators: two
Replicates: three
Total runs: 60
Date of study:
20 February 2014
Reported by:
Tejas S. Parsana
Tolerance:
0.1
The result coming from analysing is in below. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
used to calculate variance components:
Source
DF
SS
MS
Parts
0.083544
0.0092827
94.5068
0.000
Operators
0.000704
0.0001760
1.7919
0.152
Parts*operators
36
0.003536
0.0000982
1.1162
0.355
0.0000880
Repeatability
50
0.004400
Total
99
0.092184
VarComp
0.0000965
9.50
Repeatability
0.0000923
9.09
Reproducibility
0.0000042
0.41
0.0000042
0.41
Operators
489
0.0009190
90.50
Total variation
0.0010155
100.00
Source
0.0098217
0.058930
30.82
Repeatability
0.0096062
0.057637
30.14
0.0020460
0.012276
6.42
0.0020460
0.012276
6.42
Reproducibility
Operators
Part-to-part
0.0303157
0.181894
95.13
Total variation
0.0318670
0.191202
100.00
depth by Parts
100
% Contribution
Percent
% Study Var
50
11.70
11.65
11.60
Gage R&R
Repeat
Reprod
Part-to-Part
Sample Range
R Chart by Operators
1
10
depth by Operators
0.050
11.70
0.025
UCL=0.02091
_
R=0.0064
LCL=0
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
11.65
11.60
Parts
11.70
_
_
UCL=11.6716
X=11.6596
LCL=11.6476
11.65
11.60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Parts
3
Operators
1
Sample Mean
5
6
Parts
Operators
11.70
1
2
3
4
11.65
11.60
1
5 6
Parts
10
The gage R&R study produces six graphs shown in Figure 10. A component of variation
graph provides bars for each of the variance components including gage R&R,
repeatability, reproducibility and part-to-part variation.
Estimate the percent variation due to the measuring system. The percent variation
appears in the gage R&R table. 90.5% of the total variation in the measurements is due to
the part-to-part variation. When % contribution for part-to-part is high, the system is able
to distinguish between parts. Using %study variation when interested in comparing the
measurement system variation to the total variation is always recommended.
490
Gage R&R study shows total gage R&R %contribution is 9.50 and repeatability
% contribution is 9.09 means gage system is unacceptable. New depth dial gage is
introduced for measurement of cylinder head valve seat depth.
Material
Personnel
Hardne ss
Calibaration
e rror
Lack of
inspe ction
Unsk ille d
Burrs on e dge
Lack of
instrum e nt
Square ne ss
P re vious
m achining
variatio n follow
Environment
Method
Valve
seat
depth
variation
Incapability
W ork table
fla te ne ss
W rong param e te r
se le ction
Machine
4.3.3 Multi-voting
By design, brainstorming generates a long list of ideas. However, also by design, many
are not realistic or feasible. The multi-voting activity allows a group to narrow their list
or options into a manageable size for sincere consideration or study. It allows all
members of the group to be involved in the process and ultimately saves the group a lot
of time by allowing them to focus energy on the ideas with the greatest potential.
Lack of motivation
Inexperienced operator
Machine incapability
Material hardness
12
13
14
15
Lack of training
Lack of inspection
11
10
Burrs on edges
Cause
10
Operator 1
10
Operator 2
10
Supervisor
QC
engineer
QC head
Production
head
10
Author
15
27
29
31
32
33
35
41
42
47
48
51
54
61
63
Total
Table 6
Rank
491
492
Table 7
X1
Inlet valve seat depth and cylinder height regression data sheet
Z1
X2
Z2
X3
Z3
11.66
110.04
11.67
110.03
11.70
110.02
11.64
110.00
11.65
109.99
11.70
110.03
11.65
110.02
11.66
110.02
11.70
110.01
11.67
110.03
11.68
110.02
11.71
110.03
11.66
110.02
11.67
110.02
11.70
110.00
11.65
110.02
11.67
110.02
11.70
110.02
11.64
110.01
11.66
110.01
11.69
109.99
4.3.4.1 Regression analysis of inlet valve seat depth and cylinder height
493
4.3.4.2 Regression analysis of exhaust valve seat depth and cylinder height
Table 8
Y1
Exhaust valve seat depth and cylinder height regression data sheet
Z1
Y2
Z2
Y3
Z3
11.65
110.04
11.68
110.03
11.70
110.02
11.62
110.00
11.63
109.99
11.70
110.03
11.64
110.02
11.63
110.02
11.70
110.01
11.64
110.03
11.65
110.02
11.71
110.03
11.65
110.02
11.66
110.02
11.70
110.00
11.64
110.02
11.65
110.02
11.70
110.02
11.63
110.01
11.65
110.01
11.69
109.99
S is called the standard error or the standard error of the estimate. The smaller the value
of S implies the stronger the linear relationship.
