OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

A Study on
Six Sigma Techniques
And
Its application in reduction of seat rejection
At BOSCH LTD.

Submitted by
Ankur Bhaskar Ghosh(11FN-013)
Saurabh Bakshi(11IB-052)
Chandra Shekhar L(11DM-031)
Pankhuri Agrawal(11FN-071)
Hitesh Kothari(11IB-025)
Pranjal Singh(11DM-107)

Introduction to Six Sigma:

Sigma () is a letter in the Greek alphabet that has become the statistical symbol and metric of
process variation. The sigma scale of measure is perfectly correlated to such characteristics as
defects-per-unit, parts-per-million defectives, and the probability of a failure. Six is the number of
sigma measured in a process, when the variation around the target is such that only 3.4 outputs out of
one million are defects under the assumption that the process average may drift over the long term by
as much as 1.5 standard deviations. Six sigma may be defined in several ways. Tomkins defines Six
Sigma to be a program aimed at the near-elimination of defects from every product, process and
transaction. Harry (1998) defines Six Sigma to be a strategic initiative to boost profitability, increase
market share and improve customer satisfaction through statistical tools that can lead to breakthrough
quantum gains in quality.
Six sigma was launched by Motorola in 1987. It was the result of a series of changes in the quality
area starting in the late 1970s, with ambitious ten-fold improvement drives. The top-level management
along with CEO Robert Galvin developed a concept called Six Sigma. After some internal pilot
implementations, Galvin, in 1987, formulated the goal of achieving Six-Sigma capability by 1992 in a
memo to all Motorola employees. The results in terms of reduction in process variation were on-track
and cost savings totaled US$13 billion and improvement in labor productivity achieved 204% increase
over the period 19871997.In the wake of successes at Motorola, some leading electronic companies
such as IBM, DEC, and Texas Instruments launched Six Sigma initiatives in early 1990s. However, it
was not until 1995 when GE and Allied Signal launched Six Sigma as strategic initiatives that a rapid
dissemination took place in non-electronic industries all over the world. In early 1997, the Samsung
and LG Groups in Korea began to introduce Six Sigma within their companies. The results were
amazingly good in those companies. For instance, Samsung SDI, which is a company under the
Samsung Group, reported that the cost savings by Six Sigma projects totaled US$150 million. At the
present time, the number of large companies applying Six Sigma in Korea is growing exponentially,
with a strong vertical deployment into many small- and medium-size enterprises as well. Six sigma
tells us how good our products, services and processes really are through statistical measurement of
quality level. It is a new management strategy under leadership of top-level management to create
quality innovation and total customer satisfaction. It is also a quality culture. It provides a means of
doing things right the first time and to work smarter by using data information. It also provides an
atmosphere for solving many CTQ (critical-to-quality) problems through team efforts. CTQ could be a
critical process/product result characteristic to quality, or a critical reason to quality characteristic.

Defect rate, PPM and DPMO:

The defect rate, denoted by p, is the ratio of the number of defective items which are out of
specification to the total number of items processed (or inspected). Defect rate or fraction of defective
items has been used in industry for a long time. The number of defective items out of one million
inspected items is called the ppm (parts-per-million) defect rate. Sometimes a ppm defect rate cannot
be properly used, in particular, in the cases of service work. In this case, a DPMO (defects per million
opportunities) is often used. DPMO is the number of defective opportunities which do not meet the
required specification out of one million possible opportunities.

Sigma quality level

Specification limits are the tolerances or performance ranges that customer's demand of the products
or processes they are purchasing. Figure 1 illustrates specification limits as the two major vertical
lines in the figure. In the figure, LSL means the lower specification limit, USL means the upper
specification limit and T means the target value. The sigma quality level (in short, sigma level) is the
distance from the process mean () to the closer specification limit. In practice, we desire that the
process mean to be kept at the target value. However, the process mean during one time period is
usually different from that of another time period for various reasons. This means that the process
mean constantly shifts around the target value. To address typical maximum shifts of the process
mean, Motorola added the shift value 1.5 s to the process mean. This shift of the mean is used when
computing a process sigma level. From this figure, we note that a 6 sigma quality level corresponds to
a 3.4ppm rate.

Fig 1: Sigma quality levels of 6 and 3

DMAIC Process in Six Sigma methodology:

The most important methodology in Six Sigma management is perhaps the formalized improvement
methodology characterized by DMAIC (define-measure-analyze-improve control) process. This
DMAIC process works well as a breakthrough strategy. Six Sigma companies everywhere apply this
methodology as it enables real improvements and real results.

