18

I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
A
small manufacturing firm increased its product engineering depart-
ments productivity by more than 40% with process improvements
that included upgrading its 3-D computer-aided drafting (CAD)
system, integrating it with new computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)
software and redefining roles and responsibilities to refocus the depart-
ments efforts purely on new product introduction (NPI).
Further integration of sales and manufacturing item masters and bills
of material and routing with the CAD system added another 9% to the
departments productivity over the following months. This eliminated
redundant data input and potential keying errors, giving the project engi-
neers (PE) one place to enter all data (the drawing) and create automatic
generation of item masters, manufacturing bills of material, reference
drawings for production, a secure market-proven document vault and fully
integrated CAM/computer numerical control (CNC) tool path generation.
Six Sigmas define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC)
method played a pivotal role in helping the company pinpoint the prob-
lems and formulate the right solution.
Background information
The company, a design and manufacturing firm, had reached out to a busi-
ness process improvement consultant to help it increase the productivity
of its product engineering department. As a theory of constraints (TOC)
company, the design and manufacturing firm already had performed a
review of the product design and development process that established
product engineering as the drum in the drum-buffer-rope sequence (see
the sidebar, Theory of Constraints Primer, p. 25).
The companys other departments were able to support growth without
additional attention at the time. No further growth of production was
possible without additional engineering resources. The sales department
was losing potential sales and clients because of the inability to turn new
designs into products quickly enough to meet deadlines.
We began with the goal of increasing design product engineering through-
put by a minimum of 25%. This would allow 25% more new product to be
introduced and fill unused manufacturing capacity. With the companys
design and manufacturing teams, we determined what blocked productivity
through intensive brainstorming sessions, as detailed in Figure 1.
Much of the CAD design and engineering resource planning/manu-
facturing resource planning (ERP/MRP) software was outdated and
no longer supported by vendors. The CAD system was closed graphics
language (GL), meaning data could only be extracted by the software
itself. Nothing within the CAD model or drawing could be viewed by
another software. This did not integrate with other ERP/MRP systems.
CASE STUDY
Drawing From Six Sigma
DMAIC METHOD
GUIDES DESIGN
AND MANUFACTURING
FIRM IN INTEGRATING
ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS, PROVIDING
BIG BOOST TO
PRODUCTIVITY
By J. Bruce Weeks,
Quality Engineering
Consultants LLC
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
Many extensive and complicated workarounds had
been established to patch the holes left by the lack
of ability of the software packages to communicate
with each other.
The company also had created software internally,
such as the librarian, for storing and protecting
data. The librarian was complicated, and it was cum-
bersome to check drawings and models in or out.
Often, it didnt work correctly. This required project
engineers to use eight separate engineering system
interfaces and input the same data in multiple places.
This wasted time and created opportunities for key-
ing errors.
For example, there were two separate item master
templates created for each item or assembly: one
for the sales order entry system and one for produc-
tion. To further complicate matters, each saleable
item and assembly item had separate part numbers,
depending on the packaging quantity and setup.
When CAD models and drawings were complete,
they were checked into the librarian, and separate
PDFs were manually generated and stored. Then
these were manually linked to drawing reference
links within the MRP item master.
Further, separate work instructions were manually
created for each saleable item and assembly item,
S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
19
Increase product
engineering effectiveness
- Increase project on time
- Increase project throughput
Measurement
Management
Man
Machine
Material
Method
Do not know
where we are
Policies for giving
external customer
whats requested,
not what we can actually do
Project schedules
do not refect
engineering capacity
Unscheduled
projects
Technical
information
requests
Unscheduled
projects Lack of realistic
project schedule
Short projects
not in schedule
Productivity measures
do not refect capacity
Wrong
measurements
Projects are only
delivered 50% on time
Scheduling
software too
cumbersome
CAD connectivity Engineering systems integration
Training
insuffcient
Confusion over
what engineering
system applies to
what product line
Unscheduled
interruptions
CAD software
out of date
Too many engineering system
interfaces delay projects
Incomplete
information
from sales
Engineers PCs
are out-of-date
Project folders
do not have all
required information
Policies for creating
complex workarounds
Incompatible
with customers
CAD causing rework
Duplicate work
entering bills of material
and item masters
CAD software
unsupported
Some engineering
systems not defned
Multiple systems
with same purpose
that dont talk
Policies not to spend
capital money
Multitasking
Dont understand
manufacturing
Synchrono
Lack of clear roles
and responsibilities
for entire company
Lack of product
line cross-training
Lack of engineering
resource fexibilty
Engineering
resource delays
ERP/MRP software
out of date
Software not proven
Some engineering
systems not working
CAD = computer-aided drafting
ERP/MRP = engineering resource planning/
manufacturing resource planning
Figure 1. Ishakawa diagram for increasing product engineering productivity
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
manually stored in the librarian and manually linked
to the MRP item master. Some items/assemblies
required CNC machining, so a separate step was
required to convert the model to one the existing
CAM program could read, sometimes requiring a
complete remodeling in another format.