In this model, the R-sq interpretation is that almost % of the variability in the valve
seat depth is explained by the height of cylinder head.
Rocker
mounting hole
Spot face
Bolt Hole
finish
Dowel finish
Valve guide
hole
Water direction
hole
Bottom
side
Top side
Process
description
Operation
no.
Leakage problem
Improper setting,
improper tool select
Improper setting,
improper tool select
OCC
2
Improper setting, tool
wear, improper
process parameters
Potential causes
Functional problem at
customer end
Functional problem at
customer end
SEV
Setup VMC
program,
process
drawing, work
instruction, first
piece inspection
Setup VMC
program,
process
drawing, work
instruction, first
piece inspection
Current control
prevention
Revision date:
Rev. no.:
Doc. no.:
In-process
inspection
In-process
inspection
In process
inspection
(100%)
In-process
inspection
In-process
inspection
Current
control
detection
24
36
36
12
36
36
36
DET RPN
Table 9
494
T.S. Parsana and D.A. Desai
Process FMEA
495
R-squared adjusted is the version of R-squared that has been adjusted for the number of
predictors in the model. R-squared tends to overestimate the strength of the association,
especially when more than one independent variable is included in the model.
Machine
Machine parameter like speed feed depth of cut of drilling operation on CNC-VMC
optimise for cast iron cylinder head through design of experiment but due to some
limitation not performed. Machine is enough capable for cylinder head parts
production. Worktable and vertical milling centre of machine squareness test
suggested to management and in future it will check and correct by Seller
Companys technician.
Fixture
Measurement
As %studyvar for gage R&R is 30.82 and since %contribution is 9.50 then totally it
shows that the system is unacceptable. Running gage of R&R can help us to find the
error of every measuring apparatus and every operator. The conclusion may result in
496
Environment
Material
Burrs on edges remove manually by trained operator through fine grits grinding
wheel and cleaned by pressurised air gun. Material hardness test performs for each
lot of casting cylinder head and high grade tool insert ordered for increase tool life in
continuous operation.
Person
Operators and production technician are sufficient experienced and trained. So for
motivation, new incentive wage scheme will work satisfactory and suggestions are
made to top management for quality circle and employee welfare.
Figure 13 Depth dial gage (see online version for colours)
Figure 14 Height gage provided to CNC machine (see online version for colours)
497
Xbar Chart
Capability Histogram
11.68
UCL=11.68320
11.66
_
_
X=11.655
LSL
USL
Specifications
LSL 11.6
USL 11.7
11.64
LCL=11.62680
1
11
13
15
17
19
Sample Range
R Chart
0.10
UCL=0.1034
0.05
_
R=0.0489
0.00
LCL=0
1
11
13
15
17
19
11.60
Last 20 Subgroups
Values
Within
StDev 0.02102
Cp
0.79
Cpk
0.71
PPM 20573.44
11.65
11.60
10
Sample
11.70
11.75
Capability Plot
11.70
11.65
15
20
Within
Overall
Overall
StDev 0.02163
Pp
0.77
Ppk
0.69
Cpm *
PPM 24215.34
Specs
To illustrate Figures 15 and 16 represents liner specifications are in control limits after
rectification of assignable causes. As per calculation, the values obtained for inlet valve
seat depth process capability are Cp = 0.79, and Cpk = 0. 71 and the values obtained for
Exhaust valve seat depth process capability are Cp = 0.82, and Cpk = 0. 72. It can be
seen that the process uses the small specification band. It can be make out that the
process is slightly off-centred, but capable. It is observed that improved sigma level is
3.54, defects per million are 20573.44, process yield 97.44% and improved sigma level is
3.64, defects per million are 16046.56, process yield 98.4% for inlet and exhaust valve
seat depth respectively.
