International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

A DMAIC Six Sigma approach to quality improvement in the anodising stage of the amplifier production
process
Pallavi Sharma, Suresh Chander Malik, Anshu Gupta, P C Jha,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pallavi Sharma, Suresh Chander Malik, Anshu Gupta, P C Jha, "A DMAIC Six Sigma approach to quality improvement in
the anodising stage of the amplifier production process", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2017-0155
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2017-0155
Downloaded on: 28 August 2018, At: 05:32 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 A DMAIC Six Sigma approach to quality improvement in the anodising stage of the

amplifier production process

Pallavi Sharma, S C Malik

Department of Statistics, M.D. University, Rohtak, India,
pallavisharma.03@gmail.com, sc_ malik@rediffmail.com

Anshu Gupta
School of Business, Public Policy and Social Entrepreneurship, Ambedkar University Delhi, India,
anshu@aud.ac.in

P C Jha
Department of Operational Research, University of Delhi, Delhi, India, jhapc@yahoo.com
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Abstract

Purpose: This research aims to study the anodising process of a portable amplifier production process to

identify and eliminate the sources of variations, in order to improve the process productivity.

Design/methodology/approach: The study employs the DMAIC Six Sigma methodology. Within the

DMAIC framework various tools of quality management such as SIPOC analysis, cause and effect diagram,

current reality tree etc. are used in different stages.

Findings: High rejection rate was found to be the main problem leading to lower productivity of the process.

Four types of defects were identified as main cause of rejections in the baseline process. Pareto analysis

resulted in detection of the top defects, which were then analysed in details to find the root cause of the

problem. Further study resulted in finding improvement measures that were discussed with the management

before implementation. The process is sampled again to check the improvements, and control measures were

established.

Practical implications: The study provides a framework for implementation of DMAIC Six Sigma

methodology for a manufacturing firm. The results presented are based on the data collected from the shop

floor. Results and findings of the study were implemented for quality improvement of the process.

Originality: The study is based on an original research conducted with the objective of quality improvement

in the anodising process of the production process. Besides presenting an approach to DMAIC Six Sigma

methodology, an application of the Current Reality Tree tool for root cause analysis is presented, used
 limitedly in the Six Sigma studies. The tool finds its uniqueness in its ability to address problems relating

multiple factors than isolated factors.

Key words: Six Sigma, DMAIC methodology, quality improvement

1. Introduction

The “Make in India” programme, launched in India in September 2014 focuses on growth of the

manufacturing sector in the country. Currently, manufacturing in India accounts for 16% of the GDP

(Shiralashetti, 2012). The programme envisions, increasing the GDP contribution of the manufacturing sector
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

to 25% by the year 2025, create huge pool of employment and self employment opportunities; and thereby

improving the economic health of the country. One of the important step manufacturers are following under

this initiative is investment in methodologies and tools for process reengineering and quality improvement.

India has a large MSME (Micro, Small and Medium sized enterprises) base and accounts for 45% industrial

output (Javalgi and Tod, 2011; Katyal and Xaviour, 2015). The major challenges faced by these units are

competition from national and global players and limited availability of monetary, personnel, technological

and other recourses. In the demand driven economy, the path of growth for the MSME units also relates to the

adoption of practices that facilitate production of reliable and quality products. Several MSME’s have realised

the situation and have started adopting quality management practices. This research presents an application of

Six Sigma DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) approach for improving the process quality

of anodising stage of an amplifier production process. The case study presented here is based on real life data

of an amplifier production unit.

The firm is interested in reducing the process variation and defects. In this direction a quality improvement

project is initiated. The amplifier production process adopted by the firm is designed in seven sub-processes

(stages). It is planned to execute the project in stages considering one stage at a time for quality improvement

using Six Sigma DMAIC methodology (Hamza, 2008). The project started with quality improvement efforts

applied to the chassis preparation stage (Gupta et al., 2016). The study presents the implementation of Six

Sigma program to the anodising stage of the production process that follows the chassis preparation.
 There are numerous approaches for quality management and improvement including statistical quality control

(SQC), Six Sigma, zero defects, total quality management (TQM), quality circle etc. Since inception in 1980’s

by Bill Smith at Motorola (Barney, 2002) for quality improvement of manufacturing operations, Six Sigma

have been successfully used for quality improvement projects in several types of business functions such as

purchasing, finance, service, marketing etc. Six Sigma DMAIC methodology is a combination of statistical

and managerial methods that aims at reducing the process variation (Evans and Lindsay, 2014). The

variability reduction is achieved by systematic identification of the causes of variation and implementing

corrective measures such that the process yield is improved. Manufacturing organizations continued adopting
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Six Sigma as a process improvement and defect reduction approach to waste elimination (Swarnakar and

Vinodh, 2016). Following section briefly discusses the literature review related to the Six Sigma approaches

and applications.