With each of these manually entered engineering
interfaces, a great deal of productivity was lost, and
the opportunity for error doubled. By changing to
CAD software that could be integrated with the exist-
ing ERP/MRP software and creating the necessary
links, duplication of effort and opportunity for keying
errors could be eliminated.
DMAIC processdefine
The DMAIC method was one of the Six Sigma
approaches used in this improvement initiative.
Two brainstorming sessions were held to create
an Ishakawa (fishbone) diagramshown in Figure
1with the stated goal of increasing product engi-
neering effectiveness. The main categories were
established as:
1. Management: What could be blocking us from a
policy standpoint?
2. Measurement: Are we driving behavior with the
right measures?
20
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
Category Stakeholder CTQ Measure
Suppliers Sales Correct customer expectations
Correct quotation information
Correct lead times
Complete sales orders
Number of returns for incomplete or
incorrect information/total projects (see
note)
Manufacturing Process flow
Equipment designation
Run rates
Number of times actual does not match
design review agreement/total projects
(see note)
Purchasing Purchased parts
Outside services
Number of partsO/S service late/total
projects (see note)
Number of times O/S service incorrect/
total projects (see note)
Inputs Product engineering Design procedures
CAD systems
Engineering data systems (I/M, BoMf)
Expert knowledge.
Time to perform the design process.
Reduced average execution time/project
by size
Process Product engineering Decreased time per project size category Average hours per project size category/
baseline average hours.
Outputs Product engineering Decreased time per project size category Average hours per project size category/
baseline average hours
Sales Additional sales revenue Sales revenue/baseline sales revenue
Manufacturing Additional sales revenue Sales revenue/baseline sales revenue
Customer Manufacturing Additional sales revenue Sales revenue/baseline sales revenue
BoMf = bill of manufacturing
CAD = computer-aided design
CTQ = critical to quality
I/M = item master
O/S = outside source
SIPOC = suppliers, inputs, process, outputs and customers
Note: This interrupts process flow and returns projects to either the beginning of the queue or places them in an emergency status
and requires crashing. Also affects scrap or rework rates that reduce available drum capacity.
Table 1. Stakeholder SIPOC analysis
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
3. Machine: Do we have the right equipment?
4. Man: Do we have the right training and skills?
5. Method: Do we have the right procedures?
6. Material: Are there any constraints from physical
materials?
Depending on the exact situation an organization
faces, other categories could be added or substituted,
including:
1. Money: Do we have available cash flow to support
the implementation?
2. Mother Nature: Can weather be a factor, similiar
to construction processes?
Get creative and use your teams idea generation
skills to establish the categories. Additional categories
may suggest themselves during the brainstorming
session as well. Unused or otherwise unnecessary
categories can be eliminated later.
