tm 1 ©the mcgraw/hill companies, inc.,2006mcgraw/hill juran’s quality planning and analysis for...

TM 1

©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill

Juran’s Quality Planning and Analysisfor Enterprise Quality

INTRODUCTION

The Road Map to Enterprise Quality

TM 2


RadicalChangeIncrementa

lChange

Breakthrough ThinkingVARIOUS NEEDS…

Carry-overModules

Check Inspect Quality

Control Revise

Fix as FailSelf-Inspection

Quality Improvement

Lean Manufacturing

Process flow revisions

"As-is" Minor

modifications

5S Root Causes

are not always identified

Best-in

-Class

Best-in

-Class Customer

Focused Re-Design Creative thinking Innovation Six Sigma Benchmarking New technology

TM 3


Using the Road Map Maximizes the Probability of Success and Avoids the “Flavor of the Month” Syndrome

Decide

Prepare

Launch

Expand

Sustain

Time

Organization/Partner

Yes toDeployment

-Up Front Planning-Establish Infrastructure-Executive Onboard

- Initial Training- Pilot Projects

- Expand Training across the organization- Transition Training from Juran to Client

- Integrate, Audit, Measure, Assess, Review, Inspect, Focus

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

TM 4


Phase One (Decide) Starts With The Questions—Do We & How Do We Pursue The Transformation?

1. Learn about the transformation methodology2. Assess your organization status to identify strategies

and the goals3. Integrate and align “quality” goals into business plan 4. Determine if how the transformation initiative will be

integrated with other methodologies and initiatives already in the organization

5. Identify desired scope of change (e.g., spectrum of deployment- business unit, company-wide?)

6. Discuss other initiatives and their impact on resources7. Determine preliminary scope, goals and business case

for deploying the change system and make decision to deploy

8. Select an external partner to help deploy the changes needed and keep you on track

Decide

Prepare

Launch

Expand

Sustain

TM 5


KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES

ENABLERSQuality Systems

INFLUENCERSCulture

MARKET/CUSTOMERS

(Loyal Customers)

DR

IVE

RS

ST

RA

TE

GIC

PL

AN

RE

SU

LTS

• Product Development

• Production

• Supply Chain Management

• Order Fulfillment

• Support Processes

• Etc.

KEY BUSINESS PROCESSES

ENABLERSQuality Systems

INFLUENCERSCulture

MARKET/CUSTOMERS

(Loyal Customers)

DR

IVE

RS

ST

RA

TE

GIC

PL

AN

RE

SU

LTS

• Product Development

• Production

• Supply Chain Management

• Order Fulfillment

• Support Processes

• Etc.

Conduct A Comprehensive Organizational Review

TM 6


Phase Two (Prepare) Builds On The Reviews And Sets Up The Organization For Success

1. Establish infrastructure Identify the Change Initiative LeaderForm the Executive CouncilForm other Steering Committee(s)

2. Establish the initiative GoalsAssure they are aligned to company goalsFinalize business case

3. Conduct HR planning4. Address finance issues5. Develop and begin implementation of the communications

plan InternalExternal

6. Identify and select pilot projects for training and beyond7. Begin Developing a Balanced Business Scorecard8. Establish appropriate metrics and initiative tracking9. Finalize Deployment Plan

Decide

Launch

Expand

Sustain

Prepare

TM 7


Phase Three - Launch

Action Item

1. Train onboard remainder of management team Champions Other managers

2. Conduct pilot training and projects

3. Support and monitor projects Juran Champions Executives

4. Measure and review progress5. Review lessons learned6. Make decision – Go/No Go?

How Partners Can Help

1. Executive and Champion training, mentoring and coaching

2. Employee training, mentoring and coaching

3. Project support4. Establishment of key metrics5. Analysis of progress6. Input into decision process

Decide

Launch

Expand

Sustain

Prepare

TM 8


Phase Four - Expand

Action Item

1. Modify original deployment plan based upon lessons learned and current thinking

2. Expand (per revised deployment plan) Other organizational units Other geographics More “experts” More projects Additional training (Design for

Six Sigma, Master Black Belt, etc.)

