Continuous Improvement

It is only when management supports, in both

word and deed, the goal of continual
improvement, that they will begin to see
increases in both quality and productivity.

My insights reflect the insights of dr. Donald Wheeler

1
 Manufacturing Excellence Evolution
“The past causes the present,
and so the future…….”
1984

Inspection Taguchi DOE

1910 1950 onwards

100 % Sampling

Integrated
Lean Theory of
Quality Control Japan TQC TQM 1988 Lean Constraints,
and Statistical Quality BY In Western Six Lean and Six
Theory (SPC) Circles JAPAN Companies SIX ơ Sigma Sigma (TLS)
1924 1962 1968 1980 1986 2001 2014

1947 – ISO
came Iso 9001-1987
TQM + BUSINESS EXCELLENCE MODELS
into being 1990 onwards

1910 1943 1960 1970 1980 1987 1990 2000 2014

WW 1 WW 2

Quality Control Evolution Quality Assurance Evolution

2
Variation Reduction: Variation is
the Enemy of Quality

3
The Traditional definition that Quality is meeting
requirements is not good enough.....

Quality = Meeting Specifications Only.....

If a part meets specification no further improvement is needed...

Quality Improvement Stops......

Competition Captures the Market.....

Loss of business......

Loss of Jobs.....
 Better Definition of Quality

Consistency of performance/ Closeness to Target

Target
What you want
to become
What you are now
m

Mean Target
How do we improve consistency of performance?
Minimize variation around the target by reducing the distance of the mean to the target ( m) and by
reducing the standard deviation 

To improve quality (Q)

Q    m 
5
 Dr Genichi Taguchi is the Originator of this
World Class Definition of Quality
• The common thinking around specification limits is that the customer is satisfied as
long as the variation stays within the specification limits. If the variation exceeds the
limits, then the customer immediately feels dissatisfied. The specification limits divide
satisfaction from dissatisfaction. For example, if the lower limit is 10, and the upper
limit is 20, then a measurement of 19.9 will lead to customer satisfaction, while a
measurement of 20.1 will lead to customer dissatisfaction ???
• Taguchi states that any variation away from the nominal (target) performance will
begin to incur customer dissatisfaction. As the variation increases, the customer will
gradually (exponentially) become dissatisfied. In the previous example, if the
measurement is 19.9, the customer will be dissatisfied more than a measurement of
19.8. If the measurement is 20.1, the customer will be slightly more dissatisfied than
the measurement of 19.9.
• Taguchi states that the specification limits do not cleanly separate satisfaction
levels for the customer. Any variation away from the nominal (value of 15 in the
example above) will start to incur customer dissatisfaction. The quality does not
suddenly plummet once the limits are exceeded, rather it is a gradual degradation as
the measurements get closer to the limits. The goal of a company should be
to achieve the target performance with minimal variation. That will
minimize the customer dissatisfaction.
6
 Example: Quality
Dissatisfaction is not Stepwise
You purchase the orange on Day 1, but if you eat the orange you will be very
dissatisfied, as it is not ready to eat. This would fall below the lower limit. On
Day 3 it would be acceptable to eat, but you are still dissatisfied because it
doesn’t taste as good as eating on the target date. If you wait for Day 5, you
will be satisfied, because it is eaten on the ideal date. If you wait until Day 7,
you will be slightly dissatisfied, because it is one day past the ideal date, but it
will still be within the limits provided by the supermarket. If you wait until Day
9, you will be very dissatisfied, as it will be too far past the ideal date.