Our first brainstorming session was held to help
encourage engineering participants to identify possi-
ble reasons why productivity was blocked. Brainstorm
S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
21
Total hours/engineering task
average NPI project
Hours/NPI Percentage CAD
Percentage engineering
system
Percentage
remaining
Designing/modeling 5.4 28%
Drawings 2.3 12%
Manufacturing BOMs 2.3 12%
Manufacturing I/Ms 0.6 3%
Design review documents 0.6 3%
Design review 1.9 10%
Tool design 1 5%
Work Instruction/process routing 1.4 7%
Packaging 3.9 20%
Total average hours per project 19.3 60% 25% 15%
BOM = bill of materials
CAD = computer-aided design
I/M = item master
NPI = new product introduction
Table 2. Engineering time expenditures by NPI task type
Table 3. Engineering resource time
expenditures by work type
Total product engineering tasks
Percentage resource
consumption
MFG supportexisting orders, ECOs,
complaint resolution
42.21%
New incremental T(NPI) 32.73%
Non-engineering work (meetings, sales
and other projects)
13.42%
Estimating and quoting (sales support) 4.81%
New materials 4.67%
Training or being trained 2.16%
Total 100%
ECO = engineering change order
MFG = manufacturing
NPI = new product introduction
30%
20%
10%
0%
Prior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-10%
-20%
-30%
Design projectincrease throughput
Weeks from launch
Go live
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
CAD = computer-aided design
Figure 2. CAD productivity increase
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
items were grouped into immediate throughput
blocking concerns or other, which was to be con-
sidered another time.
The team performed a stakeholder analysis in a
suppliers, inputs, process, outputs and customers
(SIPOC) format to determine the critical-to-quality
(CTQ) factors. Results are shown in Table 1. The
customers of the product engineering department
are the manufacturing plants, who are recipients of
the design products: drawings, tooling and electronic
data such as product item masters, bills of material
and process routings, flows and rates.
The firm, being a TOC company, knew that product
engineering must achieve on-time deliverables for
the plants to run effectively and without interrupting
product engineering with issues from late deliver-
ables. This avoids further delays in delivering actual
physical products to the plants customers. Because
all production runs are started as late as possible, this
is measured by false rope releases that monitor late
22
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
This computer-aided design (CAD) cost
comparison includes seven oating licens-
es for use by nine to 10 total users. The
company team recommended ve seats
of SolidWorks standard and two seats of
SolidWorks Professional to provide some
additional functionality. See the CAD cost
comparison in Sidebar Table 1.
The ProE package cost took into ac-
count the companys current equity in two
seats or ProE currently in use for the Con-
gurator. Specically, the $39,065 includes
only six seats of ProE and one upgrade to
the existing seat the Congurator-specic
user is using to include PDMLink (ProEs
document management software).
The hardware cost-comparison sum-
mary is as follows:
$12,000 for ePDM server hardware.
We will move the current search and query
language (SQL) server (antiquated hard-
ware), ePDM storage server, web environ-
ment for product data management (PDM)
read and print, and linking drawing docu-
ments to the manufacturing bill of material.
$14,000 for PC and monitor upgrades.
The computer numerical control (CNC)
machines are adequate and do not require
new monitors.
Storage server requirements up to
$40,000 for an estimated three terabytes
storage and performance requirements.
Sidebar Table 1. CAD cost comparison summary
SolidWorks ProE
CAD software cost $30,955 $39,065
CAD software maintenance $9,465 $13,890
PDM software cost $28,915 $29,020
PDM maintenance $10,768.75 $10,124
CAD training cost $11,655 $20,250
PDM user training cost $7,900

Discount $(16,516.58) $(21,644.82)
Potential incentive from IRLEE
CAD/PDM implementation $30,000 $30,000
CAD/CAM hardware cost $14,000 $20,200
PDM hardware costs $59,500 $59,500
Additional SQL/Oracle server NA $14,000
Future Configurator-related costs $21,200 NA
CAD and PDM total cost $199,942.18 $222,304.18
Future yearly subscription cost $20,233.75 $24,014
Esprit (CAM)
Esprit CAM package $41,048
Esprit CAM maintenance $5,328
Total initial investment $246,318.18
CAD = computer-aided design
CAM = computer-aided manufacturing
IRLEE = Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy
PDM = product data management
SQL = search and query language
CAD COST COMPARISON BREAKDOWN
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
delivery of product engineering products, includ-
ing drawings, tools and electronic assets or other
engineering products required for manufacturing
to proceed with manufacturing on time.
All CTQs were focused on increasing resource time
in product engineering to make that time available
for added throughput. Then, this could be translated
to additional sales volume that can be sold without
increasing headcount. The overall goal of filling the
plants capacity will then be met.