Other3. Communicate success of pilots

and ongoing projects4. Maintain robust project and

selection process5. Establish objectives for

Executives and Employees6. Measure, review and inspect7. Transition training from Juran to

Client MBB

How Partners Can Help

1. Executive and Champion training, mentoring and coaching

2. Employee training, mentoring and coaching

3. Transition planning and implementation

4. Train-the-Trainers5. Licensed materials

Decide

Launch

Expand

Sustain

Prepare

TM 9


Goals Reviews& Audits

PeopleKey

BusinessProcesses

There are four dimensions for successful integration of the intended Change into the life of an organization.

TM 10


Phase Five - Sustain

1. Conduct audits and take action as appropriate2. Continue to assess culture and act on gaps3. Measure, review and inspect4. Stay focused on the customer and the bottom line5. The most critical cross-functional processes are managed

best by permanent cross-functional business process management teams led by a formal process owner.

6. Strategic goals for the organization must include measurable, stretch goals related to such areas as customer loyalty, product performance, competitive performance, costs of poor quality, and internal quality culture.

7. Upper managers must personally review and audit progress toward quality goals.

8. All employees must be trained to know what is expected of them, know how they are doing with respect to those expectations, and have the skills, tools, and authority to regulate their work to meet the expectations.

Decide

Launch

Expand

Sustain

Prepare

TM 11


Fig. 1-1

TM 12


Fig. 1-3

TM 13


Fig. 1-4

TM 14


Fig. 2-1

TM 15


Fig. 2-2

TM 16


Fig. 2-3

TM 17


Fig. 2-6

TM 18


Fig. 3-3

TM 19


Fig. 3-5

TM 20


Fig. 3-6

TM 21


Fig. 3-8

TM 22


Fig. 3-9

03 GB Measure Data Collection - 5 All Rights Reserved, Juran Institute, Inc.

GENERATING INFORMATION VS. PLANNING FOR DATA COLLECTION:

Information Needs

Analysis

DataCommunication

Questions

TM 23


Fig. 3-10

01 OB GB Analyze Foundations - 13 All Rights Reserved, Juran Institute, Inc.

EXAMPLE: DATA COLLECTIONPLAN FOR SHIPPING SHORTAGES

Shippingshortagespreadsheet

Six sigmateammembers

Completedload sheets

Selectedcustomers byplant forapproximately2-3000 unitsshipped perplant.

Y = Discrete

X = Discrete

Chi-Square

Shortagerate is notindependent ofSupervisor.

Shortagerate isindependent ofSupervisor.

Is there adifference inshortagerate bySupervisorof the cellthat shippedthe product?

2

Shippingshortagespreadsheet

Six sigmateammembers

Completedload sheets

Selectedcustomers byplant forapproximately1500 unitsshipped perplant.

Y = Discrete

X = Discrete

Chi-Square

Shortagerate is notindependent of type ofproduct.

Shortagerate isindependent of type ofproduct.

Is there adifference inshortagerate by typeof product?

The shortageproblem issystematicthroughout theentireloading/shippingprocess

1

HAHO

RemarksHow WillData BeRecorded

Who WillCollectData

Where ToCollect Data

Sample Size,Number ofSamples

Description/Data Type

ToolsTo BeUsed

Where Applicable, StateThe Null and AlternativeHypotheses

List OfQuestionsThat MustBeAnsweredTo TestEachSelectedTheory

Theories To BeTested (SelectedFrom The C-EDiagram, FMECA,and/or FDM)

Ref.

TM 24


Pareto Diagram – Total Finish Defects

6 15 68 95146206262 0.8 1.9 8.511.918.325.832.8

100.0 99.2 97.4 88.8 76.9 58.6 32.8

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Defect

CountPercentCum %

Per

cent

Cou

ntPareto - Total Finish Defects by Type

FOCUS

CONCLUSION: Dirt in Finish, Blisters, and Contamination are most frequently occurring finish defects on all

frames.

Fig. 3-p111

TM 25


Cause-Effect Diagram for Dirt

DIRT IN FINISH

Material

Dirty Frames

Air Born Particles

Open Exhaust Ducts

Dust Settling

Open Doors/Windows Warm Weather

Unused Equipment Pipes/DuctsAir Born Particles

Air Make up

House Keeping

Standard Procedures

Dirty Filters

Preventative Maint.

Prev. Maint.

Std Proc.

