Manufacturing

Project
LYONEL PEARCE
NOVEMBER 18, 2015

Introduction
2.5 years with Cambrex Charles City
Bachelors of Science in Chemical Technology
University of Cincinnati

Lean Six Sigma Green Belt

Lean Sensei
Lean Six Sigma Black Belt
Villanova University

Outline
Project Premise
Team Composition
Define
Measure
Analyze
Improve
Control
Questions

Project Premise
Lovell Levelers, Inc. (LLI) a major manufacturer of specialized automotive
parts is receiving complaints from their biggest customer, Specific Motors
Level of quality relative to the leveler plate is unacceptable
Current rate of rejects 1,350 defects per million opportunities (DPMO)
Industry standard is Not More Than 50 DPMO

Level of quality must meet or exceed industry standard within in six months
or risk losing the business

Team Composition
Project Champion
Project Leader Black Belt
Machine Operator
Quality Control Analyst
Customer Liaison

Define
BUSINESS CASE
P R O B L E M S TAT E M E N T
G O A L S TAT E M E N T
PROJECT SCOPE

Business Case
Specific Motors, Lovell Levelers, Inc.'s largest customer, is dissatisfied with
the level of quality relative to the leveler plates. If we do not improve the
quality of the leveler plates, achieving the industry standard within the next
six months, Specific Motors will take its business elsewhere. Achieving the
industry standard will yield at least $246,518 in quarterly cost savings. This
project will focus on improving the quality of the leveler plates.

Problem Statement
Specific Motors expects the average rate of reject to adhere to the industry
standard of less than 50 DPMO. LLI's current average rate of reject is 1350
DPMO. The current reject rate is costing LLI just over $256,000 per quarter.
Through the reduction of LLI's leveler plate DPMO from 1350 to less than 50,
within the next six months, we will meet Specific Motor's expectation,
achieve the industry standard DPMO, and yield $246,518 in quarterly cost
savings.

Goal Statement(s)
Achieve the industry standard of Not More Than 50 DPMO, within six months
Reduce LLI quarterly costs associated with leveler plate defects by at least
96%, yielding $246,518 in cost savings

Project Scope
This project will focus upon the areas of manufacturing, design, and quality,
specifically the elements of these areas responsible for the leveler plate.
This project excludes all processes and parts not contained within leveler
plate manufacture, design, and quality.

Measure
BASELINE & TARGET SIGMA

Sigma Levels
Baseline sigma for current defect level 4.5
Baseline sigma for new target defect level 5.4

Analyze
P A R E T O A N A LY S I S
P R O D U C T PA RA M E T E R D I S T R I B U T I O N
L I M I T S O F E X P E C T E D VA R I AT I O N
T TEST
CHI SQUARE TEST
A N A LY S I S O F V A R I A T I O N

Pareto Analysis
The team executed a pareto analysis of the data
Determined three factors to be causing over 95% of the problems
Length of the plates
Width of the plates
Thickness of the Plates

Product Parameter Distribution

Sample set of plates selected
Measurements of their length, width and thickness executed
Histograms constructed for each product parameter to determine the nature
their distribution

Length
Length
14
12
10
8
Frequency

6
4
2
0
10.65

10.68

10.71
Measure

10.74

10.77

Width
Width
20
18
16
14
12
Frequency

10
8
6
4
2
0
7.51

7.53

7.55
Measure

7.57

7.59

Thickness
Thickness
20
18
16
14
12
Frequency

10
8
6
4
2
0
0.53800000000000003

0.54200000000000004

0.54600000000000004
Measure

0.55000000000000004

0.55400000000000005

Limits of Expected Variation

Calculate the limits of expected variation
For a normally distributed process 99.7% of the data will fall within 3 sigma of
the mean
Any value above for below 3 sigma is considered assignable cause variation,
warranting further investigation

Limits of Expected Variation

(Continued)
Length

Width

Thickness

Target

10.7500

7.5500

0.5500

Upper Limit

11.0000

7.6600

0.5600

Lower Limit

10.5000

7.4500

0.5400

Lowest Point of Expected

Variation

10.6112

7.5018

0.5348

Upper Point of Expected

Variation

10.7945

7.5959

0.5565

T Test
Old method of manufacturing versus the new method
Determine if the differences in product thicknesses under each method is
statistically significant.
Null hypothesis stating that the mean for the thickness produced under the
new method is equivalent to the old method
Alternate hypothesis that the means are not equivalent

Select the significance level and an appropriate sample size

T Test (Continued)
T Test Statistic -3.1795
Critical Values 2.064, -2.064
Reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis.
New method average is not equal to old method average, with 95% confidence
New method average is not within 2.064 standard deviations either side of the old
method average

Chi Square Test

Three testing sites are utilized within the facility for defect detection
Concluded its necessary to prove or disprove that the test sites and the
defects discovered are independent of each other

Chi Square Test Continued

Chi square statistic 0.0279
Critical Value 5.9900
The Chi-square statistic is less than the critical value thus we fail to reject the
null hypothesis
The test site and defect type are independent of each other

Analysis of Variation
Three machines are utilized in the manufacturing process
Execute one way analysis of variation to compare the machines
performance to determine whether any of the machines are significantly
affecting the means for material thickness

Analysis of Variation (Continued)

F Calculated Value 0.702
F Critical Value 4.260
We fail to reject the null hypothesis
Neither Machine 1, 2, or 3 are significantly affecting the means for material
thickness

Improve
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
SCATTER DIAGRAM

Design of Experiments
Team brainstorms a list of reasons as to why thickness of the parts is not capable
Team settles upon five factors
Depth
Temperature
Pressure
Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)
Time

Determine a full factorial design is the most prudent means of identifying the
factor or factors responsible for the process lack of capability regarding thickness

Scatter Diagram
Positive Correlation between
Thickness and Temperature
o

Thickness Versus Temperature

0.560

Correlation Coefficient 0.953

0.555

Indicating temperature variance

adversely affects product thickness
consistency

0.550

Thickness 0.545
0.540

Recommendation temperature
controls on the machines

0.535

0.530
144

146

148

150

Temperature

152

154

156

Control
XMR CHART & CAPABILITY STUDY

XmR Chart & Capability Study

XmR control chart to track thickness over time
Capability study to monitor the key process parameters affecting thickness

Thank you
Questions?

XmR Chart (Continued)

Thickness Control Chart

Thickness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Sample