A second brainstorming session took place to
develop potential solutions for the goal of increasing
design project throughput. Similar solutions were
combined into one, and others were eliminated as
out of scope or saved for future consideration.
The final solution chosen was to provide inte-
grated engineering systems through a new CAD/
CAM system to enhance speed and compatibility
with customer and vendor softwares.
The clients team evaluated the available 3-D CAD
S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
23
The input and output storage server
is antiquated and out-of-date equip-
ment.
The total cost of SolidWorks so-
lution CAD/PDM hardware require-
ments is $73,500.
The ProE CAD/PDM solution would
require the following additional hard-
ware requirements:
$6,200 in PC hardware for re-
placement of three additional PCs.
Additional SQL processor license
of $12,000. PDMlink from ProE does
not support the use any SQL licenses
available.
Total requirement for ProE is
$91,700.
The PDM cost comparison break-
down included in Sidebar Table 1 is
based on license costs for the equiva-
lent of:
Nine CAD users with full PDM
functionality.
Nineteen contributor users from
other departments who will have ac-
cess to search, view, edit and check
in and out non-CAD documents that
require protection.
Remote read and print access for
sales, as well as from machines on
the plant oor. A drawback with the
proposed the ProE solution is that the
licenses are not oating, and users
must be named, so we would have
to create a system for publishing re-
leased les to a folder and viewing
them through a web browser at ad-
ditional costs.
$5,000 to implement cost of
servers and storage hardware for
both solutions.
$30,000 for PDM implementa-
tion services, including system setup,
conguration, existing released data
migration and integration with item
master on item numbers and revision
levels.
SolidWorks future Congurator-
related costs are as follows:
SolidWorks will require a soft-
ware add-on for use with the Cong-
urator, and it will require an upgrade
to the current version of the item
master software at an estimated
$11,000. At the time that we choose
to use the Congurator with Solid-
Works, one additional seat of Solid-
Works Standard CAD software is re-
quired at $4,000.
Total estimated cost is $21,000,
and a three-week engineering proj-
ect to move the currently congured
product drawing creation from ProE
to SolidWorks.
Engineering support for
implementation
There will be input and support need-
ed from IT and engineering resources
when the new software is implement-
ed.
Four-day CAD training for all us-
ers.
Three-day CAM training for fve
to seven engineers and one CNC op-
erator.
Five to six-week PDM implemen-
tation with 30% support from IT dur-
ing this period.
Four-week CAD startup impact.
This includes a three to four-week
engineering project to create prod-
uct family template models and
drawings for top 80 to 90% of prod-
uct families based on current sales
volumes. Modeling productivity is es-
timated to be 20% lower during this
time.
Ongoing updates to legacy fles
including simple edits done with
DWG Editor that will not take any ad-
ditional time and updates to model
geometry on a released part will go
through a conversion process. We
estimate an additional 15% time per
part. J.B.W.
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
Estimated CAD impact on NPI tasks per project Percentage savings New hours/NPI Hours saved/NPI
Modeling 35% 3.5 1.9
Drawings 35% 1.5 0.8
Design review documents 50% 0.3 0.3
Tool design 60% 0.4 0.6
Work instruction/process routing 10% 1.2 0.1
Packaging 10% 3.5 0.4
CAD total reduction per NPI 4.1
Phase 1 total reduction in yearly project related engineering hours 1,453.1
CAM savings year one
Expected programs per year 300
Average hours per program 3.5
Knowledge base impact on all CAM programming 40%
Reduction in engineering hours with new CAM program in year one 420
CAM savings year two
Expected programs per year 300
Average hours per program 3.5
Knowledge base impact on all CAM programming 70%
Incremental reduction in engineering hours with Esprit in year two 315
CAD/PDM access at plants - increased throughput Hours Percentage savings Hours saved
Reduced PE support to MFG 36 18.5% 6.7
CAD seats for ME to create cutting templates 12 20% 2.4
Reduce ME time on tooling for CNC work 192 20% 38.4
CAD drawings for CNC programs for NPI 312 1 312
3D modeling is a significant benefit to MEs in communicating with others (tooling) 100
Additional product engineering capacity made available 459
Summary of engineering hours saved
Total of engineering hours available for added throughputyear one 2,332.1
Total of engineering hours available for added throughputyear two 2,227.1
CAD = computer-aided design
CAM = computer-aided manufacturing
CNC = Computer numerical control
NPI = new product introduction
ME = mechanical engineer
MFG = manufacturing
Table 4. Impact analysis estimation of new CAD/CAM programs
24
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
packages for several factors:
Ease of use: Effective graphic user interface
(GUI), intuitive structure and modeling/draw-
ing speed.
