Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
2
= cbar
Thus,
2
= cbar
and the UCL and LCL are:
UCL = cbar + 3. cbar
LCL = cbar - 3. cbar
3. Plot the centerline cbar, the LCL and UCL, and the process measurements c(i).
4. Interpret the control chart.
Cbar : the populations mean number of defects per inspection unit
c
(i)
: the number of defects observed in sample i
LCL, UCL: the lower, upper control limits for the c-chart
i: the samples index
Once the c-chart is set up using the computed control limits and centerline, plot the
c
(i)
values. Next, connect the points with a solid line and use the chat to monitor the
process. Here, c
(i)
is the observed number of defects on the (1) inspection unit.
5.7 Summary
As a conclusion for this chapter, the major defect in the 30 tone injection moulding
department were identified using the statistical process control tools and the cause
and effect diagram were used to identified the root cause for major defect. Based on
the analysis suggestion for improvement was proposed in the improvement stage.
Besides that, suggestion to control the quality level in the assembly department also
was proposed in the control stage.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
6.1 Conclusion
The objectives of this study, to apply the Six-Sigma methodology in a manufacturing
company, were met. The suggestion for improvement was done on 30 tone injection
moulding production department. The quality problem in this department was
analyzed using Six-Sigma methodology.
The root cause for the black dot defect had been successfully determined. Corrective
action to overcome this quality problem has been suggested. The implementation of
the proposed corrective action needs commitment from the management of the
company. The findings from this project can be used as a guide to improve other
quality problems. It is hoped that the company can take up the suggestion given in
this study to be implemented.
6.3 Suggestion for further study
The quality improvement of the black dot defect for the 30 tone injection moulding
production line that had been initiated in this project should be continued to further
enhance its quality. The suggestions for further studies include improving on other
factors that contributes to defects such as the method, environmental, materials and
operator/ human.
Besides that with the suggestion for control using the control chart as discuss in
previous chapter, the company can implement the suggestion for monitors the
number of defects per inspection unit based on the Poisson model and monitor
multiple types of quality in a product.
REFERENCES
Bendell,T (2006). A review and comparison of six sigma and the lean
organizations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol. 18 No. 3. pp. 255-262.
Charles P.Q. (1998). SPC Methods for Quality Improvement. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Costin, H. (1994). Readings in total quality management. pp. 11-12, 152-153, 321-
329.
Crosby, P. (1986). Quality Improvement through Defect Prevention. Philip Crosby
Associates, Inc., Winter Park, FL.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering
Studies.
Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M. (2002).The Management and Control of Quality.
5th edition, Thomson Learning, Stamford, CT.
Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M. (2005). An Introduction to Six Sigma & Process
Improvement. Thomson South-western Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983). Total Quality Control. 3
rd
ed. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Hagemeyer, C. and Gershenson, J.K. Classification and application of problem
solving quality tools. The TQM Magazine. Vol. 18, No. 5,pp. 455-483.
Grant, E.L. and Leavenworth, R.S. (1988). Statistical Quality Control. 6
th
edition.
McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, J.D. (1992), TQM flops a chance to learn from the mistakes of others.,
National Productivity Review, Autumn, pp. 491-9.
General Electric (n.d.), What is six sigma? The roadmap to customer impact.,
available at: [www.ge.com/sixsigma/keyelements.html]
Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (2000). Six Sigma: The BreakthroughManagement
Strategy Revolutionizing the Worlds Top Corporations. Doubleday, New York.
Henderson, Kim M., Evans and James, R. (2000). Successful Implementation of
Six-Sigma: Benchmarking General Electric Company. Benchmarking: An
International Journal; Volume No. 7.
Juran, J. (1989). Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook. Free
Press, New York, NY.
Mizuno, S. (Ed.), 1988. Management for Quality Improvement: The7 New QC
Tools. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA (originally published in Japanese,
1979).
Peter S.P., Robert P.N., and Roland R.C. (2002). The Six Sigma Way: An
Implementation Guide for Process Improvement Teams. McGraw-Hill.