7
 World Class Quality
• Variation always creates costs. Actions to deal with variation after the fact will
inevitably increase costs. Actions to reduce variation at the source will reduce
costs while increasing product quality
• The traditional approach to the problem of product variation has been that of
specifications. As long as the quality characteristic X falls within specification
limits, the product is said to be satisfactory. When outside specification the
product is suddenly deemed to be unsatisfactory
• The sudden shift in the way product is treated will essentially create a step-
function in any cost curve
• The very nature of the Specification Approach fosters periods of neglect
followed by periods of intense process scrutiny and do not support Continuous
Improvement

8
 HOW FAR HAVE YOU PROGRESSED
ON THE ROAD TO QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT???
Determine and Maintain
Optimum Control Factor
SPC
Ideal
Settings in the Presence of + Taguchi DOE State
”Noise”

Achieve and Maintain Threshold

Process Stability SPC State

Innocence
Is this where
You are currently?

State of Chaos

9
The Only Way Out of the Cycle of Despair
(LOSS OF HOPE)!!!
Ideal State
 Process in Control
 100% conforming product
 Control Charts

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
Threshold State o Maintain process in control
o Give timely warning of any
 Process in Control
troubles
 Some nonconfroming
product
 Musr either…
Real Time SPC Charts
ENTROPY

o Change process, or
o Change


specification
Sorting is only a
temporary fix
Used Correctly
 Control Charts (not after the fact / “grave yard” SPC)
o Maintain process
in control ***is the tool to get you
o Evaluate efforts of out of the Cycle of Despair***
improvement

Assignable Causes are Barrier to Process Improvement

Chaos Brink of Chaos
 Process out of Control
Managers  100% conforming product
 All may seem okay, but….
State of Chaos  Assignable causes determine what
 Process out of Control
is produced by the process
 Some nonconforming
 Quality and conformance can
product
change in a moment
 Assignable causes still


dominate
Random fluctuations due
to Assignable Causes will
Cycle of Despair
eventually frustrate
efforts at process
Entropy Slide
improvement
 The only way out of chaos
is to first eliminate the
Assignable Causes
10
 The Effect of Entropy

• All processes belong to one of these four states

• Processes do not always remain in one state
• It is possible for a process to move from one step to
another
• There is a universal force that will cause it to move in a
specific direction – that force is Entropy
• Entropy is relentless
• Every process will naturally and inevitably migrate
toward the State of Chaos
• The only way to stop the migration is to repair the
process

11
 Cycle of Despair

What dr. Donald Wheeler say:

“Since everybody knows that they are in trouble when their
processes are in the State of Chaos they inevitably appoint
Chaos Managers. With luck the Chaos manager can get the
process back to the Brink of Chaos State. A State which is
erroneously considered to be “out-of-trouble” in most
operations. Once in the Brink of Chaos State the Chaos
Manager is sent off to work on another problem. As soon as
his back is turned, the process begins to move down the
entropy slide towards the State of Chaos……..Focusing solely
upon conformance to specifications will condemn one to
forever cycle between the State of Chaos and the Brink of
Chaos…..”

12
 The Only Way Out

• There is only one way out of this Cycle of Despair…that

is to move up to the Threshold State or the Ideal State:

Through the Effective use of

“Real Time” Shewhart’s
Control Charts – “displayed”
and “effectively used” on
processes
13
 Continuous Improvement Pointers

• If a process is out of control the Control Chart does nothing but prompt
• The users have to identify and remove Assignable Causes of Uncontrolled
Variation
• If the process is in control, the Control Chart can be used to evaluate the results
of process experimentation, but it is the producer who must perform
experiments and then follow up with removal of faults of the system
• The power of the Control Chart depends on how effective the company is
organised to utilize the insights offered by the Control Chart
• Whenever the information provided by the SPC Charts is not effectively used,
the cycle of improvement is broken – these breaks allow
Entropy to degrade the process

14
 Each and every production process can be in one(1) of four (4) states…

New Definition of
Trouble
Conforming and Non trouble
Predictable
Nonconforming Product trouble
and Predictable Double Trouble
Conforming yet Process trouble
Unpredictable
Nonconforming Double trouble
and
Unpredictable

15
 Important Question: What is your
company’s SPC Level of Maturity?
• Level 1: Neglect

•
• Control Charts either don’t exist or do exist…but nobody pays attention to them
• SPC has a low credibility rating
Level 2: Vulnerability
?
• After the fact analysis of Control Charts by Specialists to determine if something has gone wrong
• The production department mainly respond to out-of-spec situations