Literature Survey
Case study of manufacturing Industry
Identification of problem
Industry
Data Collection
Identify Specific problem

Define

Define customer Requirements

Set Goals
SIPOC diagram
Measurement System Analysis

Measure

Data Collection Plan

Identify variation due to measurement system
SIPOC diagram
Draw conclusion from data verification

Analyze

Process Capability Analysis

Determine root causes
Map cause & effect diagram
Create improvement Ideas

Improve

Create solution statement

Implement improvement solutions
Monitor Improvement progress

Control

Make needed adjustments

Establish standard measures to maintain
performance

Improvement Results
Conclusions
Scope of future work

Fig 2:

Flow diagram of DMAIC methodology adopted

Sigma level for discrete data:

Suppose two products out of 100 products have a quality characteristic which is outside of
specification limits. Then in one million parts 20,000 parts will be defects so, sigma level will be
between 3 & 4.Preciously it will come as 3.51. The broad classification of sigma level is shown
below-

PPM Defectives

Sigma level

6,91,000

3,09,000

67,000

6,200

230

3.4

Product Definition:

Fig 3: DSLA Nozzle Assembly

Fig 4: Injector Assembly

Dowel hole
drilling

Shoulder
Turning

Step Turning

Seat
Profile
Grinding

Guide Bore
Drilling
Inlet hole Drilling

Pressure Chamber
machining
Fig 5: Body of DSLA type nozzle

Sack Hole
Seat
Surface
Seat- seen under Microscope

DEFINE PHASE:
1. Why the project? (The Business case) DSLA nozzle parts are hardened at UDA (Hardening
process) and after subsequent chamfer grinding they come at UVA (High precision internal grinding)
machines for Guide bore and Seat grinding. The seat and guide bore surface grinding is done on UVA
and then they are sent to inspection for seat visual checking. At seat visual checking section the no. of
parts getting rejected are quite high. From Jan08 to July08 average 22600 ppm (parts per million)
were rejected due to Bad seat problem (Rejection due to other reasons are not included in the scope
of the project).
Due to these rejections the first pass yield and type wise fulfillment of parts decreases. Also Due to
added seat repair operation at UVA the m/c utilization decreases and at the same time it increases

the defect cost associated with it. By successfully implementing the project we can save up to 1, 50
TINR.per month.

2. SIPOC (Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer):
SIPOC is a six sigma tool. The acronym SIPOC stands for Suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and
customers. A SIPOC is completed most easily by starting from the right ("Customers") and working
towards the left.
Suppliers to UVA process are Company, TEF1, TEF2, PLP, and MSEB.
Inputs to UVA process are Man, Machine, Electricity, Drawings, and H.T. over parts, Gauges, Tooling
Compressed air, JML, Cutting oil, Check list , Instruction charts, Program etc.
Process taking place at UVA process is Internal grinding of seat surface.
Output of the UVA process are Seat Grinding over parts, Worn out tooling, Grinding muck, PMI chart,
Re-release chart.
Customers of the UVA process are Inspection, Repair process, Stores, Scrap yard, Etamic check,
Honing, Profile Grinding.
Using this data a SIPOC diagram is created.

SUPPLIER

Company
Electricity
Maintenance
TEF1
Purchase

Soft Stage
Operations

INPUT
Man
Machine
Electricity
Drawings
H.T. over parts
Gauges, Tooling
Compressed air
JML ,Cutting oil
Check list
Instruction charts
Program

Hardening

PROCESS

OUTPUT

CUSTOMER

UVA
process
High
Precision
Internal
Grinding
Process

Seat Grinding over

parts
Worn out tooling
Grinding muck
PMI chart
Re-release chart

Inspection
Repair process
Stores
Scrap yard
Etamic check,
Honing
Profile Grinding

UVA process
(High Precision
Internal Grinding)

Seat Visual
Inspection

Profile
Grinding

Fig 6: SIPOC for UVA (Internal grinding) process.

3. CTQ (Critical to Quality) Identification:
A CTQ tree (Critical-to-quality tree) is used to decompose broad customer requirements into more
easily quantified requirements. CTQ Tree is often used in the Six Sigma methodology.
CTQs are derived from customer needs. Customer delight may be an add-on while deriving Critical to
Quality parameters. For cost considerations one may remain focused to customer needs at the initial
stage. CTQs (Critical to Quality) are the key measurable characteristics of a product or process
whose performance standards or specification limits must be met in order to satisfy the customer.
CTQ tree is generated when there are Unspecific customer/business requirements or complex, broad
needs from the customer.

Taper repair
Guide bore repair
To reduce
UVA
process
Repair

Repair
Seat repair
Scrap

Guide bore scrap

Seat scrap

Fig 7: CTQ tree for UVA process.

By the reference of CTQ tree there are 5 elements in UVA process seat repair. To select the right
CTQ for the project Pareto Analysis was performed on the data gathered from Jan08 to July08.

Pareto Analysis:
The Pareto chart was introduced in the 1940s by Joseph M. Juran, who named it after the Italian
economist and statistician Vilfredo Pareto, 18481923. It is applied to distinguish the vital few from
the trivial many as Juran formulated the purpose of the Pareto chart.

From this Analysis we clearly see that Seat repair is the most critical of all rejections.

Kano model of Quality:

The Kano model is a theory of product development and customer satisfaction developed in the 80's
by Professor Noriaki Kano which classifies customer preferences into five categories:

Attractive

One-Dimensional

Must-Be

Indifferent

Less the better

As per Kano model of Quality A CTQ specification table is generated for giving the specifications of
rejections.
CTQ

MEASURE

SPECIFICATION

G.B. Repair

Monthly PPM

--

Seat Repair

Monthly PPM

Taper bad

G.B. size out of

specification

Seat Damage/
Finish Bad

Seat visually not O.K.