Pyzdek, T. (2001). The Six Sigma Handbook A Complete Guidefor Greenbelts,
Blackbelts and Managers at All Levels. MGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Raisinghani, M.S. (2005), Six sigma: concepts, tools and applications, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 491-505.
Sai Kim (2000). Services Quality Six-Sigma case studies. annual Quality Congress
Proceedings 54.
Sean P.G., CIT. Understanding Six Sigma: Implications for Industry and
Education. Journal of Industrial Technology. Volume 20, Number 4.
Shewhart, W.A. (1980). Economic Control of Quality Manufactured Product. Van
Nostrand.
Smith, D., Blakeslee, J., and Koonce, R. (1999). Strategic Six Sigma. Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Summers,D.C.S. (2003). Quality. 3
rd
edition. New Jersey. Prentice Hall. pp. 4-21,
54-101,618-624.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1990). Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster. New
York, NY.
Further readings
1. Charles P.Quesenberry (1998). SPC Methods for Quality Improvement.John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. P.B.Crosby (1979). Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill
3. Eckes. G, (2001). The six sigma revolution. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
4. XXX part production, Injection moldings manual book.
APPENDIX A
Table: - List of rejection or part from month JAN to MAC 2007
In-line (unit)per month
Model JAN FEB MARCH
BMQ-Case A
1048 1128 1301
BNX-spacer
368 574 1062
BPY-Spacer
193 561 792
BMQ-Case B
185 480 741
Stem
138 326 675
BPJ-Case A
108 294 477
BNT-Case B
73 277 461
BPJ-Case C
73 277 403
BAT-Case A
62 217 372
BBE-Case B
59 205 353
BBM-Case B
55 142 353
BNJ-Case B
55 140 350
BPJ-Case B
54 118 349
BBP-Case A
52 103 184
BBM-Case A
52 100 167
BLX-Case C
47 78 144
BHB-Case B
41 58 102
BBH-Case B
41 54 100
Bezel
21 44 77
BBE-Case A
21 44 51
BPK-Case A
17 42 45
BLP-Case C
13 38 39
BPD-Case B
13 36 35
BBP-Case B
9 27 28
BPZ-Case D
5 18 21
BPD-Holder
3 16 18
Other
470 909 1085
APPENDIX B
Table:-List of rejection type for month May to Oct 2007
BMQ-CASE A MAY '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 77 694 545 536 1852 40.10 40.10
Scratches 4 608 490 188 1290 27.93 68.02
Oily/Dirty 0 320 330 43 693 15.00 83.03
Sht Mold 0 0 235 0 235 5.09 88.11
Part drop 28 86 100 17 231 5.00 93.12
White Mark 4 128 20 5 157 3.40 96.51
Dented 4 17 84 15 120 2.60 99.11
Silver mark 2 17 10 0 29 0.63 99.74
Burr 0 0 0 6 6 0.13 99.87
Sink Mark 0 0 5 0 5 0.11 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
total 4619
BMQ-CASE A JUNE '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 90 714 489 519 1812 40.00 40.00
Scratches 1 673 432 178 1284 28.34 68.34
Oily/Dirty 0 12 306 43 361 7.97 76.31
Sht Mold 0 0 301 0 301 6.64 82.96
Part drop 28 86 158 17 289 6.38 89.34
White Mark 4 251 21 5 281 6.20 95.54
Dented 4 57 67 15 143 3.16 98.70
Silver mark 2 35 10 0 47 1.04 99.74
Burr 0 0 0 6 6 0.13 99.87
Sink Mark 0 0 5 0 5 0.11 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
TOTAL 4530
BMQ-CASE A JULY '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 65 768 478 498 1809 39.65 39.65