• Level 3: Wake -Up

• Control Charts are in place with correct limits
• Operators detect out-of-control situations
• Specialist involvement is needed to diagnose and correct special causes
• Level 4: Sustaining
• Operators respond to out-of-control situations and resolve problems
• Trouble shooting guides exist as controlled documents
• All shifts are trained in SPC
• The process is stable and capable and out-of-control situations are rare
• Level 5: Improvement
• Process and systems are stable and capable
• The optimum operating point is known for process control factors
• The organization works on improvements to quality and costs using cross functional teams
• Variability around the target value is continually reduced

16
 Remarks on Control Charts

• Statistical Process Control is primarily a way of

thinking with some techniques attached. It is the
way of thinking that is key. Without this way of
thinking the techniques will ultimately be useless
• The development of a company-wide sensitivity to
the need to utilize Control Charts for continual
improvement is likely to occur only if it is initiated
and maintained by the top levels of management.
When this happens, the potential power of the
Control Chart STAGGERS THE IMAGINATION…..

17
More on Statistical Process Control
Charts
• When prediction is not feasible due to Uncontrolled Variation, the Control Chart
will warn of this instability
• A process is predictable, when it is in a state of Statistical Control
• Control Charts help people understand when they can perform predictions
about the future behaviour of the process

18
 The Shewhart Concept of Variation

Controlled Variation Uncontrolled Variation

Special factors impact on product measurement

Material difference, operators, machines and
Like machines out of adjustment, machines in need of
Methods all interact to produce consistent variation
Maintenance, significant material differences etc. –
Over time. Only stable Common Causes are present.
Special Causes are present.

19
 The Shewhart Concept of Variation

• Every process displays variation, some processes

display Controlled Variation, while others display
Uncontrolled Variation.
• Controlled Variation is characterised by a stable and
consistent pattern of variation over time. dr. Shewhart
attributed such variation to “Chance” Causes.
• Uncontrolled Variation is characterised by a pattern of
variation that changes over time. dr. Shewhart
attributed these changes in the pattern of variation to
“Assignable” Causes.

20
 The two types of variation

Controlled Variation Uncontrolled Variation

• belongs to the system • does not belong to the system
• inherent • not expected
• unavoidable • avoidable
• always present • identifiable
• characteristic of the system • source; outside the system; special
• inevitable causes

• statistically predictable
• mathematical certain
• source; the system itself; common
causes

21
 Two Ways to Improve a Production
Process
• When a process displays Controlled Variation, it should be thought of as
stable and consistent. The variation present in the process consist only
of that which is inherent in the process itself. Therefore, to reduce the
variation, the process itself must be changed.
• If a process displays Uncontrolled Variation, it is changing unpredictable
from time to time. It is both inconsistent and unstable. Therefore, the
first step in improving the output of the process is to identify the
Assignable causes for excessive variation and to remove it from the
process.
• The first step in any attempt to improve a process is to determine if the
process displays Uncontrolled Variation.
• The tool for the detection of Uncontrolled Variation is the Shewhart
Control Chart (SPC Control Chart used correctly)

22
Common Cause (Controlled)
Variation

23
Where does Common Cause
Variation Come From?

24
Stable Process

25
Reduction of Common Cause
Variation

26
Special Cause (Uncontrolled)
Variation

27
Where Does Special Causes Come
From?

28
The “Out-Off Control”/ Unstable
Processes

29
Common Versus Special Causes

30
 How to use Control Charts to “Stabilise”
Processes?

• Shewhart’s control charts give very few false alarms, When a point is
outside a control limit it is most likely due to presence of some
Assignable Causes
• Whenever the running record stays within the three sigma limits, and
varies above and below the central line in a random manner, it is safe to
say that the process appears to be stable
• But what if the running record does not vary between control limits in a
random manner?
 If the pattern can be meaningfully interpreted in the context of the process, it should
be taken as an Assignable Cause
 If the “pattern” makes no sense in the context of the process, and it does not persist
over an extended period of time, then it needs no interpretation