498
Figure 16 Improved exhaust valve seat depth six pack analyses (see online version for colours)
Xbar Chart
Capability Histogram
UCL=11.68343
11.68
LSL
USL
Specifications
LSL 11.6
USL 11.7
_
_
X=11.6563
11.66
11.64
LCL=11.62917
1
11
13
15
17
19
Sample Range
R Chart
0.10
UCL=0.0995
0.05
_
R=0.0470
LCL=0
0.00
1
11
13
15
17
19
11.60
Values
Within
StDev 0.02022
Cp
0.82
Cpk
0.72
PPM 18046.56
11.65
11.60
10
Sample
11.70
11.75
Capability Plot
Last 20 Subgroups
11.70
11.65
15
20
Within
Overall
Overall
StDev 0.02121
Pp
0.79
Ppk
0.69
Cpm *
PPM 23646.91
Specs
Supplier/plant: *****
Top
side
setup
Part/
process
number
C/1SET/FP/01
20.00 mm
Hole dia.
Drill ( 6.75)
Rocker
cover
mount. hole
6.75 mm
20.00 mm
Hole depth
Hole dia.
8.50 mm
Hole dia.
Drill ( 8.5)
32.50 mm 0.500 mm
Rocker
support
mount. hole
42.80 mm
Hole depth
End mill (
42.8)
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
0.050 mm
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
0.050 mm
+0.500
Methods
Evaluation/
measurement
techniques
30.50 mm
Hole depth
End mill (
30.50)
+0.500
15.50 mm 0.200 mm
0.500 mm
Hole depth
20.00 mm
Hole depth
mm
Tolerance
+0.027
Drill ( 15.50)
16.00 mm
Specification
Dowel dia.
Hole depth
VMC
Stud hole
Reamer (
16.00)
Process
End Mill (
32.0)
VM 05
Location
dowel finish
Product
Production:
Pre-Launch:
Prototype:
3 Inform the
supervisor
100%
Reaction plan
Frequency
Size
Control
method
Other customer requirements (if any): final inspection report to be sent with each lot.
Product/process
Spot facing
and drilling
Machine
no.
Process
name
Jigs, fixture,
tooling reqd,
for mfg.
Table 10
Control plan
499
Control plan
Bottom
side
setup
Part/
process
number
VM 06
VMC
Location
dowel
reaming,
finish
Valve seat
and valve
guide bore
Process
name
56.5 mm
11.6 mm
57.00 mm
Hole depth
Depth
Hole dia.
Hole depth
Rough boring
bar 56.5
Finish boring
bar 57.0
Drill ( 15.50)
11.6 mm
54.00 mm
Hole dia.
Finish boring
bar 54.0
53.5 mm
Hole depth
Rough boring
bar 53.5
Specification
16.00 mm
Process
Hole dia.
Product
Production:
Pre-Launch:
Prototype:
Size
Frequency
Control
method
Reaction plan
+0.10
mm
0.03 mm
Depth Dial
(VM-DG-01)
Bore gage
(VM-B.G.-1)
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
+0.10
mm
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
Bore gage
(VM-B.G.-1)
0.10 mm
0.03 mm
4 Reset the
m/c/tooling/jig
fixture as
required by the
supervisor
3 Inform the
supervisor
+0.027
Tolerance
Evaluation/
measurement
techniques
Methods
Other customer requirements (if any): final inspection report to be sent with each lot.
Product/process
Reamer (
16.00)
Jigs, fixture,
tooling reqd,
for mfg.
Supplier/plant: *****
Machine
no.
Table 10
Control plan
500
T.S. Parsana and D.A. Desai
Bottom
side
setup
Part/
process
number
Eccentric
and
concentric
chamfer
Chamfer 45
C/2SET/FP/01
Chamfer 120
Drill ( 19.0)
Water holes
Chamfer 45
10.00 mm
Hole depth
Chamfer 120
8.00 mm
Hole dia.
Drill ( 8.50)
mm
Plug gage (no.