Open Flash

Fans Unfiltered Air

Dust Collection

Inadequate Draw

Maint. Inadequate Size

Clogged Ducts

Paint Build-up

Booth Ventilation

Fan Maint. Stack Unclean

Over Spray

Fluid Pres Air Pres

Neg Pres

Environment

Flash Tunnel Dirty

Poor MaintInadequate Access

Procedures

Ovens Dirty

Poor Maint.

Inadequate AccessProcedures

Dirt in Air

Top Coat Booth Dirty

Reciprocator

OverSpray

Maint/CleaningProcedures

Primer Booth Dirty

ReciprocatorOverspray

Maint/CleaningProcedures

Floor DryWater Leaks

Not Cleaned

Equipment

Conveyor Debris

Paint Chips

Paint Scraper

Poor Maint Procedures

Dirt on SubstrateInadequate Blow-off

Lack of Procedures Handling

Operators

Dirty Hands

Food

Clothes

Top Coat

Dirt

SupplierDirty Drum

Drum SealerPoor Filt

Maint.

Blown FilterProcedure

Process

Repair/Sanding Debris

Repairs close to Paint Booths

Layout

Inadequate Dust Collection

Procedure

Procedures Dirt in Air

Fig. 3-p112

TM 26


Cause-Effect Diagram for Blisters/Contamination

EQUIPMENT

PROCESS

SUPPLIEDFINISH

MATERIAL

PUTTY

SOLVENT USEDIN PUTTY

PUTTYCONSISTENCY

DRYTIME

TYPE OFPUTTY

CHEMICAL REACTIONOF PUTTY TO

OTHER MATERIALS

WATER

CALCIUM

SULFURPALM OIL

SILICONEWAX

AIR KNIFE CONDENSATION

CONVEYORWASH

TOP COATWATER FALL

SIR LINES

CRAYON

CHLORINE

ROANOKEWATER

FOODSWEAT

SOLVENT

RETURN LINESOLVENT

FLUSH - ROUTING COLOR CHANGE /START-UP

COMPATIBILITY

SILICONELUBRICANT

RECIPROCATORGREASE

AIR KNIFE OIL

CONTAMINATION

EDGE COATOVERSPRAY

EDGE COATSPRAY BOOTH

NORTHREPAIR

EDGE COAT USEDTO COVER PUTTY

PERSONAL ITEMS

DUSTSANDING

OTHERDUST

OVENMAKE-UP

AIR

BLISTERS

FILMBUILD-UP

TOP COATBOOTH

LOOSEFITTINGS

INCOMPATIBLEFITTINGS

SPRAYGUN

AIR INFLUID LINES

LOWMATERIAL

OVERAGITATION

OVERSPRAY

PUMPS

FLUIDSUPPLY

AIRSUPPLY

REGULATORS

GUN TIPS /AIR CAPS

AIR FILTERSIN PRIMER

BOOTHFLUID

FILTERS

PRIMER

DAY TANK

AIR INPICK-UP TUBE

OTHERPIPING

PLASTIC LINERIN DAY TANK

AIR MOVEMENTIN FLASH TUNNEL

PRIMER BOOTH

PRIMER RECLAIMSYSTEM CONVEYOR

WASHER

VACUUMSYSTEM

WATERRECLAIM SYS.

OVEN(SEALER)

TIME &TEMP.

OVEN(TOP COAT)

TIME &TEMP.PRIMER FLASH

HUMIDITY

TEMP.TIME

OVERSPRAY FROMEDGE COAT

VARIATION INVISCOSITY

EXPIREDCATALYZEDMATERIAL

DEGREE OFCROSS-LINKING

OVER TIME

RE-SANDS

RE-RUNS

# OF COATSPRIOR TORE-RUN

SUBSTRATE TEMPBI-PASSING OVEN

PRIMER FLASH

LACK OF FORCEDFLASH ON PRIMER

LACK OFPRE-HEATING

WOOD

IMPROPER CATALIZATION

TOP COATAPPLIED TO COLDSUBSTRATE

SOLVENT

TYPE:SLOW / FAST

PUTTY

SANDING LOCATION

APPLIED OVERUNCURED PRIMER

LACK OF DOCUMENTEDPROCEDURES

IMPROPERPROCEDURES

WATERPRIMERTANKS

FILTERS

TOP COATFLASH

TIME &TEMP

WET(UNCURED)PRIMER

COOL DOWN AS ITDICTATES FORMULATIONS

TIME &TEMP.