Scratches 4 687 398 215 1304 28.58 68.24
Oily/Dirty 0 30 356 43 429 9.40 77.64
Sht Mold 0 1 326 2 329 7.21 84.85
Part drop 35 143 125 14 317 6.95 91.80
White Mark 4 195 20 5 224 4.91 96.71
Dented 5 30 45 15 95 2.08 98.79
Silver mark 3 35 3 0 41 0.90 99.69
Burr 0 2 2 4 8 0.18 99.87
Sink Mark 0 2 3 0 5 0.11 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
total 4562
BMQ-CASE A AUG '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 67 754 545 524 1890 41.00 41.00
Scratches 4 675 432 183 1294 28.07 69.07
Oily/Dirty 0 53 357 64 474 10.28 79.35
Sht Mold 0 16 306 0 322 6.98 86.33
Part drop 23 135 83 17 258 5.60 91.93
White Mark 4 186 20 5 215 4.66 96.59
Dented 4 17 57 16 94 2.04 98.63
Silver mark 2 18 10 0 30 0.65 99.28
Burr 0 12 0 6 18 0.39 99.67
Sink Mark 0 9 5 0 14 0.30 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
TOTAL 4610
BMQ-CASE A SEPT '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 68 742 534 465 1809 39.36 39.36
Scratches 4 653 421 208 1286 27.98 67.34
Oily/Dirty 0 54 347 54 455 9.90 77.24
Sht Mold 0 14 326 2 342 7.44 84.68
Part drop 35 143 118 8 304 6.61 91.30
White Mark 4 195 20 7 226 4.92 96.21
Dented 5 42 47 12 106 2.31 98.52
Silver mark 3 35 3 6 47 1.02 99.54
Burr 0 5 2 3 10 0.22 99.76
Sink Mark 0 7 3 0 10 0.22 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
total 4596
BMQ-CASE A OCT '07
Machine No
Defect E01 E03 E07 E10 Sub Total Percentage Acc.
Black dot 67 752 486 473 1778 39.27 39.27
Scratches 8 634 412 197 1251 27.63 66.89
Oily/Dirty 0 47 365 57 469 10.36 77.25
Sht Mold 0 1 319 16 336 7.42 84.67
Part drop 43 135 118 14 310 6.85 91.52
White Mark 4 165 33 12 214 4.73 96.25
Dented 5 38 53 15 111 2.45 98.70
Silver mark 4 34 4 1 43 0.95 99.65
Burr 0 2 2 4 8 0.18 99.82
Sink Mark 0 2 5 0 7 0.15 99.98
Weld line 1 0 0 0 1 0.02 100.00
Hook NG 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 100.00
TOTAL 4528
APPENDIX C
Table: - Overall calculation for sigma level
OVER ALL PROCESS FOR SIX MONTHS (MAY '07 - OCT '07)
MACHINE 01
MONTH may june july aug sept oct
OUTPUT 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880
REJECT UNIT 120 130 117 105 120 132
DPU 0.0016026 0.0017361 0.0015625 0.0014022 0.0016026 0.0017628
MACHINE 03
MONTH may june july aug sept oct
OUTPUT 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880
REJECT UNIT 1870 1828 1893 1875 1890 1810
DPU 0.0249733 0.0244124 0.0252804 0.0250401 0.0252404 0.024172
MACHINE 07
MONTH may june july aug sept oct
OUTPUT 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880
REJECT UNIT 1819 1789 1756 1815 1821 1797
DPU 0.0242922 0.0238916 0.0234509 0.0242388 0.0243189 0.0239984
MACHINE 10
MONTH may june july aug sept oct
OUTPUT 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880 74880
REJECT UNIT 810 783 796 815 765 789
DPU 0.0108173 0.0104567 0.0106303 0.0108841 0.0102163 0.0105369
TOTAL PER
MTH
299520 299520 299520 299520 299520 299520
TOTAL
DEFECTS
4619 4530 4562 4610 4596 4528
DPU/ PER
MONTH
0.0154213 0.0151242 0.015231 0.0153913 0.0153446 0.0151175
DMPO 3084.3 3024.8 3046.2 3078.3 3068.9 3023.5