1.1 Literature Review

In the literature several research and case studies discusses the implementation of Six Sigma approach for

quality improvement in manufacturing settings such as (Banuelas et al., 2005; Desai, 2006; Kumar et al.,

2007, 2011; Lee et al., 2009; Kumar and Sosnoski, 2009; Gijo et al., 2011; Thakore et al., 2014; Zhang et al.,

2015 and Antony et al., 2016). The approach is applied successfully in manufacturing settings of different

scale. Banuelas et al., (2005) discussed a case study illustrating implementation of Six Sigma to reduce waste

in a coating process. The authors used the DMAIC Six Sigma framework as a tool to uncover the causes of

unknown problems. Desai (2006) presented a roadmap for application of DMAIC Six Sigma program for a

small scale industry. A case study is discussed for improving the customer delivery operations. Kumar et al.,

(2007) applied DMAIC Six Sigma methodology for reducing the casting defects in an automotive engine

production process. The authors discussed management commitment and involvement, linking Six Sigma

project goals with customer requirements and business strategy, training and skill development of employees

are some of the critical success factors of a Six Sigma program. Kumar and Sosnoski (2009) discussed the

application of Six Sigma DMAIC methodology for improving the quality and cost of shop floor of Wilson

Tool Company. The application of Six Sigma program resulted in reducing scrap and non value added
 activities achieved using the quality management tools brainstorming, process mapping, fishbone diagrams,

histograms and control chart.

Gijo et al., (2011) demonstrated the application of Taguchi method and design of experiments (DOE) for

reducing the defects in a fine grinding process of an automotive company. The study due to Kumar et al.,

(2011) discussed a framework for deployment of Six Sigma in context of SMEs based on a survey, case

studies conducted in 10 SME’s located in Scotland and England and secondary research. A five phase

framework consisting of stages – readiness for Six Sigma, prepare, initialise, institutionalise and sustain- is
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

proposed in the study. Zhang et al., (2015) discussed the systematic implementation of DMAIC Six Sigma

methodology for controlling the thickness variation of cold rolling stainless steel sheet for a leading stainless

steel manufacturer in China. The study uses the tools such as C&E diagram and matrix, FMEA to

identify the key factors related to main defect which are analyzed using different tools such as One-

way ANOVA and regression method and DOE is conducted to optimize the process parameters. The

study reported reduction of over thinness in sheets from 40 to 5 per month, leading to reduction by

57.6% in the cost due to quality rejections per year. Similar to the studies cited above several other case

studies in the literature discusses application of Six Sigma for manufacturing firms and various tools used in

the DMAIC phases.

This study uses a combination of classical and advanced tools for DMAIC Six Sigma implementation in the

anodising stage of the amplifier production process.

2. Research Methodology

This research attempts to implements DMAIC model of Six Sigma to reduce the defects in the anodising stage

of a portable amplifier. The results presented in the study are based on the analysis conducted on the anodising

process shop floor of the firm under consideration. Before the project is executed, detailed review of literature

is conducted to study the basic framework of Six Sigma approach for MSMEs (Kumar et al., 2011) and the

various tools that can be used in each stage of the DMAIC model. DMAIC is a sequential model consisting of

five stages (define, measure, analyse, improve and control) wherein each stage has a well defined objective,
 requires inputs and using the appropriate tools output of that stage is generated following a PDCA (plan-do-

check-act) framework. Based on the review of the literature and a brainstorming session between the members

of the project team quality management tools to be used in each stage of the study are selected. In this study

methods and tools such as SIPOC analysis, Pareto analysis, control charts, cause and effect diagrams (C&E)

and current reality tree (CRT) are used in the different stages of the DMAIC model.

