Lean Six Sigma Measure Phase

As you will recall from the define phase of this project we have been tasked to reduce the notional raw material loss associated with the output of Line 2 by 50%, but 50% of what?. This phase will address this question and establish a process baseline. We looked at the high level metric used by the organisation in the define phase which compared actual recorded output versus the expected output, for the use of a given quantity of raw material. This reported an annual loss / opportunity depending on your viewpoint of 100,000 when expressed in financial terms. I had and still have some concerns around this calculation and it will be investigated further during the analysis phase. That said, when we look at the output of the brainstorming sessions when this issue was put under review by SMEs (subject matter experts) it became apparent that the process had numerous opportunities for investigation and potential improvement. (We needed to sort the important few from trivial many) While we all intuitively understood that a relationship existed between the use of raw material and output produced, operationally it really wasnt addressed in a co-ordinated way, each function operated in a silo. Engineering kept the lines running; the production operatives watched the machines and Quality assurance made sure that the product met the quality specifications.

To Be Process Map development incorporating process measurement requirements. We decided to conduct a session with a number of specific objectives: Generate detail map of the To Be process Identify the key Quality Characteristics for the issue under review (raw material usage) Identify key process measurement / control points

The group identified two key areas for detailed investigation / improvement initiatives: 1. Operator training 2. Fill Volumes

Workflow map Filler Operations

While we all better understood the challenges, we needed to convert this understanding into something actionable. It was agreed that a revised set of Standard Operating Procedures would be developed for the Filler Operators; the rationale for this was two-fold: A number of the current operators had not been fully trained The Filler Operator was best placed to monitor and modify fill volumes on an on-going basis

It was agreed during the session that Filler represented the biggest challenge / opportunity for improvement. It was noted that the operator would adjust the fill heights if he observed rejects, on line automated process. (Low fills, 1970mls) In many instances this resulted in 95 units being over filled to address 1 position on a 96 position carousel. It was certainly felt that emphasis was placed on producing output that met specification before raw material optimisation, which was an afterthought. As one of the filler operators put it, a reject unit equates to approximately 2000mls whereas 95 x 10mls = 950mls, no brainer. It should be noted that an (standard operating procedure) exists for the reporting of this type of issue to engineering for investigation / corrective action, normally in the form of a replacement head, which potentially involves downtime. The engineering team are tasked with maintaining line efficiency / utilisation and are reluctant to stop the operation to perform these adjustments, so they tend to be left to shift change or product change over. Another key driver in the over-all process is the legal requirements listed below for 2000mls product. This metric is subject to external audit and inspection, failure to meet these specifications could result in quarantined product and plant closure, so they are taken very seriously. Packing Regulations:
T1 and T2's for 2000mls Bottle Size 2000mls T1 1970.00 T2 1940.00

Calculations (Ref: weights and measures (packaging) Regs 2006)

Nominal Quantity mls (Qn) 1000 - 9999

Tolerable Negative Error % of Qn 1.5 g/ mls

Packer Rules: Actual contents of packages must not be less, on average, than the nominal quantity Not more than 2.5% of the packages may be non-standard ie less than T1 but greater than T2 No package may be inadequate ie less than T2 NB All conditions must be satisfied

As prescribed by the Six Sigma methodology we had identified the critical to quality characteristic, fill volumes, consequently we needed to collect data and determine the statistical performance of our process and additionally determine if the process was capable of producing output within the specification limits. Data Collection Plan: While the system does not have an on-line data collection capability in respect of fill volumes, part of the routine QA process is to take 5 random samples at 2 hour intervals to test for acidity / Brixs etc. An additionally element was added to this process, the weight of each sample was recorded. It was therefore possible to convert this data into net fills by subtracting the closure and pre-form weight and multiplying by a product specific conversion formula. The initial data was collected over a four week two shift cycle. This period was considered as adequate to represent all process variation, particularly environmental as it is perceived that the filler performance is significantly impacted by the ambient temperature.