VENTILATION

WOODVARIATION

POROUSWOOD

MINERALSTREAKS

SUBSTRATETEMP.

MOISTURECONTENT

DRUMISSUES

DRUMCONTAMINATION

TIME INSTORAGE

DRUM COATINGCONTAMINATION

CONDENSATION

WATER INDUCEDTHROUGH

BUNG HOLE

MATERIALISSUES

BLOCKINGAGENTS

AIRENTRAINMENT

PROCESS FILTERINGAT FILL

PROXIMITY TOEDGE COAT

VISCOSITYVARIATIONRESIN

VARIATION

CHEMICAL REACTIONBETWEEN MATERIALS

RoofLeak

Fig. 3-p113

TM 27


Test of Theory X3

Analysis:

Normality Test: Ho: data is normalHa: data is not normal

Results: P values: .000; Reject null, data is not normal.

Test for Equal Variance:Ho: 2 = 2

Ha: 2 > 2

Results: P= .018; reject the null, variances are not equal.

Compare Medians – Mann WhitneyHo: medians are equalHa: Medians are not equal

Results: P= .003; Reject the Null, Medians are not equal.

Conclusion: Gram Weight level does effect blister ratios.

Theory: Variation in gram weight for film build affects the occurrences of blisters.Ho: Median Blister ratio @ Gram Wt. level 1 is = to Median Blister Ratio @ gram wt. 2

151050

95% Confidence Intervals for Sigmas

h

l

151050

Boxplots of Raw Data

Blister Rati

P-Value : 0.018

Test Statistic: 5.765

Levene's Test

P-Value : 0.000

Test Statistic: 8.066

F-Test

Factor Levels

l

h

Test for Equal Variances for Blister Ratio

Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Blister Ratio_h, Blister Ratio_lBlister N = 6 Median = 3.750

Blister N = 133 Median = 1.100Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 2.400

95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (0.903,3.901)W = 704.0

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0033The test is significant at 0.0032 (adjusted for ties)

Fig. 3-p116

TM 28


Test of Theory X6

Analysis:

Theory: Blisters occur more frequently right after solvent flush than during normal run.Ho: The occurrence of blisters is independent of solvent flush.

Conclusion: Fail to reject Ho, Blister occurrence is independent of production before solvent flush vs right after solvent flush.

Chi-Square Test: Before Flush, After Flush

Expected counts are printed below observed counts

Before F After Fl Total 1 14021 931 1495

14015.23 936.77

2 252 23 275 257.77 17.23

Total 14273 954 15227

Chi-Sq = 0.002 + 0.036 + 0.129 + 1.933 = 2.100

DF = 1, P-Value = 0.147

Fig. 3-p116

TM 29


Improvement StrategyBlisters D.O.E.:• 24 Factorial, Half Fractional, 8 Runs

• Develop method to Apply Forced Air through Flash Tunnel

Description/Data TypeSample Size,

Number of Samples

Where To Collect Data

Who Will Collect Data

How Will Data Be Recorded

Remarks

1 On 12 13.8 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production

Paint Line QC Inspectors Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135

2 On 13.8 12 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production


3 Off 13.8 12 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production


4 Off 12 13.8 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production


5 Off 12 12 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production


6 On 13.8 13.8 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production


7 Off 13.8 13.8 90 % Blisters Found One Day Production

Paint Line QC Inspectors /Green Belts

Data Sheet Set Primer Oven Temp to 135

8 On 12 12 105 % Blisters Found One Day Production


D.O.E. Run #

Primer Flash Wind Setting (Fans)

Data To Be CollectedPrimer Gram Weight

SettingTop Coat Gram Weight

SettingTurn (Frame) Temp

Fig. 3-p117

TM 30


Blisters Before vs After Improvements

Analysis:

Is the occurrence of blisters after improvements significantly better (lower) than blisters before improvements?Ho: Blister occurrence is independent of improvements made.

Conclusion: Occurrence of blisters is not independent of improvements made (after is lower)

P is <.05, Reject Ho.