Cost: Acquisition and ongoing support and
maintenance.
Customer and vendor interoperability: Available
compatible output, formats and ease of use.
Configurator compatibility: Future and conver-
sion of existing configured products.
Ability to interface with or replace existing
engineering systems.
Vault products: Formats accepted, security and
costs.
CAD system requirements were as follows:
Functionality of basic requirements: SolidWorks
and ProE met the basic needs of 3-D modeling and
drawing generation, as well as being an open GL.
Feedback on functionality from the companys
CAD users was sought and was clearly in favor of
SolidWorks, based on ease of use alone.
Configurator compatibility: The company had
implemented a Configurator for complex products.
This software programs features linked to the CAD
model, allowing nontechnicals to input basic infor-
mation required and automatically generate produc-
tion drawings, item masters and bills of material.
Difficult and lengthy to program, the Configurator
does save considerable engineering time after the
first two or three repeat orders. ProE and SolidWorks
work effectively with the Configurator and use the
same 3-D modeling engines internally differing only
by the GUI.
The company already knew how ProE works
because it was the CAD program in use for the
Configurator. SolidWorks presents a logic-based
solution for the vast majority of CAD functions used
in the configuration of products without the need
for programming knowledge. This provides a solu-
tion that will require less training as compared to
ProE, but is comparable in speed of application once
proficient.
The availability of Visual Basic by Microsoft to
use with SolidWorks also allows for more possibili-
ties and flexibility for customization or complex
configuration scenarios if the need arises. The use
of SolidWorks would require an upgrade of the
Configurator to a more current version. It would
also require the need to move the drawing creation
function on the currently configured products to
SolidWorks in the future, but it is compatible in the
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
25
THEORY OF
CONSTRAINTS PRIMER
Introduced by Eliyahu M. Goldratt, the theory of con-
straints (TOC) says a company is limited from achieving
its goal by a set of small constraints.
Essentially, every process to produce a product or ser-
vice has in it one process step that sets the pace for the
entire process. All other steps can easily maintain pace.
Goldratt calls this limiting step the drum because it sets
the beat for the entire process.
The drumbeing the constraintrequires that it be
fully supported and never without work waiting to be
done. Accordingly, a buffer of work is built up before the
drum that is always full and ready to execute. Thus, you
do not delay the step that is limiting production.
If you look at the entire process length and schedule
as late as possible to start, you get a pull system in which
the order ship date establishes the release date to start
production. Goldratt calls this the rope length because
you are pulling the product through the system.
Because you are scheduling to start as late as pos-
sible, anything that is not ready to go when the order is
released will delay shipment. Goldratt calls this a false
rope release. The rope is pulled, but it is not completely
contiguous back to the required start.
Combining the three creates the drum-buffer-rope
concept. Companies that organize around this concept
use the ve focusing steps to improve productivity:
1
1. Identify the constraint. The resource or policy
that prevents the organization from obtaining more of the
goal.
2. Decide how to exploit the constraint. Get the
most capacity out of the constrained process.
3. Subordinate all other processes to the decision
made in step two. Align the whole system or organiza-
tion to support the decision made earlier.
4. Elevate the constraint. Make other major changes
needed to break the constraint.
5. If, as a result of these steps, the constraint has
moved, return to step one. Dont let inertia (some say
complacency) become the constraint. J.B.W.
NOTES
For more information about TOC, begin with Wikipedias entry on
TOC at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_constraints. Eliyahu
M. Goldratt and Jeff Coxs The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement
(North River Press, 1992) also can be used as a starting point.
short term by maintaining the ProE software until the
changeover can occur.
Customer/vendor interoperability: SolidWorks,
ProE and Inventor are all recognized and widely used
CAD software options that have a significant share of
the 3-D modeling market. Each of these would give
the company a large step forward in terms of interop-
erability with customers and vendors, and would not
feel limiting. Two of the target customers also use
SolidWorks.