31
 Use Control Chart Pattern Analysis – to identify
non-random patterns

Simple Run Tests

• When 8 or more successive points fall on the same side of the central
line of the Averages Chart, they may be considered to be evidence of a
sustained shift in process average, even if no point falls outside the
control limits
• Allowance must be made for run lengths on the Range Chart, because
of the symmetry of the distribution – 12 successive points must be
below or above the central line

32
 Blast Furnace Silicon Measurements

File: UNNAMED.DAT
SILICON X-bar

ucl
200 v
v
l v v
l
l v l l
l
150 v l
l l l cl
l v v l
l
l l l l l
l
l l l l
100 l
l

lcl

Range

ucl

l
150
l
l l v
l l
100 l
l
l l
l l l l
l l l l cl
l
50 l l
l l l l
v
l l l
l
l
l
0 lcl

5 10 15 20 25 30
X-bar: cl: 144.5253 ucl: 215.693 lcl: 73.35753 Subgrp Size: 3
Range: cl: 69.54545 ucl: 179.0511 lcl: 0 v Rule Violation

33
 Control Chart Pattern Analysis – to identify non-random patterns

More Complex Run Tests

Test 1
a. At least 2 out of 3 successive points are on one side of the central line,
b. and these 2 values must also be at least 2 sigma units away from the central line (the third point may
fall on either side of the central line)

34
 Control Chart Pattern Analysis – to identify non-random patterns

More Complex Run Tests

Test 2
a. At least 4 out of 5 successive points are on one side of the central line,
b. and these 4 values must also be more than 1 sigma units away from the central line (the third
point may fall on either side of the central line)

35
 Four Rules for Defining Lack of Control

• Detection Rule 1:
A lack of Control is indicated whenever a single value falls outside the 3 sigma control limits
• Detection Rule 2:
A lack of control is indicated whenever 2 out of 3 successive values fall on the same side of,
and more than 2 standard deviations away, from the central line
• Detection Rule 3:
A lack of control is indicated whenever 4 out of 5 successive values fall on the same side of,
and more than 1 standard deviations away, from the central line
• Detection Rule 4:
A lack of control is indicated whenever at least 8 successive values fall on the same side of
the central line

36
 Assessing the Capability of a Stable Process

An Unstable Process
is unpredictable and
does not have a
Capability

37
 Capability, Stability and World Class Quality

The Capability of a process depends upon both the

Conformity of the Product and the Stability of the
Process

38
 The Capability of a Stable Process

• A Stable Process is a process which displays a reasonable degree of

Statistical Control – we can predict, within limits, how the process will
perform in future
• The simplest and easiest way to access the Capability of a Stable Process
is to plot a Histogram of the individual values directly from the stable
process. The axis of this Histogram can show the Specification Limits and
the relationship between the Histogram and these limits will portray the
Capability of the Stable Process

39
 What is a Reasonable Degree of
Statistical Control?

• Continued operation, within Control Limits, will be an indication of

Statistical Control
• Whenever at least 100 consecutive observations fail to indicate a lack of
control the process may be said to display a reasonable degree of statistical
control
• Assignable causes will come and go. Shewhart noted that in circumstances
where one may want near certainty regarding this inference it may be
desirable to wait until 1000, instead of 100 observations , fail to display a
lack of control
• A process is in trouble when it is not operating as consistently as possible,
and the Control Chart provides an operational definition for the presence of
this type of trouble. It is up to the user to take appropriate steps to make
things better based on this knowledge

