The Analyze phase in the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology is a

critical step in the Six Sigma process for improving processes and solving problems. In this phase, the
primary focus is on examining data and identifying the root causes of issues or variations within the
process. This phase serves as a bridge between understanding the problem in the Measure phase
and implementing solutions in the Improve and Control phases. It is a critical step in the DMAIC
process because it provides a deep understanding of the problem's causes, allowing for the
development of effective solutions to improve processes and achieve Six Sigma levels of
performance.

We used FMEA and Fishbone diagram to analyze the potential issues and each out to the root cause
of the problem under consideration.

The Analyze phase in FMEA focuses on examining the identified failure modes to assess their
severity, occurrence, and detection, ultimately helping prioritize which failure modes should receive
the most attention and mitigation efforts. Here's a description of the Analyze phase in FMEA:

1. List Identified Failure Modes: Before diving into the Analyze phase, you need to have a
comprehensive list of identified failure modes. These failure modes are potential ways in which a
system, process, or product can fail. Each failure mode should be described in detail, including its
potential consequences.

2. Determine Severity (S): In the Analyze phase, you assess the severity of each identified failure
mode. Severity refers to the impact or consequences of a failure on the overall system or project.
Assign a severity rating to each failure mode, typically on a numerical scale (e.g., 1 to 10), where
higher numbers indicate more severe consequences. Consider both the short-term and long-term
effects of each failure.

3. Determine Occurrence (O): Occurrence evaluates the likelihood or frequency with which a
specific failure mode may occur. Assign an occurrence rating to each failure mode, often on a
numerical scale (e.g., 1 to 10), where higher numbers indicate a higher likelihood of occurrence.
Factors to consider include historical data, expert opinions, and data from similar projects.

4. Determine Detection (D): Detection assesses how likely it is that the failure mode will be
detected before it causes harm or damage. Assign a detection rating to each failure mode, typically
on a numerical scale (e.g., 1 to 10), where higher numbers indicate a lower likelihood of detection.
Consider the effectiveness of existing detection methods and controls.

5. Calculate Risk Priority Number (RPN): The Risk Priority Number (RPN) is a numerical value
calculated by multiplying the severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) ratings for each failure
mode. The formula is often expressed as RPN = S x O x D. This calculation provides a quantitative
measure of the risk associated with each failure mode.

6. Prioritize Failure Modes: Once you have calculated the RPN for each failure mode, prioritize
them based on their RPN values. Higher RPN values indicate higher risks and should receive more
attention in terms of mitigation efforts. It's common to create a prioritized list or matrix to visually
represent this information.

7. Identify Mitigation Actions: For the high-priority failure modes with the highest RPN values,
develop mitigation and risk reduction actions. These actions may involve improving detection
methods, implementing preventive measures, changing the design, or enhancing quality control
processes.
8. Reassess RPN: After implementing mitigation actions, reassess the RPN values for the failure
modes that received attention. If the RPN values have been significantly reduced, this indicates that
the risk associated with those failure modes has been effectively managed.

9. Documentation: It's crucial to document all the analysis findings, including the RPN values,
prioritization, and mitigation actions taken. This documentation serves as a reference for ongoing
monitoring and future reviews.

10. Communication: Communicate the results of the Analyze phase, including the prioritized failure
modes and recommended mitigation actions, to relevant stakeholders and decision-makers.

The Analyze phase in FMEA helps organizations focus their resources on addressing the most critical
failure modes, reducing potential risks, and improving overall system reliability and performance. It's
an essential step in the FMEA process, as it guides decision-making and risk management efforts.

Fishbone Diagram
A fishbone diagram, also known as an Ishikawa diagram or a cause-and-effect diagram, is a visual tool
used for problem-solving and root cause analysis. It helps teams identify and explore the potential
causes of a specific problem or issue. The diagram gets its name because it looks like the skeleton of
a fish, with the problem or issue as the "head" and the potential causes branching off like "bones" on
the spine.

Key features of a fishbone diagram:

Problem Statement: The problem or issue being analyzed is written at the "head" of the fishbone
diagram. This is the central focus of the analysis.

Categories: The diagram typically includes several main branches or categories that represent
different aspects of the problem. Common categories include people, processes, equipment,
materials, and environment. These are often referred to as the "bones."

Causes: Under each category, team members brainstorm and list potential causes or factors that
might contribute to the problem. These are represented as sub-branches extending from the main
categories.

Cause-and-Effect Relationships: The diagram visually shows the relationships between potential
causes and the central problem. This helps teams see how different factors may be interconnected
and contribute to the problem.

Analysis and Prioritization: After creating the diagram, teams can analyze and prioritize the potential
causes based on their relevance and impact. This step is crucial for determining which causes to
investigate further.

Fishbone diagrams are valuable tools for structured problem-solving and team collaboration. They
encourage a systematic approach to identifying root causes, making it easier to develop effective
solutions to address the underlying issues.
 CHALLENGES OF THE PROJECT
Reducing Defects Per Million (DPPM) in a project focused on bolts or any manufacturing process
can be challenging, and there are several potential limitations and obstacles that we
encountered. It's essential to identify and address these limitations to ensure the success of for
further DPPM reduction project. Here are some common limitations:

1. Complex Manufacturing and assembly Processes: If the bolt manufacturing process is highly
complex with numerous variables, it can be challenging to identify the root causes of defects
and implement effective improvements.

