See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263236305

Six Sigma Methodology – Case Study

Conference Paper · September 2006

CITATIONS READS

4 1,714

2 authors:

Tatjana Sibalija Majstorovic Vidosav

Metropolitan University University of Belgrade
98 PUBLICATIONS   802 CITATIONS    173 PUBLICATIONS   1,212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

8th International Conference of Industrial Engineering – SIE 2022 View project

Cyber Phisical Manufacturing Metrology Model (CP3M) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tatjana Sibalija on 19 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

SIX SIGMA METHODOLOGY – CASE STUDY

Tatjana ŠIBALIJA 1, M.Sc., Vidosav MAJSTOROVIĆ 1, Ph. D., Prof.
1
Department for Production Engineering and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Laboratory for
Production Metrology and TQM,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade
Address – Kraljice Marije 16, 11 000, Belgrade
Serbia and Montenegro
E-mail: < majnem@EUnet.yu>

Abstract:
Six Sigma is systematic methodology for continuous process quality improvement, leading to
business excellence. In the scope of Six Sigma methodology implementation for the existing
process, according to DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control) cycle, this paper
presents a case study - application of a specific quality engineering techniques to define and
measure the most critical issues in the observed manufacturing system.
IDEFO method has been applied for manufacturing system modelling, to defining architecture
of the observed system and inner functional relations. Pareto analysis has been used to
segregate the major / vital defects, in total number and types of defects, detected on the
observed automat, during manufacturing process, for six months production. Based on
system map and results of Pareto analysis, Ishikawa method (cause and effect diagram) has
been applied to identify the locations wherefrom vital defects are originated and determine
the root-causes of vital defects, in order to eliminate them, and finally move towards the goal
of Six Sigma project – raise Sigma Level of the observed manufacturing system.

Keywords:
Six Sigma, DMAIC, Process mapping (IDEFO method), Pareto analysis, Ishikawa method,
Expert System (ES).

1. INTRODUCTION
For existing system / process, Six Sigma methodology implements according to DMAIC (Define-
Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control) data-driven quality strategy for continuous process
improvement [6]. In order to reduce process variability, thus reducing Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ)
generated as a result of producing defective products, first step is to detect major defects types in
the process, then find the exact locations where major defects are generated, and finally unclose
their root-causes.
As a part of Six Sigma project implementation, in order to reduce quantity of defected product and
maximise overall system efficiency, above-mentioned actions has been undertaken in certain
manufacturing company, for manufacturing system: Pan Processing Technology.

2. MANUFACTURING SYSTEM MAP - IDEFO METHOD

IDEFO (Integration Definition for Function Modelling) methodology, based on Structured Analysis
Design Technique – SADI, is graphical method for system modelling [2]. This method is used for
description of functional steps in manufacturing environment (primary processes – subprocesses -
activities), with clear indication of structural relations and processing of system components
demands. The basic principle of this method is description of complex system, in sense of
description of activities performed in the system, at such way that it gives detailed progressive view
 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

through hierarchical decomposition. The observed activity takes input, and using control
parameters and resources, converts it to output. Critical/control parameters are inputs, by which
activity execution is controlled (i.e. requirements and directions). Resources are inputs used for
activity execution (i.e. labours, machines, etc.).
For the observed manufacturing system: Pan Processing Technology, process mapping has been
performed at hierarchical manner, as following [2]:
1. General system's representation –“Top level context diagram”- node A-0 (Figure 1.).
Project: Pan processing technology Date: 03/02/06 Context:
Author: M.Sc. Tatjana Šibalija Rev.: 1 TOP
Critial parameters j
(j = 1, ..., m)

Inputs i Pan processing Output -

(i = 1, ..., n) technology 0 pan

A0
Resources k
(k = 1, ..., p)
Node: A-0 Title: Pan processing technology – general model Page: 1

Figure 1: General system's presentation –“Top level context diagram” (node A-0) [7].
2. Decomposed representation of system, with primary processes (i=1, ..., n).
Project: Pan processing technology Date: 03/02/06 Context:
Author: M.Sc. Tatjana Šibalija Rev.: 1 A-0
Critical parameters j1 Critical parameters j
(j1 = 1, ..., m1) (j = 1, ..., m)