40
 Example: Capability of Stable Process (a Multi Cavity Mold
Process)

File: Slide 86.DAT

CAVITY X-bar

ucl
7 hour to hour variation of cavities

6 l l l l
l
l
l
5 l l l l
l l l cl
l
l l
4
l l
l l l
3 l l

2 lcl

Range

ucl
8 cavity to cavity variation within subgroup l

6 l

l l l

4 l l l l l
cl
l l l l l l l l

2 l l l l

0 lcl

5 10 15 20
X-bar: cl: 4.65625 ucl: 7.358131 lcl: 1.954369 Subgrp Size: 4
Range: cl: 3.708333 ucl: 8.462608 lcl: 0 v Rule Violation

These four parallel operations are sub-grouped together, because they have
been adjusted so that the four cavities are essentially equivalent

41
 Example: Capability of Stable Process (refer to Multi
Cavity Mold Process)

File: Slide 86.DAT

CAVITY

30 Mean

25 LSL USL Do not interpret a Histogram

without a Control Chart. If
someone show you a
20
Histogram of process
outcomes – ask him to show
15
you the Control Chart (THE
EVIDENCE THAT THE PROCESS
IS STABLE)
10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Samples: 96 Spec Lim: (0, 15)
Mean: 4.65625
Std Dev: 1.868453

Clearly, this Stable Process is Capable of meeting these specifications

42
 One may also calculate numerical summaries for the Capability of a
Stable Process

No matter how the data behave. Virtually all of the Individual Values will fall
𝑅
within the Natural Process Limits: 𝑋± 3 = 4.66 ± 3(3.71/2.059) = -0.75 to 10.07
𝑑2

All 96 points of our Histogram fall within these Natural Limits

43
 Specified Tolerance

Specified Tolerance is an indicator for the “Elbow Room of a process”

Specified Tolerance (in sigma units)

(𝑈𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐−𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐)

= 𝑅 = 15/(3.71/2.059) = 8.33 sigma units
𝑑2

Clearly this process (VOICE OF THE PROCESS) has adequate elbow

room relative to the specification (VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER)

44
 Distance to Nearest Specification Limit (DNS)

(𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒)

𝑍𝑈 =
𝑅
𝑑2

(𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿)

𝑍𝐿 =
𝑅
𝑑2

DNS = MIN{𝑍𝐿 ; 𝑍𝑈 }

Based on the Empirical Rule, its is generally desirable for the DNS to be
larger than 3
The process must additionally display a ***reasonable degree of statistical
control*** (there is no way of knowing this without a Control Chart!!)

Show that DNS of the above Process = 2.59 sigma – is this desirable?
Re-aiming the process will resolve this issue.

45
 Capability Ratio’s 𝑪𝒑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒑𝒌

𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿
𝐶𝑝 =
6𝑋𝑅 𝑪𝒑 and 𝑪𝒑𝒌 should both be > 1
𝑑2
These indices are dimensionless
𝑈𝑆𝐿 − 𝑋 And confusing!!!
𝐶𝑝𝑘𝑢 =
3𝑋 𝑅
𝑑2

𝑋 − 𝐿𝑆𝐿
𝐶𝑝𝑘𝑙 = The better to use is “The Specified Tolerance” is
3𝑋 𝑅
𝑑2 8.33 sigma units…and the Distance to Nearest Spec
(DNS) = 2.59 sigma units
𝐶𝑝𝑘 = min{𝐶𝑝𝑘𝑢 ; 𝐶𝑝𝑘𝑙 }

• None of the numerical summaries of capability should be interpreted without reference to a

histogram of Individual Values plotted against the Specification Limits. Likewise none of the
numerical summaries of capability are meaningful in the absence of a reasonable
degree of statistical control
• 𝑷𝒑 and 𝑷𝒑𝒌 are meaningless (worthless) indicators; as they allow for Process Instability.

46
 Proof of the “uselessness” of Capability Indice 𝑪𝒑𝒌 Over
Time
10 Subgroups of size 5 from a stable process (50 values) were used to calculate the 𝐶𝑝𝑘
on a daily basis. Spec: [3;17] – (no adjustments to the process!!)