Legacy data: This is perceived by our CAD users
as a mostly unavoidable, and minor factor. When the
options for handling legacy data were presented and
tested using ProE and SolidWorks, the SolidWorks 2-D
DWG Editor (for AutoCAD drawings) and feature rec-
ognition proved slightly more effective than the ProE
method. Some 2-D AutoCAD and 3-D mechanical
desktop models may be converted to either SolidWorks
or ProE as needed with significant effort.
CAM implementation risks: The company expressed
concerns about the initial setup, data migration and
system integration. The CAM/CAD risks with the CAM
software vendor and SolidWorks was minimized with
due diligence in validating the technology. We delved
into the potential risks, blind spots, challenges and
potential for scope creep with SolidWorks ePDM (elec-
tronic product document management). We discussed
other users experiences in several cases and visited
other users to help us with this aspect of the project.
The CAM software vendor also performed tests that
showed no loss of data integrity when converting.
With this data, a plan was developed to implement
the CAM portion in a phased manner that would
not put current product at risk until the new product
introduction procedures were fully developed and
functional. Then conversion would commence on an
as-needed basis.
Product document management: The requirement
is to be able to store, protect from unauthorized
change, and easily retrieve CAD drawings and models.
SolidWorks and ProE both have electronic document-
vault softwares. SolidWorks has ePDM, and ProE has
PDM (product document manager).
Final software recommendation: With the com-
panys team, our consulting firm recommended
upgrading to the widely accepted 3-D CAD software
SolidWorks, its ePDM vault software and the CAM soft-
ware Espritall purchased from recognized resellers.
The company coordinated with a subcontractor
to establish links between the engineering software
systems (ERP/MRP) so all data for item masters and
bills of manufacturing will be controlled directly from
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Cumulative return on investment (ROI)
Months
Figure 3. Three-year cumulative ROI
26
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
the drawing. Checking a drawing into the ePDM
vault will automatically send relevant data to the
other engineering software systems, generate the
PDF drawing for manufacturing use and link it to the
item masters inside the MRP.
Additionally, the new Espirit CAM program accepts
the SolidWorks CAD model format directly, and
machine paths will be generated in only 10% of the
previous engineering time required. This will reduce
interfaces for the project engineers from eight to two,
decreasing engineering time and freeing resources to
perform additional work creating new product designs.
DMAIC processmeasure
We then mapped the current design project processes
for new product introduction (NPI) to establish a
framework to collect data on how much engineer-
ing resource time was being expended in several
categories and process steps in the design project
process. The data were collected using a tally sheet
for each project and was averaged and summarized
for analysis, shown in Table 2 (p. 21).
This gave the team a baseline to more accurately
estimate the potential return on investment (ROI)
and to compare the actual achievement after imple-
mentation.
While collecting this data, the team also measured
the category of work type being preformed: manu-
facturing support, NPI and various work types of
interest. Table 3 (p. 21) summarizes the data.
DMAIC processanalyze
On average, CAD time expenditures per NPI avail-
able for productivity enhancement are 60% of the
total time for a given project. Up to 9.1% of additional
product engineering time was available to be elimi-
nated by integrating the engineering systems. Not all
of the time expenditures for the engineering systems
integration were available to be eliminated because
some of the effort to input the data was still required
so the PEs would just be doing it once in a different
input point.
Our consulting firm and the company team also
looked at use of the PEs compared to the desired or
perceived amount of time actually spent on NPI. As
shown in Table 3, 32.73% of the PEs time was spent
increasing throughput for the organization. Just
more than 42% was spent supporting manufacturing
through change requests and complaint resolution.
To further address issues related to the 42%
resource consumption for manufacturing support,
the company established an internal team to enhance
several areas for the entire organization.
TOC principles state that an organization should
not multitask. Switching between tasks without com-
pleting one before the other results in significant
lost productivity due to the time it takes the brain to
reorient itself. To limit multitasking, rules were estab-
lished for the product engineering project queue:
1. The number of opened projects cannot exceed
the number of resources available to work on
them. This keeps one resource on one task.