Chi-Square Test: Blisters: Before, After ImprovementsExpected counts are printed below observed counts Before After Total Bad 16133 348 16481 14302.61 2178.39 Good 225176 36405 261581 2.27E+05 34574.61Total 241309 36753 278062 Chi-Sq =234.245 +1.5E+03 + 14.759 + 96.901 = 1883.883DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000

Fig. 3-p117

TM 31


Contamination Before vs After Improvements

Analysis:

Is the occurrence of contamination after improvements significantly better (lower) than contamination before improvements?Ho: Contamination occurrence is independent of improvements made.

Conclusion: Occurrence of contamination is not independent of improvements made (after is lower).

P is <.05, Reject Ho.

Chi-Square Test: Contamination Before, AfterExpected counts are printed below observed counts Before After Total Bad 6695 1219 7914 6189.36 1724.64 Good 398862 111788 510650 3.99E+05 1.11E+05Total 405557 113007 518564Chi-Sq = 41.309 +148.248 + 0.640 + 2.298 = 192.494DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000

p118

TM 32


Project Results (Baseline vs. Target vs. Achieved)

BASE LINE COPQ:$ 2X per Yr.

First Run Yield: 85%

Capability: PPK = .35

DPMO: 146247

Sigma Level: 2.6 (Finish Defects)

TARGET COPQ: $ X per Yr.

First Run Yield: 90%


DPMO: 91293

Sigma Level: 2.8(Finish Defects)

ACHEIVED COPQ: Saved more than target savingsFirst Run Yield: 92.5%


DPMO: 75368

Sigma Level: 2.9(Finish Defects)

Fig. 3-p118

TM 33


Fig. 4-3

TM 34


Fig. 4-4

TM 35


Fig. 4-6

TM 36


ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN

Product/Process Design Concept Idea

Critical-to-Quality (CTQ)Requirements

CTQ

Identify Product/ServiceFunctions and Processes

Develop Functional/Process Requirements

DevelopAlternative Design

1

3

2

AssessDesign Alternatives

Criteria

Alternatives

SelectOptimum Alternative

Develop High-Level Design

Product Service Process Facilities Human Information Equipment Materials

Measure Target Spec Limits

DesignRequirements

Product/DetailedService DesignRequirements

Product/DetailedService DesignRequirements

DetailedProduct/ServiceDesignPhase

Assess Capability of DesignFinalize

Requirements

GO

RedesignNO GO

DesignReview

DesignReview

Develop Best-fit Design

Develop Best-fit Design

Fig. 4-7

TM 37


ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGNOptimum Design

Functions/Processes

Product/Process Concept

Alternative#1

Alternative#2

Alternative#3

Generate/Evaluate

CapabilityAnalysis

OptimumAlternative

Alternative#4

Fig. 4-8

TM 38


HOW DESIGN MATRICES ARE USED IN THE THE

HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN PROCESS

Critical-to-ProcessVariables (HOWS)

Des

ign

Req

uire

men

ts(W

HA

TS

)

Design Req’ments(HOWS)

Fun

ctio

nal R

equi

rem

ents

(WH

AT

S)

FunctionalReq’ments (HOWS)

CT

Qs

(WH

AT

S)

Identifyproduct/service orprocess to bedesigned/redesigned (customer requirements)

Functional analysis

Functions identified and orderof functions established

Function

Develop design alternatives,choose the optimum alternative, choose best fit, andallocate functional requirements

Develop detaileddesign requirements

Function

CTQs(HOWS)

Cus

tom

er R

equi

rem

ents

(WH

AT

S)

Fig. 4-9

TM 39


SPREADSHEETS IN HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN

Functional Block DiagramFunctional Block Diagram

Cu

sto

me

r N

ee

ds

Cu

sto

me

r N

ee

ds

CTQ’sCTQ’s

CTQ TargetsCTQ Targets CT

Q’s

CT

Q’s

Customer Sat. Customer Sat. Features (Functional Features (Functional

CharacteristicsCharacteristics))

Functional Functional TargetsTargets

Cu

sto

me

r C

us

tom

er

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Fe

atu

res

Fe

atu

res

Design Design AlternativesAlternatives

Design Design Alternative Alternative

TargetsTargets

Des

ign

D

esig

n

Alt

ern

ativ

es

Alt

ern

ativ

es

Key Product Key Product Processes Processes

Process Output Process Output (KPOV)(KPOV)

Process Flow DiagramProcess Flow Diagram

Process FMEAProcess FMEA

Optimum Alternative Optimum Alternative (High-Level Design)(High-Level Design)

Selection Matrix

Design AlternativesDesign AlternativesSelection Selection CriteriaCriteria

Fig. 4-10

TM 40


Process/Step/

Output

Process CTQ/Design Requirements

LSL

USL MeanStd. Dev.