Subgroups Grand Average 𝐶𝑝𝑘

from Average Range What your boss had to say
process
1 to 10 10.08 4.0 1.34 A good capability ratio, our customer will be pleased
11 to 20 9.98 3.9 1.39 Congratulations, the capability ratio got better
21 to 30 10.12 4.5 1.19 What happened, the cap ratio dropped?
31 to 40 10.24 4.2 1.25 This cap ratio is still not good enough
41 to 50 10.10 4.9 1.09 This is the third time below 1.33 – it better improve , or
else
51 to 60 10.42 3.9 1.31 Well, this is better
61 to 70 10.30 4.7 1.11 You were suppose to improve
71 to 80 10.06 3.8 1.42 At last!!!
81 to 90 9.88 3.5 1.52 Excellent
91 to 100 9.66 3.7 1.40 You are slipping again
47
Capability Ratio’s Over Time – from Stable Process!!!
File: UNNAMED.DAT
CAP_RATIO Individ.
1.8

ucl

1.6

l
1.4 l l

l
l cl

1.2 l

l
l

lcl

0.8
2 4 6 8 10
Individual: cl: 1.302 ucl: 1.721481 lcl: 0.8825193
v Rule Violation

Capability ratio’s fall in interval [0.88;1.73] while the process is unchanged

With an average capability ratio 𝐶𝑝𝑘 of 1.30
Before you can interpret a single 𝑪𝒑𝒌 , based upon 50 data, as changed from 1.30
the single ratio will have to fall outside [0.88;1.73]
– Think before you interpret Capability Indices!!!! 48
 Converting Capabilities into Fraction Nonconforming
• Most books convert capability measures listed in the previous slides into fraction of
nonconforming product. These statements come in two flavours: ordinary fantasies and
outright hallucinations
• In the ordinary fantasy category are statements like “”When the 𝑪𝒑 value is 1.00 the
process will produce 99.7% conforming parts”.
• In the hallucination category are statements like: “When 𝑪𝒑 = 1.5 the process will produce
6.8 parts per million nonconforming”
• The conversion of a capability number into a specific fraction of nonconforming product
will always require the use of some assumed distribution – the common assumption is
that of normality – however, such assumptions are unverifiable
• Any computation based upon the normal distribution (or any other distribution) will be no
better than an assumption, and assumptions rarely deserve to be carried out to more than
one or two digits. Assumptions certainly cannot support computations in the parts per
million range
• A 𝑪𝒑 value of 1 will imply that approximately 1% or less will be nonconforming – there is a
substantial difference between this statement and saying “no more than 3 in 1000 will be
nonconforming”
• The best estimate of the fraction nonconforming is the ration of the number of
nonconforming items divided by the total number of items examined. Other estimates
depend on smoke and mirrors
• Capability indices do not tell you if a process is predictable or not
• Capability indices can be useful in evaluating potential improvements 49
 Converting Capabilities into Fraction
Nonconforming

• It is not necessary to convert capability values into fictitious fractions

nonconforming
• If one has a process that is stable, but not capable, then there will be a rework
pile, or scrap budget, or a pile of returned goods to quantify the problem of
nonconforming product.
• If one has a process that is stable and capable it will not be necessary to
compute an estimated fraction nonconforming
• By stabilising the process and reducing variation or re-aiming the process one
can assure that there will be virtually no nonconforming product
• When dealing with a process which is both stable and capable, any attempt to
convert a capability ratio to fraction nonconforming is doomed to failure such
attempts will have to rely upon extreme tail ends of the distribution and
extreme tail ends of probability distributions do not characterise the real
world

50
The Hypothetical Capability (Process Spread) of an
Unstable Process

• If there is a need to approximate how much improvement might result from

getting a process in control, then one may calculate the hypothetical process
capability. To do this, begin with the Range Chart, and carry out the following
cycle of operations:
1. Delete any ranges that are out of control, and recalculate the Average
Range
2. Recalculate the control limits for the Range Chart
3. Repeat step 1 as long as additional range values are found outside the
revised control limits
4. When no additional ranges are found outside the revised control limits,
then one may approximate the Hypothetical Process Spread using the
most recent value of Average Range
6𝑥𝑅
5. Hypothetical Process Spread =
𝑑2
6. If the Process Aim can be easily changed this value is likely to be all that is
needed
7. If the process aim is hard to change – continue to the next slide