3. Case study

The implementation of the DMAIC Six Sigma quality improvement program on anodising process of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

amplifier production is presented in this section. Each phase of the DMAIC model is discussed with data

analysis, results and discussion.

3.1 Define

Define phase of DMAIC model focus on developing the project charter (Figure 1). The problem statement,

objective, project team, timeline, execution plan, goal(s) and expected outcomes consistent with the customer

requirement and business strategy are defined in the define phase (Antony et al., 2012). The anodising

process is the second stage of the seven stage amplifier production process. The process produces a durable,

corrosion-resistant translucent film of aluminium oxide on the surface of the base metal of the prepared

amplifier chassis. It also gives better finish on the surface. On completion of each stage of the amplifier

production process a quality check is conducted (for details see Gupta et al., 2016). The defective pieces are

removed from the lot and then the lot moves for further processing. The management wants to improve the

productivity of the production process. As discussed earlier, , the project is executed in stages targeting the

defect reduction of one stage at a time. The project team included quality head, representatives of purchasing,

production (shop floor), stores, quality and maintenance team, and design engineer of the firm along with the

researchers. In the initial brainstorming session among the team members, higher rejection rate is identified as

the main problem leading to lower productivity of the process.

Figure 1. Project Charter

 The objective of the study is set to identify the causes of defects in the anodising process and recommend

corrective measures for process improvement. The current process performance is used to establish the

numerical goals in terms of target sigma level (see measure phase). The project execution started with

structured recording of the key suppliers, inputs, process mapping, defining output(s), customers and

identifying elements critical to quality using SIPOC analysis. This followed computing the baseline process

performance (sigma level) based on sampling and identifying the top defects using Pareto analysis. The

potential causes of top defect are analysed using C&E diagrams. The CRT tool is used for root cause analysis.

The team with the help of design engineers, and further observations and analysis gave recommendations for
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

process improvement. The suggestions accepted by the management were implemented and the process was

sampled again to measure the process performance post improvement and control.

In order to improve the quality of a process it is imperative to understand the process design, key process

elements, inputs, outputs, defects occurring in the process and their causes. The SIPOC analysis is a tool that

is used to define and document a process including its supplier as well as customer(s) (Yeung, 2009). The fig.

2 below shows the SIPOC diagram for the anodising process.

Figure 2. SIPOC Diagram of Anodising Process

The process of anodising chassis surface is a three step process - pre-treatment, anodising and sealing. Rinsing

of the surface with deionised water is carried between these stages. The pre-treatment process prepares the

surface for electrochemical anodising. Any kind of debris, residual oil and corrosion on the surface of chassis

are removed by cleaning in non-etching, alkaline detergent heated to approximately 63 degree Celsius. On the

surface of the pre-treated chassis a coating of aluminium oxide is formed using an aluminium substrate by the

electrochemical conversion process. The porous aluminium oxide layer formed in the electrochemical

conversion is sealed by boiling chassis in deionised water in the last stage of the process. The whole process is

carried in a controlled environment. Rest of the key elements of the process are listed in the figure 2.
 The rejected pieces available in the inventory were inspected and four types of defects namely – pitting,

streaking, black star pitting (BSP), and crazing are observed. For detailed explanation of these defects the

reader can refer to Qamar et al., (2004). The study is completed in four months.

3.2 Measure

In the measure phase the current sigma level of the process is measured, categorising the items as defective

and non defective based on the four types of defects discussed above. Due to absence of the any past record of

process rejections, sampling is conducted to determine the current sigma level of the process and status of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

process control. Pareto analysis is conducted to prioritize the defects to be controlled in the study

(Montgomery, 2007).

Data Collection: Anodising process is observed for 20 days and 100% inspection of the process output is

conducted. Process specifications are followed to inspect the items for pitting, streaking, BSP and crazing

defects. 8795 units are observed in 20 days sampling that resulted into rejection of 149 units. The sampling

data is recorded using check sheets (represented graphically in Figure 3).

The short term sigma level of the baseline process is estimated to be 3.62 (16,941.44 Parts per Million

(PPM)). To ascertain whether current process is in control or not, p-charts for the attribute data are drawn

(Figure 4). The p-chart shows the anodising process is in control with average fraction defective value 0.0169.