Short or Long-Term

DPMO# Times Applied

DPU

Short-Term Sigma (ZST)

Local/Long Distance Telephone Company

Service Availability 1 0.0003 4.9

Electric Utility

Service Availability 1 0.0001 5.2

Credit Service Bureau

Credit Checks

Cycle Time 45 min. 15 min. 10 min. 1 0.0014 4.5

Correct Information Provided

60,000 8 0.48 3.1

Appraisal Service

Collateral Check

Cycle Time 480 min. 460 min. 30 min. 1 0.25 2.2

Correct Collateral Assessment

80,000 6 0.48 2.9

Express Mail Service

Delivery Service

Cycle Time 24 hrs. 18 hrs. 2 hrs. 3 0.0014 4.5

Correct Delivery 1,000 3 0.003 4.6

Total Opportunities 2.4

Function DPU 1.22

Function DPMO 50,675

Function ZST 3,1

DESIGN SCORECARD EXAMPLE

Fig. 4-11

TM 41


MODEL

Detaileddesign

Control andverificationplan

Pilot buildand test

PrototypingPrototyping

Scale-up

ResultsOK?

DocumentationDocumentation

Transition PlanTransition Plan

ImplementationPlan

ImplementationPlan

Project “closure” for the design team may occur at various points in the Verify step:

Post-Pilot Testing—After the design has been validated via pilot testing.

Limited Implementation—After a full scale, but limited implementation of the product/process/service (i.e., one state, country or market region).

Full Implementation—Complete implementation of the product/process/service across all markets.



Limited Implementation—After a full scale, but limited implementation of the product/process/service (i.e., one state, country or market region).

Full Implementation—Complete implementation of the product/process/service across all markets.



Full-scale buildand implementation

DeployDeploy

Transition to ProcessManagement

CTQ

ResultsOK?

Redesign

Redesign

Yes

Yes

No

No

Fig. 4-12

TM 42


SIPOC (High Level Process Map)

SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Product Engineering Data- Component drawing- Models

- Subassembly structures

Print out • Plant QA Manager• Customer Care Support• Engineering

Retrieval

Retrieval Process is the focus of our

DFSS solution

Current Process (AS/400 MRP & AutoEDMS)

Question Locate DRW # View Drawing

Fig. 4-13

TM 43


Weig

hte

d R

ank

Perc

ent

Customer Group

Count19.0 6.6 3.8

Cum % 45.1 70.5 89.6 96.2 100.0

341 192 144 50 29Percent 45.1 25.4

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Graphical Analysis of Customer Priority

Pareto of Customer Prioritization

Critical Customers

Fig. 4-14

TM 44


Quality Function Deployment

CU

ST

OM

ER

NE

ED

S

(Ba

se

d o

n S

urv

ey

re

su

lts

)

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f In

form

ati

on

Sp

ee

d t

o R

etr

iev

e

Ea

se

of

Re

tre

via

l

Fo

rma

t

Need Weighting 592 343 275 260

Component Plant 341 201872 116963 93775 88660Product Engineering 192 113664 65856 52800 49920

Assembly Plant 144 85248 49392 39600 37440

Totals: 400784 232211 186175 176020

PRIORITIZED CUSTOMERS

(Based on # users in group & Frequency of

Need)Association Table

Customer Wt x Need Wt.Cu

sto

me

r W

eig

hti

ng

Fig. 4-15

TM 45


Weig

hte

d R

ank

Perc

ent

Customer CTQ Need

Count17.7

Cum % 40.3 63.6 82.3 100.0

400784 232211 186175 176020Percent 40.3 23.3 18.7

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Graphical Analysis of CTQ Priority

The Vital Few CTQs

Critical CTQs

Fig. 4-16

TM 46


Baseline CTQ Capability AnalysisDrawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim

Lookup)

Drawing Access

Perc

ent

151050-5

99

95

90

80

70

605040

30

20

10

5

1

Mean

<0.005

4.816StDev 4.138N 28AD 3.022P-Value

Probability Plot of Drawing AccessNormal

Alpha: 0.05

Ho: Data is Normal

Ha: Data is not Normal

P-value: <0.005, therefore reject Ho.