51
 The Hypothetical Process Limits of an Unstable
Process (Process Aim is hard to change)

• Do this for the Average Chart:

1. Delete any averages that are out of control, and recalculate the Grand
Average
2. Recalculate the control limits for the Average Chart using the new Grand
Average
3. Repeat step 1 as long as additional average values are found outside the
revised control limits
4. When no additional averages are found outside the revised control limits,
use the last value of the Grand Average, along with the last Average Range
to approximate the Hypothetical Process Limits
3𝑥𝑅
5. Hypothetical Process Limits = 𝑋 ±
𝑑2
6. The Hypothetical Process Limits and Hypothetical Process Spread are
simply indications of what might be if and when the process is actually
brought into control
7. The Hypothetical predictions have absolutely no bearing on what is
currently being produced

52
Hypothetical Capability of Socket Cavity 4

53
 Hypothetical Capability of Socket Cavity 4

File: UNNAMED.DAT
CAVIT4_THICKNESS X-bar
12
u
u
u
10 u u ucl
l
l l l
l
8 l cl
l l

v l l
6 lcl
u u

u
4 u

Range

v ucl

6 l l v l

4 l
cl
l l l l l l l

2 l l l l

l l l

0 lcl

5 10 15 20
X-bar: cl: 7.86 ucl: 9.792345 lcl: 5.927655 Subgrp Size: 5
Range: cl: 3.35 ucl: 7.083572 lcl: 0 v Rule Violation

54
Hypothetical Process Spread for Socket Cavity 4
File: UNNAMED.DAT
CAVIT4_THICKNESS

Mean

15

LSL USL

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Samples: 100
Mean: 7.86
Std Dev: 2.589879

6(3.35)
Hypothetical Process Spread = = 8.6 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
2.326

55
Hypothetical Capability of Socket Cavity 4 (Removed
out of Control Averages)
File: UNNAMED.DAT
CAVIT4_THICKNESS
AVERAGE_THICKNESS From >6 To <10 X-bar

ucl
10
l
l
9 l
l l
l
8 cl
l
l l
7

l l
6 lcl

Range

8 ucl

6 l l l

4 cl
l l l l

2 l l

0 lcl

2 4 6 8 10
X-bar: cl: 8.109091 ucl: 10.31149 lcl: 5.90669 Subgrp Size: 5
Range: cl: 3.818182 ucl: 8.073542 lcl: 0 v Rule Violation

56
 Hypothetical Process Limits for Cavity 4 –
(instability removed)
3𝑥𝑅
Hypothetical Process Limits = 𝑋 ±
𝑑2

3.35
= 8.11 ± 3 = [3.79 to 12.43]
2.326
File: UNNAMED.DAT
CAVIT4_THICKNESS
AVERAGE_THICKNESS From >6 To <10

Mean
12

10 LSL USL

0
0 5 10 15 20
Samples: 55
Mean:
Std Dev:
8.109091
1.94053
57
 Short Term Capability Studies
• A short-term study will typically generate between 25 to 50 values. These values might be
dimensions of parts produced in sequence, or repeated measurements of the same thing,
or values obtained from repeatedly cycling through the same operation
• A naïve approach to short-term capability places these values in a histogram and
computes some numerical summaries
• Since Average and Range Charts can miss some signals, especially
when used with finite amounts of data, it is wise to look at a running
record of the individual values
• One begin with a running record of these 50 values plotted in their time order sequence.
The running record should be examined for any obvious patterns such as trends or
sustained shifts
• If nothing is seen in the running record one may continue to plot a XmR chart for the
Individual Values. The Individual Values Chart is examined for out-of-control points and the
Moving Range Chart is examined for evidence of breaks in the sequence of values
• If the XmR Chart does not show evidence of lack of control, then it may be
assumed that the machine or process has a defined capability
• An estimate of capability is obtained from calculating the Natural Process Limits
• These limits only apply to the machine or process for the conditions under which the data
was collected. Conditions normally involve one operator, using one batch of raw material,
at a time when the machine has just been adjusted to operate properly
• If the capability is insufficient, the machine or process should not be purchased 58
 Note
Don’t tamper with the process when it is not
capable and the problem is in the system.
Over adjustment of the process makes
things worse.....