2. Variability in Materials: Differences in the quality of raw materials can contribute to defects.
If the quality of input materials varies, it can be difficult to control defects consistently.

3. Machine and Tooling Variability: Variability in the performance of machines and tooling can
lead to defects. Ensuring consistency in machinery and tool maintenance can be a challenge.

4. Operator Skill and Training: The skill level and training of operators significantly impacted
defect rates. Insufficient training or high turnover rates among operators could have hindered
defect reduction efforts.

5. Lack of Data: Insufficient data on defect occurrences and causes can impede analysis and
improvement efforts. Accurate data collection and analysis are crucial for DPPM reduction.
Most of the data collection don at lear during our PBL was collected manually

6. Cost of Quality Improvement: Implementing quality improvement measures require

investments in new equipment, technology, or additional personnel. Limited budget and
resources were a constraint. Most improvements suggested by our team needed moderate to
heavy investments for long term benefits.

7. Resistance to Change: Employees may resist changes in processes or procedures, especially

if they have been doing things a certain way for a long time. Overcoming resistance to change
was a significant challenge. Most operators were doing few processes in their own manner
against the method suggested by the O&M Manual.

8. Supplier Variability: If your bolts rely on external suppliers for materials or components, the
quality and reliability of these suppliers can impact your DPPM rates. Hence it is necessary to
take stringent steps to check the quality beforehand

9. Environmental Factors: Environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, can

affect the manufacturing process and potentially lead to defects. At supplier we saw that most
of the functions such as painting, welding etc were done in a manner such that it would
introduce foreign particles in the nut pitch

10. Regulatory Compliance: Meeting industry standards and regulations can be demanding and
may require additional efforts and resources.

.
12. Testing and Inspection Limitations: The effectiveness and accuracy of testing and
inspection methods may be limited, potentially leading to undetected defects. There is only 2
gauges to test nuts and bolts which needs to be caliberated.

13. Market Pressure: Market demands for lower costs or faster production may conflict with
quality improvement efforts, creating a tension between reducing defects and meeting market
demands.

To overcome these limitations, it is important to conduct a thorough analysis of your specific

manufacturing process, identify the root causes of defects, and develop a comprehensive
improvement plan. This plan should address not only the technical aspects but also the
organizational and cultural factors that can influence the success of your DPPM reduction
project. Additionally, ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement efforts are essential to
sustaining quality improvements over time.
 FUTURE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The future scope of a project that was about DPPM reduction could include a number of
different areas, such as:

 Continued improvement of existing DPPM reduction processes and

techniques. This could involve developing new tools and technologies, refining
existing methods, and optimizing the use of data and analytics.
 Expansion of DPPM reduction to new products and processes. DPPM reduction is
often used in manufacturing, but it can also be applied to other industries, such as
healthcare, software development, and customer service.
 Development of new DPPM reduction metrics and standards. This could help to
improve the comparability of DPPM reduction results across different industries and
organizations.
 Education and training on DPPM reduction. This could help to raise awareness of
the importance of DPPM reduction and ensure that people have the skills and
knowledge they need to implement effective DPPM reduction programs.
 Implementing current suggestions on Bolerio Line. Since we did a comprehensive
study of Scorpio chair and risers and came up with suggestions the same could be
applied on bolero line since both are identical.

FUTURE SCOPE
Reducing Defects Per Million (DPPM) of bolts by 50% is a significant improvement in quality
control. This achievement suggests several positive conclusions:

1. Improved Quality : A 50% reduction in DPPM indicates a substantial enhancement in the

quality of the bolts. Fewer defects mean that the bolts are more likely to meet or exceed
their intended specifications and perform reliably.

2. Enhanced Manufacturing Processes: Achieving such a reduction typically requires

improvements in manufacturing processes. This could include better materials, tighter quality
control measures, improved machinery, or more skilled labor.

3. Cost Savings: Fewer defects mean fewer resources are wasted on rework, repairs, or
scrap. This leads to cost savings in terms of materials, labor, and energy.

4. Customer Satisfaction : Bolts with fewer defects are less likely to fail in use, which can
lead to increased customer satisfaction. Customers rely on the quality of the bolts they
purchase, and a lower DPPM suggests that they are getting a more reliable product.
5. Competitive Advantage : Higher quality products can give a company a competitive
advantage in the market. Customers are often willing to pay more for products they perceive
as being of higher quality.

6. Increased Reliability : Bolts are often used in critical applications where failure can have
serious consequences. A lower DPPM implies increased reliability, which can be especially
important in industries like aerospace, automotive, and construction.

7. Reduced Liability : Fewer defects mean a lower likelihood of product failures leading to
accidents or injuries. This can reduce a company's liability and legal exposure.

8. Process Control : Achieving such a reduction suggests that the manufacturing process is
under better control. It indicates that deviations and variations in the process have been
reduced or eliminated.

9. Continuous Improvement : Successfully reducing DPPM by 50% demonstrates a

commitment to continuous improvement. Companies that consistently work on improving
quality are more likely to thrive in the long term.

10. Data-Driven Decision-Making : The project's success likely involved data analysis and
process monitoring. This demonstrates the value of using data to make informed decisions
and drive improvements.

It's important to note that while reducing DPPM by 50% is a significant achievement,
ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement efforts should be maintained to sustain
these gains and potentially achieve even lower defect rates in the future.