Line 2 Fill Volume Control Chart

2020
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

UCL=2016.78 _ _ X=2006.10

Sample Mean

2010

2000
1 1

LCL=1995.43
1

1990 1 17 33

1 1

1 1 1

49

65

81 Sample

97

113

129

145

60
1 1

1 1

Sample Range

40

UCL=39.14 _ R=18.51

20

0 1 17 33 49 65 81 Sample 97 113 129 145

LCL=0

5 samples taken at 2 hour interval 2 shift cycle for 4 weeks Reference period w/b 14/01/13 - w/e 08/02/13

Line 2 Control Chart On reviewing the control chart generated from this data it is evident that the process is not in statistical control which is somewhat problematic but fundamental. It is interesting to note from the control chart that there appears to be some improvement in the third and fourth weeks without any interventions. We have discussed this and believe that it is most likely the result of greater vigilance on behalf of the filler operator as a consequence of the project activity. I did consider running an R&R gauge exercise to validate the data collection process but felt that it was unnecessary at this point as the data was collected by two experienced Lab technicians. I may well revisit this decision.

While there is little point in trying to determine the Cp and Cpk capabilities of the process while it exhibits this level of special cause variation it is possible to get some sense of the process performance using individual values and Pp and Ppk . For this exercise we used the lower specification limit of 1970mls given the packing regulations and an upper specification of 2005mls as any value above the nominal value of 2000mls represents a give-away or wastage.
Capability Snapshot for Net Fill mls Summary Report
Histogram Are the data inside the limits and close to the target? LSL TargetUSL Customer Requirements Lower Spec Target Upper Spec Process Characterization Total N Mean Mean off target P-value Standard deviation Capability statistics Pp Ppk Z.Bench % Out of spec (observed) % Out of spec (expected) PPM (DPMO) (observed) PPM (DPMO) (expected) Comments The capability measures use the overall standard deviation. However, the data collection method used may not capture all sources of variation that may appear over a longer period of time. Therefore, the usual interpretation, that the capability measures represent long-term performance, may not apply. 160 2008.2 Yes 0.000 9.6951 1970 2000 2005

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

0.60 -0.11 -0.33 65.63 63.02 656250 630198

Normality Plot Normality Test (Anderson-Darling) Results P-value Pass 0.458

Points should be close to line.

With a Pp value of 0.60 the process is clearly not capable and skewed on the high side, the PPM(DPMO) would indicate that for every 1,000,000 units produced over 630,000 will be filled beyond 2005mls, a very significant give-away. While the outcome of the statistical process control exercise was not unexpected it presented a problem, how do we establish a baseline for our process? The answer, rework the control chart / data by removing the conflict points. While this is not ideal it does establish a baseline with which to measure the process and should the special cause variation reoccur it will be readily identifiable.

Line 2 Fill Volume Control Chart

Revised chart removing points of conflict
2016 UCL=2016.37

Sample Mean

2008

_ _ X=2006.19

2000 LCL=1996.01 1 16 31 46 61 76 Sample 91 106 121 136

UCL=37.32

Sample Range

30 20 10 0 1 16 31 46 61 76 Sample 91 106 121 136 LCL=0 _ R=17.65

5 samples taken at 2 hour interval 2 shift cycle for 4 weeks Reference period w/b 14/01/13 - w/e 08/02/13

Revised X-bar R control chart Conclusions & Experience : My experience to date has been very valuable and challenging in a number of respects. Operating as an intern has proved to be challenge in terms of my ability to influencing the team, you have to be more persuasive when you are not the boss and cant rely on positional power. While I am not the project champion, I am the Six Sigma champion and it has been difficult trying to keep the team working within the methodology. The key mantra at the moment is what data do we have to support that decision. On a personal level I think would have been better prepared to occupy this position had I been 4 6 weeks further along with the Six Sigma 2 module as the techniques are very powerful and make a compelling argument in most instances. Hence the old adage the numbers dont lie, most people can relate to this on some level, as the basis of a rational / logical data driven decision making strategy. My most memorable moment thus far has been a discussion around the properties of normally distributed data and the benefit of the Central limit Theorem, I could see the glace appearing on the eyes in front of me! As we move into the Analyse phase I am a little more confident that we at least have identified a number of opportunities to improve the process and deliver a tangible process improvement and consequential benefit to the business. The challenge going forward is going to be interesting, its one thing knowing you have a problem (or opportunity), it is another thing trying to develop and implement realistic solutions. (We dont have the budget to buy a new filler!)