Inputs i1 Machine
(i1 = 1, ..., n1) sheet metal Ouput 1
processing Critical parameters j2
technology 1 (j2 = 1, ..., m2)
A1
Resources k1
(k1 = 1, ..., p1) Chemical Output 2
preparation of
Inputs i2 surfaces for
(i2 = 1, ..., n2) enameling 2 Critical parameters j4
Inputs i (j4 = 1, ..., m4) Output -
(i = 1, ..., n) A2 pan
Resources k2
(k2 = 1, ..., p2)
Welding of Output 4
Inputs i4 mounting
Critical parameters j3 (i4 = 1, ..., n4) elements 4 Critical parameters j5
(j3 = 1, ..., m3) (j5 = 1, ..., m5)
A4
Resources k4
Inputs i3 (k4 = 1, ..., p4) Output 5
Ouput 3
(i3 = 1, ..., n3) Enamel Automatic - pan
preparation 3 enameling
Inputs i5 5
Resources k3 A3 (i5 = 1, ..., n5)
A5
(k3 = 1, ..., p3) Resources k Resources k5
(k = 1, ..., p) (k5 = 1, ..., p5)
Node: A0 Title: Pan processing technology Page: 2

Figure 2: System's decomposed presentation, showing primary processes –“Top level child
diagram“ (node A0) [7].
 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

3. Representation of system's primary process, with its sub-processes Ai (i=1, ..., n).
Project: Pan processing technology Date: 03/02/06 Context:

Author: M.Sc. Tatjana Šibalija Rev.: 1 A0

sheet dimensions of Critical Parameters j1
metal prepared
thicknes sheet metal (j1 = 1, ..., m1)
sheet
metal
spool Prepared
Sheet metal
1 sheet metal
preparation
transversal/ holding
A1.1 sheet metal force extraction
longitudinal multi-row one-row velocity
mechanical
cutting line cutting characteristics tool
cutting
scissors for through through condition
sheet metal line Extracted
cutting line
Deep extraction sheet metal Output1 –
Inputs i1 2 shaped sheet
(i1 = 1, ..., n1) machine critical metal
A1.2 parameters
press shaped
Edge forming sheet metal
3
Resources k1 A1.3
press turning edging
(k1 = 1, ..., p1)
lathe machine
Node: A1 Title: Machine sheet metal processing technology Page: 3

Figure 3: System's primary process, with its sub-processes -“Child diagram“ (node Ai, i=1) [7].
4. Decomposed representation of system's primary process, with activities in its sub-
processes -“Child diagrams“ - nodes Aij (i=1, ..., n; j=1, ..., m).
5. Hierarchical representation of system - “Node three “ (Figure 4.).
Project: Pan processing technology Date: 03/02/06 Context:
Author: M.Sc. Tatjana Šibalija Rev.: 1
A-0
Pan processing technology
A0
Pan processing technology
A3 A5
A1
Enamel Automatic
Machine sheet
preparation enameling
metal processing
technology

A3.1 A3.2
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 A5.4 A5.5 A5.6
Components Grinding
Sheet Deep Edge Base Bake- Cover. Bake- Spra- Bake-
apportion A4
metal extraction forming A2 enamel ing 1 enamel ing 2 ying ing 3
prepa- Enamel Welding of deposit. deposit.
ration preparation mounting
elements

A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A4.1 A4.2

Packing in baskets Chem.prep. Draining Control Welding
Node: Title: Pan processing technology – Hierarchical Node Three Page: 8

Figure 4: System's presentation in hierarchical way - “Node three “[7].

 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

3. MAJOR MANUFACTURING DEFECTS - PARETO ANALYSIS

As a part of Six Sigma project implementation, in order to analyse number of defects / errors
occurring in the certain manufacturing process, Pareto analysis – case study has been performed.
Sample for analysis is 6-moth's production, for machine: Automat 2.
For six moths, quantity of products came in (Qty In) / went out after control from Automat 2 (Qty
Out) are: Qty In = 2 001 356, Qty In = 1 873 231. Sigma Level for the observed manufacturing
process, for six months production on machine Automat 2, is: Sigma Level = Qty In / Qty Out =
93, 60% , close to 3 Sigma level (93,32%), and significantly lower that 4 Sigma level (99,38%).
Table 1. presents Pareto table for defects detected during control and process at Automat 2, for
six moths production. First column shows defects codes, ranked by the magnitude of their
contribution in the total number of defects; second column presents numerical contribution of each
defect; third column shows percentage of defects contribution in the number of defects; fourth
column shows the cumulative-percent-of-total effect of the ranked defects; fifth column presents
percentage of defects contribution in total quantity that came in Automat 2 (Qty In). Based on
table 1. data, Pareto diagram has been constructed, to separate vital from trivial defects, detected
during manufacturing process at Automat 2, for six months production – Figure 5.

Table 1: Pareto table for defects detected at Automat 2, during six moths production [7].