VM-PG-E8982)
Bore gage
(VM-B.G.-1)
0.200 mm
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
mm
+0.036
+0.10
+0.021
Tolerance
Methods
Evaluation/
measurement
techniques
R32.50
R32.48
Vernier (no.
VM-VC-001)
15.50 mm
Gasket
mounting
dowel hole
Drilling of
stud hole
Hole dia.
Specification
18.00 mm
Drill ( 15.50)
Process
Production:
Pre-Launch:
Prototype:
Size
Frequency
Control
method
Reaction plan
Other customer requirements (if any): final inspection report to be sent with each lot.
Product/process
Reamer (
18.00)
Product
Characteristics
Hole dia.
Process
name
Jigs, fixture,
tooling reqd,
for mfg.
Supplier/plant: *****
Machine
no.
Table 10
Control plan
501
502
Figure 17 Notice board for visual quality and production update (see online version for colours)
Conclusions
There is research on Six Sigma implementation in manufacturing sector carried out and
finds the roadmap/framework for medium scale manufacturing sector to implement Six
Sigma successfully. Top management should focus on integrating Six Sigma with
implemented quality management systems and linking with selected suppliers. Linking
Six Sigma for rewards/ recognition to employees will help to encourage them to improve
self-satisfaction and motivated team work with zeal and enthusiasms.
During the implementation of the DMAIC approach, it became obvious that a Six
Sigma project needs resources and top management commitment. Although support from
top management is critical, the role of line management employees is vital too. For this
reason, training on world class performance concepts needs to be provided as well as
appropriate visual management has to take place in order to encourage employees
involvement and participation. Actually the paper written is the mixture of analysis and
practical experience in this technical and advanced world. The implementation of the
various tools and brainstorming sessions has resulted in the improvement of the
manufacturing process and also on the firm as a whole.
Small-scale manufacturing industries are inherently capable of adopting Six Sigma as
breakthrough strategy but they need to show the roadmap. The multiple gains achieved
by this initial effort of Six Sigma improvement methodology on one of the problems of
the company are attractive enough for them to deploy Six Sigma companywide. The
effective way can be project-by-project application of Six Sigma to strengthen their
understanding about this strategy along with consolidating on the gains from it to achieve
overall operational excellence.
503
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Before Improvement
After Improvement
Parameter
Cp
DPMO
Process Yield
Six Sigma Level
Before
improvement
After
improvement
Before
improvement
After
improvement
0.41
0.79
0.42
0.82
287,587.93
20,573.44
269,207.67
16,046.56
71.24%
97.44%
73.08%
98.4%
2.06
3.54
2.12
3.64
504
Table 12
Sr.
no.
After
improvement
Annual
savings
Financial
saving
(million
rupees/year)
3452
247
71%
10.256
3231
217
67%
9.6448
A complete review of the effectiveness of the DMAIC project concerning the valve seat
depth variability cannot be made yet. To do this, the measures developed in the DMAIC
project must be implemented and evaluated. Hence the control phase has to be carried out
to see if the customer complaints disappear and the efficiency increase.
DMAIC is suitable for rather extensive problem solving tasks, requiring all of the
components of problem definition, diagnosis and the design of remedies. It is less suited
for problem tasks of a smaller scope. To implement Six Sigma methodology in
manufacturing sector, the first and the foremost requirement is the quality consciousness
mind in the management of the organisation and the unconditional commitment and
constant effort by every participant of system are essentially required. The most
prominent limitation identified in this study is Six Sigmas inferior methodology for
efficient problem diagnosis. Methodological support for the identification of potential
problem causes is offered as an incoherent and poorly structured collection of techniques,
without strategic guidance to ensure efficiency of the diagnostic search.
The root causes fixed during this project can be taken up separately one by one and
their individual impact on the quality of cylinder head product can be further analysed
with tools such a as frequency distribution of occurrence of each root causes, root cause
factor analysis. DMAIC methodology can be applied to other products/processes so as to
reduce rejection rates or process variability and realise higher overall quality and
productivity. The results are applicable to other products in the same line. The findings
could also be valuable for other similar machines with a similar process. Repatriation of
DMAIC application on the same cylinder head involving more rigorous statistical tools
and thus improving the sigma levels further. Furthermore, the authors recommend Design
of Experiments on machine process parameter for cylinder head material for future work.