Further Pareto analysis is conducted and Pareto diagram is drawn (Figure 5). Black star pitting and pitting

together accounted to 69.45% of total defectives (black star pitting 37.12% and pitting 32.33%) while rest of

the 30.55 % of the defectives were due to streaking and crazing defects. In a meeting of the project team with

the higher management it is decided that the study will focus on identifying the root causes of the defects -

black star pitting and pitting only, which form the top causes of variations in the process. BSP is characterised

as star shaped black coloured pits on the surface of the anodic film while pitting defects are tiny white or light

grey corrosion marks that usually originate before electrochemical anodising. In line with the previous study

of the chassis preparation stage (Gupta et al., 2015) the goal is set to reduce the percentage defective due to

these two types of defects by 50%.

 Figure 3. Sampling data (measure phase) Figure 4. P- chart (measure phase)

Figure 5. Pareto diagram (measure phase)

3.3 Analyze

Cause and effect analysis (Hagemeyer, 2006) is an important tool of quality management for identifying the

potential causes of the defects in a process. The tool classifies the potential causes under all or some of the
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

generic causes – methods, machines, manpower, material, measurement, maintenance and Environment. Once

the potential causes are identified further analysis is conducted to deduce the root causes. Several tools are

discussed in literature (Doggett, 2003; Andersen and Fagerhaug, 2006) to analyse the potential causes of

nonconformities for root cause(s) of the problem(s). In this study the Current Reality Tree (CRT) (Doggett,

2005) tool is used for root cause analysis. As the potential causes could be related and interdependent, CRT

find its uniqueness in its ability to address problems relating multiple factors than isolated factors. It also links

the undesirable effects with the core problem and thus also helps the practitioners to develop solutions to the

core problems.

The project team conducted brainstorming sessions along with process suppliers and engineers, and closely

observed the shop floor to draw the C&E diagrams and CRT maps . The detailed C&E diagrams are shown in

Figure 6 and 7.

Figure 6. Cause and effect diagram for pitting defect

Figure 7. Cause and Effect Diagram for Pitting Defect

 Potential causes identified in C&E analysis are studied in details to develop CRT maps. The CRT diagrams

are shown in figure 8 and 9. In the CRT maps possible root causes related to each effect are identified for both

types of defects (highlighted in light grey colour boxes). The boxes highlighted in dark grey colour shows the

root causes which are not under the control of the production facility.

Figure 8. Current reality tree for defect black star pitting

Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Figure 9. Current reality tree for the pitting defect

3.4 Improve

The improve phase of the DMAIC model aims to find the solutions that can be implemented in the current

process to eliminate the root causes of nonconformities (undesirable effects). Though BSP and pitting are two

different types of defects, while developing the CRT maps some common causes were diagnosed for both.

Quality of the deionised water used in the process in different steps, setting of anodising parameters, handling

and facility conditions are some of the common causes that may lead to defects in the finished product if

quality is not maintained.

From the literature (Zhu, 2011) and discussions it was observed that the BSP defect occurs due to excess

chlorine content in the electrolytic solution. While pitting defect occurs due to the increase in the level of

acids or alkalis in the process stages or atmosphere mainly during the pre-treatment and rinsing. CRT maps

enabled the identification of all possible causes that brings these undesirable effects. Each of the identified

cause is studied in detail by observing the process, discussions with the shop floor operators and engineers,

checking the standards and established operating procedures to find the gaps, and testing of process

parameters.
 Poor quality of deionised water used at various points of anodising (pre-treatment, rinsing and electrolyte

solution) is found to be an important cause for both types of defects. S supply of deionised water is obtained

from a filtration system installed in house, for which maintenance is outsourced. On testing the filter water

quality, it was found that the ion content of the water is at higher level than required. Further analysis revealed

that hard tap water with varying level of hardness is fed into the filter which is the root cause for poor water

quality. As the input supply is not in control of the facility, it was suggested that it could be controlled by

increasing the maintenance frequency. It is also suggested that the input water supply should be tested every

time maintenance activity is carried and the filter settings should be adjusted accordingly.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

The output quality of anodising process depends greatly on the process handling. Shop floor operators must

follow the specified standards and safety instructions. The process is sensitive to the time lag between various

steps. Transition delays were observed on the shop floor. Improper handling was also found to be a leading

cause for increasing the acid/alkali’s content in the process. On discussing the handling issue with shop floor

managers it was found that root problem prevailing in management of operations are contractual employees

who are hired on yearly contract terms. They lack in experience, ownership and are not skilled in their job.