ABC dijagram / Pareto

Pareto diagram
Greske
Defect detected during na Automatu
manufacturing 2 (01.03.05
process - 01.10.05)
at Automat 2, for six months production.
Effect 99.84% 100.00%
96.74% 98.16% 99.33%
- 100.00%
120000 95%

Cumulative
88.48% - 90.00%
110000
78.31%
100000 80% - 80.00%
Kumulativno
greske
of Defects

90000 - 70.00%
80000
– Percent

- 60.00%
pojavljivanja

70000
45.09% - 50.00%
ucesceof

60000 56675
Number

50000 - 40.00%
41746
40000
greske

- 30.00%
Broj

Total

30000
- 20.00%
20000
12789
10377 - 10.00%
10000
1790 1466 645 200
0 - 00.00%
15 00 51 50 55 54 59 48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Defect Code
Causes
A - 80% B - 15% C - 5% Series1

«vitalni
Vital Factorsfaktori»
/ Defects «korisna
Trivial grupa»
Factors / Defects
(vital few )
“vital few” (useful many )
“useful / trivial many”
~ 80% 20%
~ 20%
Figure 5: Pareto diagram for defects detected during manufacturing process at Automat 2, for
six months production [7].
 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

Figure 6: Histogram showing situation «before improvement» - percentage of defects

contribution in total quantity came in Automat 2 «Qty In», for six months production [7].
Pareto diagram (Figure 5.) interpretation [7]:

Vital Defects, belonging to Group A, are: Defect codes “15” and “00”, contribute with 78,31%
in total effect – total number of defects. Taking in account that, 8 types of defects have been
detected, two vital defects types present 25% of total number of defect types (2 / 8 = 25 %).
Thereby, «80 / 20» principle is roughly confirmed: 25% of total number of defect types
contribute with 78,31% in the total number of defects detected on Automat2, during six months.

Trivial Defects are: - Group B is consisted from: Defect code “51” and “50”;
- Group C is consisted from: Defect code “55”, “54”, “59” and “48”.
Note: Some of above-mentioned defects are originated in previous manufacturing processes,
before coming to Automat 2, and others are really originated during process on Automat 2.
The key application of Pareto analysis is to compare situations «before improvement» and
«after improvement», to show effect of an improvement, based on identification of vital factors.
In this direction, analysis of percentage of defects contribution in total quantity that came in
Automat 2 (Qty In) has been performed. Based on data from the last column of Pareto table 1
(«Percent of Qty In»), histogram (figure 6.) has been formed, to show situation «before
improvement» - defects contributions (in percentages) in total quantity came in Automat 2 «Qty
In», for the observed time period. This histogram will serve as the basis for comparison with
situation «after improvement» - after reduction of vital defects.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF MAJOR DEFECT - ISHIKAWA METHOD

From Pareto analysis (figure 5.), vital defects for the observed systems are: codes “15” and “00”.
Due to its definition unclearness, defects with code “15” will be described with few new defects
types, in order to easier “attack” them, so it will not be the subject of the current analysis [7].
From the figure 6., it is visible that the defect type “00” – “Chippings” contributes with 2.09% in
total number of products. After detailed observation, it has been concluded that defect type “00”
has been originated during primary process: A1 - Machine sheet metal processing technology
(figure 3.), and further – at its subprocesses: A1.1 - Sheet metal preparation and A1.3 - Edge
forming, in the approximately equal quantity in both sub-processes [7].
Ishikawa diagrams (Figures 7. and 8.) have been used to unclose main causes of the defect type
“00”, divided in 8 categories, in sub-processes A1.1 and A1.3. At these figures, quantitative
analysis of contribution (in percentage) of the categories for the defect “00” is given. Also,
contributions (in percentage) of the causes within category, as well as contributions (in percentage)
of the sub-causes within cause, are shown at figures 7. and 8. Since sub-process A1.3 can be
 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

performed on two different machines (press and edging-machine), causes for machines and theirs
contributions to the defect originating, are separately shown, within category Machine (figure 8.).
Method Man (20%) Management (20%) Process
tool condition conflict of
control (40%) interests:
quantity (quota)
discipline training vs. quality
(90%) (10%) (90%)
press maintenance(10%)
purchasing of
discipline training new / upgrade
(90%) (10%) of existing
equipment
working area (10%)
hygiena (50%)
discipline
(100%) “00”
transportational Chippings
sheet metal tool (90%)
oiling (20%) stripe (80%)
setting wearing hygijena
variation of (70%) (30%) (100%)
sheet metal tool guideance (10%) transportational
thickness case (20%)
(80%) guidance from hygijena
press (100%) (100%)
Material (5%) Machine (50%) Measurement Enviroment (5%)
Figure 7: Ishikawa diagram for defect “00” – “Chippings”, for sub-process A1.1 [7].