References
Antony, J. (2009) Can Six Sigma be effectively implemented in SMEs?, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp.420423.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Mandu, C. (2005) Six Sigma in small and medium sized UK
manufacturing enterprises: some empirical observations, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.860874.
Beatty, J.R. (2006) The quality journey: historical and workforce perspectives and the assessment
of commitment to quality, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management,
Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.139167.
505
Brun, A. (2010) Critical success factors of Six Sigma implementations in Italian companies, Int.
J. Production Economics, Vol. 131, pp.158164.
Chakrabortty, R.K., Biswas, T.K. and Ahmed, I. (2013) Reducing process variability by using
DMAIC model: a case study in Bangladesh, International Journal for Quality Research,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.127140.
Chakravorty, S. (2009) Six Sigma programs: an implementation model, Int. J. Production
Economics, Vol. 119, pp.116.
Dambhare, S., Aphale, S., Kakade, K., Thote, T. and Jawalkar, U. (2013) Reduction in rework of
an engine step bore depth variation using DMAIC and Six Sigma approach : a case study of
engine manufacturing industry, International Journal of Advanced Scientific and Technical
Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.252263.
de Mast, J. and Lokkerbol, J. (2012) An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the
perspective of problem solving, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 139, pp.604614.
Desai, D.A. (2008) Improving productivity and profitability through Six Sigma: experience of a
small-scale jobbing industry, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 3, No. 3,
pp.290310.
Desai, D.A. (2012a) Increasing bottom-line through Six Sigma quality improvement drive: case of
small scale foundry industry, Udyod Pragati, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.114.
Desai, D.A. (2012b) Quality and productivity improvement through Six Sigma in foundry
industry, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.258280.
Desai, D.A. and Patel, M.B. (2010) Six Sigma implementation barriers in Indian industries
survey results and case studies, Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.142162.
Deshmukh, S.V. and Chavan, A. (2012) Six Sigma and SMEs: a critical review of literature,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.157167.
Easton, G.S. and Rosenzweig, E.D. (2012) The role of experience in Six Sigma project success: an
empirical analysis of improvement projects, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30,
pp.481493.
Gupta, N. and Bharti, P.K. (2013) Implementation of Six Sigma for minimizing the defects rate at
a yarn manufacturing company, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.10001011.
Hekmatpanah, M., Sadroddin, M., Shahbaz, S., Mokhtari, F. and Fadavinia, F. (2008) Six Sigma
process and its impact on the organizational productivity, Proceedings of World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 33, pp.375379.
Jin, T., Janamanchi, B. and Feng, Q. (2011) Reliability deployment in distributed manufacturing
chains via closed-loop Six Sigma methodology, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 130,
pp.96103.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006) Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach,
Technovation, Vol. 26, pp.708715.
Lin, C.J. and Chen, F.F. (2013) Continuous improvement of knowledge management systems
using Six Sigma methodology, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 29,
pp.95103.
Prabhushankar, G.V., Devadasan, S.R. and Shalij, P.R. (2008) Six Sigma in Indian automotive
components sector: a survey, ICFAI Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 3,
pp.420423.
Raghunath, A. and Jayathirtha, R.V. (2013) Critical success factors for Six Sigma implementation
by SMEs, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Reid, R.A. (2006) Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.2636.
Roy, H.N., Saha, S., Bhowmick, T. and Goldar, S.C. (2013) Improvement of a fan manufacturing
company by using DMAIC approach: a six-sigma practice, Global Journal of Researches in
Productivity Engineering & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4.
506
Sahoo, A.K., Tiwari, M.K. and Mileham, A.R. (2008) Six Sigma based approach to optimize
radial forging operation variables, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 202,
pp.125136.
Shafera, S.M. and Moeller, S.B. (2012) The effects of Six Sigma on corporate performance: an
empirical investigation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30, pp.521532.
Su, C-T. and Chou, C-J. (2008) A systematic methodology for the creation of Six Sigma projects:
a case study of semiconductor foundry, Expert Systems with Applications, Elsevier Ltd,
Vol. 34, pp.26932703.
Wang, H. (2009) A review of Six Sigma approach: methodology, implementation and future
research, IEEE Xplore, pp.14.