The result is worse.....

LSL USL

59
 Note

• Stability is not a natural state...

• Special causes occur naturally in all processes
• It takes work to get processes stable....

60
 Advantages to attaining
Statistical Control (Stability)...

• Quality performance is predictable within limits

• Throughput is predictable
• Costs are predictable
• Productivity is at a maximum for the present process
• Effects of change is measurable
• Relationships with vendors are greatly simplified

61
 Note

• Process stability (eliminating special causes) is a

vital step towards quality improvement....but...
• most of the improvement will result from reducing
common cause variation.
• Our first step is to get stability into our
processes....but we are not going to stop
there....continuous improvement....

62
Responsibility Assignments...

• Management is responsible for reducing Common Cause Variation by

changing the system. Management includes those who have the authority and
the resources to establish and/or change the system
• Local workforce is responsible for detecting Special Causes of variation and
initiating investigations to remove problems outside the system. The local
workforce are those who work within the system but have neither the
authority nor the resources to change it

63
 The responsibility matrix for process
improvement

Statistical Control?
Yes No
No Action Local Workforce
needed now but must find the special
Yes should continually causes and initiate
improve corrective action
Are the results
Satisfactory?
Management Local Workforce
must correct must find the special
No the system causes and initiate
corrective action

64
Five (5) steps for improving any
process......

65
 Step1: Create the Environment

• Drive out fear

• Train the workforce
• Train management.....indicate their responsibility
• Make resources available for improvement
• Harness the ideas and energy of every individual in the
organization (TEAM APPROACH)
• Show interest
• Participate
• Cut down on red tape etc.

66
Step 2: Identify key measures and set up the control
plan

• Determine the important process parameters...brain storm if

necessary...rank them ..
• Develop a Control Plan..
• Implement SPC...(Real time online SPC)
• Consult with down stream customers...make sure their
requirements are included in the control plan....
• Communicate upstream on critical product parameters....make
sure that the supplier know what your specific requirements
are...

67
Step 3: Assure Capable and Controlled Measurement
Systems

• Perform Evaluation of the Measurement Process (EMP)

studies (THIS IS CRITICAL!!!)
• Include Measurement Systems in the calibration
system of your company...make sure it is calibrated
regularly
• If necessary...assure that special instructions exist for
the usage of the Measuring Equipment and that people
are trained...

68
 Step 4: Eliminate special causes

• Implement SPC Charts as required by the Control

Plan
• Train Operators in elementary SPC
• Operators take corrective action to eliminate
special causes....work towards process
stability......

69
Step 5: Improve Process Common Cause Variation

• Use simple techniques to identify opportunities of improving the

system of manufacturing (teams, brainstorming, fishbone diagram,
scatter diagram, control chart....)...inform management...
• If system seems to complex...use DOE (DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
TECHNIQUES) to determine significant factors........a Course on DOE
techniques will be developed in the near future

70
 ISHIKAWA’s message

“Commit to Continuous Improvement throughout the entire

organization. Fix the problem; not the blame. Strip down the work
process - whether it is the manufacture of product or the performance
of a service - to find and eliminate problems that prevent quality.
Identify the customer, internal or external, and satisfy that customer’s
requirements in the work process or the final product. Eliminate
waste. Instill pride in performance, encourage teamwork, and create
an atmosphere of innovation for Continuous and Permanent Quality
Improvement......”

71