Method (30%) Man (5%) Management (10%) Process

press toll setting conflict of interests:

(80%) operator (80%) quantity (quota) vs.
quality (80%)
edging
machine machine purchasing of new /
(20%) operator (20%) upgrade of existing
equipment (20%)
“00”
tool (80%) Chippings
wearing tool (100%)
(100%)
working area
tool guidance (20%) setting (100%)
guideance from wearing (30%)
press (100%) (70%)
hygijena
Press Edging machine (100%)

Material Machine (50%) Measurement Enviroment (5%)

Figure 8: Ishikawa diagram for defect “00” – “Chippings”, for sub-process A1.3 [7].

5. CONCLUSION
Our researches for Six Sigma methodology application in Serbian industry include development
and test of the Expert System (ES), as a support to its application in industry. The main goal of is
creation of consistent approach for application of new quality improvement initiatives in industrial
practice, in Serbia. Precisely, present dominant approach to quality improvement in Serbian
industry is QMS application, with the initial steps for TQM and BE models application [3]. However,
there are certain enterprises in Serbia which are willing to support researches for Six Sigma
concept implementation in theirs environment. This paper and researches' results shown in it
present an example of above mentioned.
 MITIP2006, 11-12 September, Budapest

5.1. Our approach to ES model development

The basic postulates of these researches are: (i) Six Sigma methodology application for
improvement of quality of existing products (DMAIC) model, and (ii) development of ES [4] using
«shells». Due to these reasons, certain factory that fulfils elements of first condition has been
chosen as model factory.
In order to create ES knowledge base, researches related to the system “Pan processing
technology” have been performed, including: (i) system and process modelling, using IDEFO
method, to create manufacturing system map and define all relevant system’s and process’ s
parameters; (ii) analysis and application of the chosen quality engineering techniques (Pareto
diagram, Ishikawa diagram, Measurement System Analysis, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis),
which will provide “manageable” processes, for quality management within Six Sigma concept.
Based on such defined database, so far, we have established the basis for further researches and
for development of ES knowledge base [1]. ES knowledge base has to provide to engineer-planner
and designer to apply DMAIC concept (especially – development of the model for continual
improvements and its application in practice) and to select optimal solutions for problem solving.
Due to these reasons, development of knowledge base will be based on «IF-THEN» production
rules (original, proposed and strategic), which will then provide development of the inference
mechanism (forward and backward chaining), as well as the reasoning model [5].
Current activities are related to analysis of few ES «shell» models, to find the best solution that will
fulfil above-mentioned conditions and tasks.
Figure 9. shows proposed general ES structure, with following modules: (i) the knowledge base, (ii)
inference engine, (iii) processor, and (iv) input/output module.
user

input

know- infe- - recognition

out-
ledge rence - logic
put
base engine
processor

learning module

Figure 9: General ES structure [4].

In the next paper, that will be publish at the end of this year, detailed model of ES knowledge base,
with chosen examples of application, will be presented.

6. REFERENCE
[1] Costello, C., Molloy, O., Lyons, G., Duggan, J., 2005.: Using Event-based Process Modelling to Support
th
Six Sigma Quality, Proceeding of 16 International Workshop on Database and Expert System
Application, 22-26 August 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[2] Fung, R.Y.K., Cheung, E.H.M., 1995.: Functional Modelling of a Flexible Machining System Using
IDEFO and CIM-OSA Methodologies, Annual Issues of IIE (HK), 1994.-95.
[3] Majstorovic, V., Duric, I., Developed Model for Assessment of Business Excellence of Manufacturing
th
Systems, Proceeding of 45 EOQ Congress, September 2001, Istanbul, Turkey.
th
[4] Majstorovic, V., 2003.:Inspection planning on CMM based Expert Systems, Proceeding of 36 CIRP
International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, 03-05 June 2003, Saarbrucken, Germany.
[5] Patterson, A., Bonissone, P., Pavese, M. 2005.: Six Sigma Applied Through the Lifecycle of an
Automated Decision System, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2005, 21:275-292
[6] Pyzdek, T., 2003: Six Sigma Handbook, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., ISBN 0-07-141015-5.
[7] Sibalija, T., 2006.: Development of ES for Six Sigma methodology’s elements application (PhD Thesis in
progress), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Serbia.

View publication stats