Due to lack of proper training programs and procedures in the firm, it is also difficult to train them. The issue

was further discussed with the higher management and suggestions were made to recruit some permanent

employees on the shop floor and develop comprehensive training programs.

CRT maps also indicated that the inadequate anodising parameter setting may also interfere with the output

quality. The anodising process standards are verified and not significant variations were found from the

established standards. Rather lack of proper training and contractual employees are accessed as the root cause

for this effect also. The operators some time delays the rinsing of surface after pre-treatment leading to pitting

defects. On the other hand delay in removal of chassis from electrolytic solution after electrochemical

anodising process lead to BSP defects. Operators also neglect to follow the safety instructions like wearing

gloves. Sweat of the operator’s hands and improper cleaning of different tanks were also found to be source of

nonconformities. Training and motivation of employees to follow the process instructions along with
 recruiting few permanent employees on the shop floor could help in improving the process handling and

eliminating both types of defects.

Facility conditions were also observed in an attempt to device the improvement strategy. Anodising is an

exothermic process and appropriate facility temperature (between 20 -23 OC) is an important determinant of

output quality. Though housekeeping is able to control the dust in the facility, variation in the atmospheric

temperature was found to be a root cause, again for both types of defects. Exposure of the anodic surface to

high temperature between transitions of surface from one stage to another is source pitting defects. It also
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

leads to increase in acid mist in the facility and temperature of the electrolytic solution.

Chloride level in the solution rises due to increase in temperature leading to BSP defects. The temperature in

the facility must be closely monitored and controlled. Suggestions were made to install low-pressure oil-free

regenerative blower(s) in the facility to control the temperature.

The team studied the quality of the supplies of the process; the team identified the scope of improving the

quality of the non-etching alkaline detergent. The management was suggested to procure better quality

detergent that can give better results in the pre-treatment stage. Dispersants and chelants (Painter, 1994) could

be added to the detergent solution to prevent re-deposition of dissolved dust and act on rust on the raw surface

respectively. Doing this can reduce the pitting defects in the finished products.

Based on the root cause analysis and further investigation of the root causes, measures were established for

the process improvement and discussed with the higher management. The team discussed the feasibility,

implementation cost and time requirements with the management. The management decided that the

improvement measures that are easily implementable within the project timeline and available recourses will

be made in the first phase. It was recommended that further analysis should be conducted on the other

measures to determine the time, cost and feasibility of the potential improvements in the second stage of the

study before implementation.

 Following improvements were made in the process:

1. Regular testing of tap water quality and adjustment of filter settings according to the incoming and

required output water quality is started.

2. Water filter maintenance frequency is increased to 10 days from the earlier 20 days.

3. Short training sessions were organised for the shop floor operators.

4. Process instruction guides were prepared to help operators follow the established standard procedures.

Specific instructions were displayed near to the operation area, to keep the workers informed.

5. One blower was installed in the facility to maintain the atmospheric temperature.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

6. Pre-treatment process is improved by adding a dispersant and chelant in the detergent solution.

It was resolved that after making the above changes the new level of process performance will be established,

then second phase of the study will be conducted to further analyse the remaining recommendations. For

example the study could determine the alternative varieties of pre-treatment detergent that may be used in the

process based on the impact on cost and quality.

3.5 Control

The measures suggested above were implemented on the system in order to improve the process performance

and eliminate the root causes of BSP and pitting defects. The real challenge for sustainable process

improvement lies in long term sustainability of the improvement efforts, continues monitoring and controlling

the process activities.

Contractual employees were found to be a root cause for both types of defects. Though training of contractual

employees could bring short term results, it is important for the firm to devise procedure for permanent hiring

of few skilled shop floor operators. They were also suggested to develop continues training programs for its

employees. With recommendations of the research team the management also decided to explore better

filtration system as de-ionised water is an important supply required continuously during the process.
 On implementing the improvement measures, the process was closely monitored for 15 days to bring to stable

operations. After 15 days of operation, the process is sampled again for 10 days with 100% sampling of

finished product. The data recorded on check sheets is represented graphically in fig. 10, p-chart for fraction

defective and the Pareto analysis are shown in is shown in fig. 11 and 12 respectively. The p-chart shows the