2. Never stop working on a project to accommodate
another project, which limits emergent opportu-
nities from taking over.
3. As company policy, project delivery requirements
must be stated in the project as it arrives at prod-
uct engineering so a resource does not open a
project and have to stop to obtain more informa-
tion.
4. The project planning team owns the queue, plan-
ning and release of preapproved and planned
projects to product engineering. Projects must
be completely ready to execute when released.
5. Released projects that are past the planned start
date must be replanned in the queue. This cri-
terion will prevent overscheduling the project
queue from a resource availability standpoint
as it commits the execution team to significant
rework, customer notification and potential loss
of business.
Table 4 (p. 24) summarizes the measurements in
the CAD/CAM area as a result of the conversion. It
also projects over the array of project sizes what the
ROI will be over two years. CAD modeling and draw-
ing times were reduced 35%, while preparation of
design review documents was cut in half, and tooling
design time was reduced by 60%. Work instruction
and packaging creation also was reduced by 10%.
A decision to no longer create internal models/
drawings when the customer has adequate models/
drawings further reduces consumption of engineer-
ing resource hours. The company now offers a dis-
count to customers where this is possible.
DMAIC processimprove
The companys team continued taking measure-
ments as before on design projects. The productivity
increase due to the new CAD system was 21.6% by
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
27
Dr awi ng Fr om Si x Si gma
the end of week nine after go live. Figure 2 (p. 21)
shows the results.
A reduction in productivity was expected and expe-
rienced in the first two to three weeks as the engineers
became accustomed to the new CAD software. The
learning curve shows exactly the expected results.
The financial benefits derived from this project far
outscored the 25% target for productivity increase.
There already is a 21.6% reduction in design proj-
ect hours with the new software installations, and an
increase of 9.1% in available resource time will be real-
ized by integrating the remaining engineering systems
to automatic operation in the upcoming months.
By shifting some process-related tasks from prod-
uct engineering to manufacturing engineering,
another 18.5% of resource time was gained for the
product engineers. The overall throughput produc-
tivity gain is 40.1% before the engineering system
integration is affected, which translates into another
9.1% increase, which totaled 49.2%.
Additional benefits are compatibility with custom-
er and vendor software, and increased protection
and availability of data assets through the ePDM.
With additional business that can be generated
using the resource time in engineering that was
saved due to this process improvement project, the
company calculated its expected ROI in Figure 3
(p. 26).
With the launch of the new CAD/CAM system in
month two (shown in Figure 3), a positive ROI will
be effected in only 10 months.
DMAIC processcontrol
New procedures surrounding the conversion from
the previous CAD system to the newly implemented
one have been documented and are stored, pro-
tected and retrievable from the ePDM. The man-
agement team will continue to measure resource
expenditures for a period of three months and then
formulate ongoing measurements to ensure compli-
ance.
Eliminating nonvalue
In this case, a dramatic improvement in productiv-
ity within the product engineering department was
realized. A project wrap-up session with the project
engineers also revealed a lessening of frustration on
their part with the previous systems that were cumber-
some and sometimes nonfunctional.
With a careful review of its operating systems, other
organizations also can increase throughput by apply-
ing lean Six Sigma techniques and the DMAIC pro-
cess to eliminate nonvalue added processing, reduce
waste, create effective roles and responsibilities that
consider the capacity of all available resources, and
improve processes.
By taking a systems-thinking perspective, you can
uncover the details that limit an organization from
achieving its goal to make money now and in the
future.
1
The time freed by these improvements can
be used to fill production and improve the bottom
line.
REFERENCE
1. Eliyahu M. Goldratt, What is This Thing Called Theory of Constraints and How
Should it Be Implemented? North River Press, 1999.
RESOURCES
For more information about Esprit CAD/CAM software, visit
www.dptechnology.com.
For more information about ProE 3D CAD and PDM document
management, visit www.ptc.com.
For more information about SolidWorks 3D CAD and ePDM
document vault, visit www.solidworks.com.
28
I
A U G U S T 2 0 1 1
I
W W W . A S Q . O R G
Six Sigma Forum Magazine is seeking articles for publication.
For information on the review process and types of articles
considered, along with submission requirements, go to
www.asq.org/pub/sixsigma/author.
Call for
articles