Data is Not Normal.

Conclusion: Use 1 sample Wilcoxon for data statistical analysis

Conclusion: Baseline capability based on 500000 DPMO is 1.4 sigma

201612840

TargetUSLProcess Data

Sample N 28Mean 4.81571

LSL *

Target 1.70000USL 3.30000Sample Mean 4.81571

Overall CapabilityPp *

PPL *PPU -0.00Ppk -0.00

Observed PerformancePPM < LSL *

PPM > USL 535714PPM Total 535714

Exp. Overall PerformancePPM < LSL *

PPM > USL 503961PPM Total 503961

Baseline Capability - Drawing AccessCalculations Based on Exponential Distribution Model

Fig. 4-18

TM 47


Baseline CTQ Capability Analysis Drawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim

Lookup)Customer Expectations are 1.70 minutes or faster to access and print a drawing, from CTQ Survey. Is the current system running at the customers expectations? This is the Primary CTQ on our design scorecard. See Appendix A for survey data analysis.

Conclusion: The current system is not meeting customer expectations

Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes

Ha = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes

Alpha = 0.05

Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes

Ha = Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes

Alpha = 0.05

P value = .000 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes

P value = .000 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes

Fig. 4-19

TM 48


Design Scorecard

LSL USLInformation is Accurate

0 Errors (6 Sigma)

Fast Retrieval

0sec 3.3 min 4.82 min (1.4 Sigma)

Easy Retrieval (minimal inputs)

8 12 17 (0 Sigma)

Easy to Interpret Format (number of line weights)

2 4 1 (0 Sigma)

0 Errors (6 Sigma)

High Level Capability

Feature Capability (from Verification

Testing)

Spec/Target

CTQs

Description

Current Capability

Fig. 4-20

TM 49


Re

trie

ve

Sp

ec

s b

y P

art

n

um

be

r

Dra

win

gs

Re

trie

va

ble

by

L

ate

st

Re

vis

ion

Mu

ltip

le L

ine

We

igh

ts o

n

Dra

win

g H

igh

Pri

nt

Qu

ali

ty

Re

ad

ily

Ac

ce

ss

ible

Att

rib

ute

In

form

ati

on

on

D

raw

ing

(S

pe

cie

s/C

olo

r e

tc)

3D

Re

pre

se

nta

tio

n o

f C

ab

ine

t

Ca

pa

ble

of

Sto

rin

g L

eg

ac

y

Da

ta/D

raw

ing

s

Easy to Interpret (Format) c 2 c 1 g 3 c 1 g 3 c 2 c 1 13 g 3 Strong Relationship

Fast Retrieval g 3 c 1 c 1 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 2 12 c 2 Moderate Relationship

Minimal Number of Inputs From user

g 3 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 11 c 1 Weak Relationship

Information is Accurate g 3 c 2 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 10

11 7 6 6 6 5 5

Functions

KEYCTQs

QFD Flow Down

CTQs were derived and ranked from surveys; Functions developed by addressing complaints made by customers using the current system.

Fig. 4-21

TM 50


3D Representation 3D Representation of Cabinetof Cabinet

3D Representation 3D Representation of Cabinetof Cabinet

Multiple LineMultiple LineWeights on DrawingWeights on Drawing

Multiple LineMultiple LineWeights on DrawingWeights on Drawing

Easy to InterpretEasy to Interpret(Format)(Format)

Easy to InterpretEasy to Interpret(Format)(Format)

Attribute InformationAttribute InformationOn DrawingOn Drawing

Attribute InformationAttribute InformationOn DrawingOn Drawing

Dialog Boxes

Link to Component DRW

Web Based Access

Function / Feature Diagram – Easy to Interpret (Format)

3D Cabinet

Web Based Access


Retrieve Specs by Retrieve Specs by Part NumberPart Number

Retrieve Specs by Retrieve Specs by Part NumberPart Number

Dialog Boxes

Web Based Access


FunctionsFunctionsFunctionsFunctions Features

Viewer Customizable

Fig. 4-22

tm 1 ©the mcgraw/hill companies, inc.,2006mcgraw/hill juran’s quality planning and analysis for...

Documents