process is in control. The short term sigma level of the improved process is calculated to be 3.91 as compared

to 3.62 of the base level performance. The average rate of non-conformance including all four types of defects

reduced to 0.0079 from 0.0169 in the base-level process. The combined percentage defective due to pitting

and BSP defects is calculated to be 36.11% in the improved process, which is reduced by 48.01% as
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

compared to the fraction defective calculated in the measure phase (before quality improvement).. The process

must be monitored and controlled continuously. For keeping a check on the process quality repeated samples

should be taken over regular periods. Whenever the control chart signals processes running out of control

immediate actions are required to be taken to sustain the process performance.

Figure 9. Sampling data (control phase) Figure 10. P- chart (control phase)

Figure 11. Pareto diagram (control phase)

4. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Scope of Work

This study discusses analysis and results of a Six Sigma project for improving the productivity of anodising

stage of an amplifier production process. The DMAIC Six Sigma methodology is adopted to investigate the

causes of non-conformities and conceive the improvement measures. Pitting and black star pitting were found

to be the two main types of defects in the process. From the two fold analysis using cause and effect diagrams

and current reality tree it was identified that the contractual employees, hard water supply in taps, temperature

variations in the facility’s atmosphere and the poor quality of non-etching alkaline detergent used in pre-

treatment step are root causes of non-conformities in this process. The feasible improvement measures are

devised and implemented to eliminate the root causes. The study resulted in improving the sigma level of the

anodising process to 3.91 compared to base sigma level 3.62 in the short term. Hiring of permanent employees
 and development of comprehensive training programs could be important steps towards the sustainable quality

improvement efforts for this process. The firm has started considering the remaining suggestions and are

likely to be realized in future based on the second phase of the study. The findings of the study are limited to

eliminate only two of defects that were leading to 69.46% of defects. Future study could also consider the two

defects still remaining to be analysed for further improvement of the process. Future study will focus on next

stage of the production process and will also explore other statistical and managerial quality improvement

tools.

References
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

1. Andersen, B. and Fagerhaug, T., 2006. Root cause analysis: simplified tools and techniques. ASQ

Quality Press.

2. Antony, J., Antony, J., Gijo, E.V., Gijo, E.V., Kumar, V., Kumar, V., Ghadge, A. and Ghadge, A., 2016.

A multiple case study analysis of Six Sigma practices in Indian manufacturing companies. International

Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(8), pp.1138-1149.

3. Antony, J., Singh Bhuller, A., Kumar, M., Mendibil, K. and Montgomery, D.C., 2012. Application of Six

Sigma DMAIC methodology in a transactional environment. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, 29(1), pp.31-53.

4. Banuelas, R., Antony, J. and Brace, M., 2005. An application of Six Sigma to reduce waste. Quality and

Reliability Engineering International, 21(6), pp.553-570.

5. Barney, M., 2002, May. Motorola’s second generation. In Six Sigma Forum Magazine (Vol. 1, No. 3,

pp. 13-16).

6. Desai, D.A., 2006. Improving customer delivery commitments the Six Sigma way: case study of an

Indian small scale industry. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 2(1), pp.23-

47.

7. Doggett, A.M., 2003. Solving problems: A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools.

8. Doggett, A.M., 2005. Root cause analysis: A framework for tool selection. The Quality Management

Journal, 12(4), p.34.

9. Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M., 2014. An introduction to Six Sigma and process improvement. Cengage

Learning.
 10. Gijo, E.V., Scaria, J. and Antony, J., 2011. Application of Six Sigma methodology to reduce defects of a

grinding process. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 27(8), pp.1221-1234.

11. Hagemeyer, C., Gershenson, J.K. and Johnson, D.M., 2006. Classification and application of problem

solving quality tools: A manufacturing case study. The TQM Magazine, 18(5), pp.455-483.

12. Hamza, S.E.A., 2008. Design process improvement through the DMAIC Six Sigma approach: a case

study from the Middle East. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 4(1), pp.35-

47.

13. Javalgi, R.R.G. and Todd, P.R., 2011. Entrepreneurial orientation, management commitment, and human
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

capital: The internationalization of SMEs in India. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), pp.1004-1010.

14. Katyal, M.A. and Xaviour, M.B., 2015. A Study on MSMEs’-Role in Propelling Economic Development

of India & a Discussion on current HR issues in MSMEs’ in India. International Journal of Scientific and

Research Publications, 5(2), pp.77-89.

15. Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Tiwari, M.K., 2011. Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs–a

roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18),

pp.5449-5467.

16. Kumar, M., Antony, J., Antony, F.J. and Madu, C.N., 2007. Winning customer loyalty in an automotive

company through Six Sigma: a case study. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23(7),

pp.849-866.

17. Kumar, S. and Sosnoski, M., 2009. Using DMAIC Six Sigma to systematically improve shopfloor

production quality and costs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(3),

pp.254-273.

18. Lee, K.L., Wei, C.C. and Lee, H.H., 2009. Reducing exposed copper on annular rings in a PCB factory

through implementation of a Six Sigma project. Total Quality Management, 20(8), pp.863-876.

19. Montgomery, D.C., 2007. Introduction to statistical quality control. John Wiley & Sons.

20. Painter, J.D., Marshall, J.L. and Laurent, J.C.S., The Procter & Gamble Company, 1994. Nonphosphated

automatic dishwashing compositions with oxygen bleach systems and process for their preparation. U.S.

Patent 5,292,446.
 21. Qamar, S.Z., Arif, A.F.M. and Sheikh, A.K., 2004. Analysis of product defects in a typical aluminum Comment [a1]: Since few lines are deleted in the
literature review as suggested by the reviewers this
reference is not used in the revised manuscript
extrusion facility. Materials and manufacturing processes, 19(3), pp.391-405.

22. Shiralashetti, A.S., 2012. Prospects and Problems of MSMEs in India—A Study. International Journal of

in Multidisciplinary and Academic Research, 1(2), pp.1-7.

23. Comment [a2]: Since few lines are deleted in the

literature review as suggested by the reviewers this
reference is not used in the revised manuscript
24. Swarnakar, V., Swarnakar, V., Vinodh, S. and Vinodh, S., 2016. Deploying Lean Six Sigma framework

in an automotive component manufacturing organization. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(3),

pp.267-293.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

25. Thakore, R., Dave, R., Parsana, T. and Solanki, A., 2014. A review: six sigma implementation practice in

manufacturing industries. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 4(11), pp.63-69.

26. Yeung, S.M.C., 2009. Using Six Sigma–SIPOC for customer satisfaction. International Journal of Six

Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 5(4), pp.312-324.

27. Zhang, M., Wang, W., Goh, T.N. and He, Z., 2015. Comprehensive Six Sigma application: a case study.

Production Planning & Control, 26(3), pp.219-234.

28. Zhu, H., Couper, M.J. and Dahle, A.K., 2011. Etching effects and the formation of streaking defects on

Al extrusions. Aluminium International Today, 23(3), p.31.

 Figure 1. Project Charter
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Figure 2. SIPOC Diagram of Anodising Process

Total defectives Crazing

Black star pitting Streaking CL pi UCLi LCLi
Pitting 0.04
35
0.035
30
No of defects

0.03
25 0.025
20 0.02
p

15 0.015
10 0.01
5 0.005
0
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Sample number
Sample number

Figure 3. Sampling data (measure phase) Figure 4. P- chart (measure phase)

 No of defects Cummulative %
70 100
90
60

No of defects
80
50 70
40 60
50
30 40
20 30
20
10
10
0 0
Pitting Streaking Black star pitting Crazing

Defect type

Figure 5. Pareto diagram (measure phase)

Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Figure 6. Cause and effect diagram for pitting defect

Figure 7. Cause and Effect Diagram for Pitting Defect

 Figure 8. Current reality tree for defect black star pitting
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

Figure 9. Current reality tree for the pitting defect

 Total defectives Crazing
0.025 CL pi UCLi LCLi
Black star pitting Streaking
14
Pitting
12 0.02
10
No of defects

0.015
8
6

P
0.01
4
2 0.005
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sample number Sample number

Figure 9. Sampling data (control phase) Figure 10. P- chart (control phase)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 05:32 28 August 2018 (PT)

18 No of defects Cummulative % 120

16
100
14
No of defects

12 80
10
60
8
6 40
4
20
2
0 0
Pitting Streaking Black star pitting Crazing

Defect types

Figure 11. Pareto diagram (control phase)