Taper out of

Monthly PPM

--

G.B. Scrap

Monthly PPM

--

Seat Scrap

Monthly PPM

Seat Damage

Repair

DEFECT DEFINITION

specification
G.B. size out of
specification
Seat visually not O.K.

KANO STATUS
Must Be

Less the Better

Less the Better

Less the Better

Less the Better

Fig: CTQ table

MEASURE PHASE:

Collect baseline
data on defects &
possible causes

Develop a
sampling
strategy

Validate your
measurement
system using
Gauge R & R.

Analyze
patterns
in data

Determine
process
capability

Fig 10: Approach to measure phase.

Creating a data collection plan: As per the approach specified a plan for collecting the base line
data is created. It is given below.

Data Collection Plan

Action: Data collection from Seat Rejection

What question do you want to answer? Body seat visually OK?

Data

What

Seat defects

Operational definition and procedures

Related

Measure type/

How

data type

measured

Discrete data

visually

How/where

Sampling

conditions to

recorded

notes

record
lot wise

(Attached form)

100%

--

Fig 11: Data collection plan

It was decided to change the format for recording of parts checked at seat visual section as it was
outdated. So with the help of line foremen new format was developed by. It is as follows:

New format developed for Seat visual section:

BOSCH
Nashik plant

Date

Qty.
Inspected

Name_________________________

Shift

Qty.
OK

Qty
Rejected

Item
No.

Bad
Rings
Finish

Token No:

Patches

Seat Defects
Rubbing at
sack hole

No sack
hole

Unground Scrap Lot No.

seat

Type

Segregation of defects observed at seat visual section:

Rings

Patches

Unground
seat

No sack
hole

277
182

93
172

0
6

1
5

1
1

Rubbing at sack
hole end
due to burr
0
1

174

100

63

10/8/2008

1114

646

440

12

12

12/8/2008
13/08/08
14/08/08
17/08/08

607
47
163

416
20
80
90

165
24
78
293

25
2
4
57

0
0
0
0

1
0
0
8

0
1
1
2

18/08/08
19/08/08
20/08/08
22/08/08
23/08/08
25/08/08
26/08/08
270808
28/08/08
30/08/08
1/9/2008
2/9/2008

46
85
170
214
308
189

2
20
74
115
204
113

43
56
95
90
90
70

0
0
0
8
12
6

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
1
0
0
0

1
7
0
1
2
0

192

82

94

16

119
101
163
99
78

32
38
32
12
31

86
63
55
37
43

1
0
9
48
4

0
0
66
1
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

5058

2566

2150

219

79

27

16

Total no. of
Bad finish
parts checked (rough surface)

Day count

Date

Day-1
Day-2

6/8/2008
7/8/2008

372
367

Day-3

8/8/2008

Day-4
Day-5
Day-6
Day-7
Day-8
Day-9
Day-10
Day-11
Day-12
Day-13
Day-14
Day-15
Day-16
Day-17
Day-18
Day-19
Day-20

450

Pareto Analysis of Seat rejections:

5000

100

4000

80

3000

60

2000

40

1000

20

Percent

Count

Seat Defect Segregation

0
i
fi n

Defect

h
ug
Ro

Count
Percent
Cum %

2566
50.7
50.7

sh

ng
Ri

2150
42.5
93.3

es
t ch
Pa

ds
un
gr o
Un

219
4.3
97.6

ea

79
1.6
99.1

he
Ot

rs

43
0.9
100.0

Measurement System Analysis:

A Measurement System Analysis, abbreviated MSA, is a specially designed experiment that seeks
to identify the components of variation in the measurement.
Just as processes that produce a product may vary, the process of obtaining measurements and data
may have variation and produce defects. A Measurement Systems Analysis evaluates the test
method, measuring instruments, and the entire process of obtaining measurements to ensure the
integrity of data used for analysis (usually quality analysis) and to understand the implications of
measurement error for decisions made about a product or process. MSA is an important element
of Six Sigma methodology and of other quality management systems.

ANOVA Gauge Repeatability & Reproducibility: (GRR study)

ANOVA Gauge R&R (or ANOVA Gauge Repeatability & Reproducibility) is a Measurement Systems
Analysis technique which uses Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model to assess a measurement
system. The evaluation of a measurement system is not limited to gauges (or gages) but to all types
of measuring instruments, test methods, and other measurement systems.
In this project GRR study, a quality over checker took 30 parts and checked its angle twice. The
recorded measurements were fed to standard Minitab software and the results obtained are as
follows:

Measuring Table-20249

Measuring Table-19389

Gage R & R

18.82

13.23

No. Of Distinct Categories

10

10

If GRR <10
If 10<GRR<30
If 30<GRR

Gauge is acceptable
Gauge is conditionally acceptable
Gauge is unacceptable & must be replaced/modified.

Process Capability Analysis

Process capability analysis was performed to find out the actual state of the process.
Minitab was used to draw a process capability analysis curve for Seat Rejections measured over a
month. As the data is discrete the Sigma level what we get is in terms of PPM (Defective Parts per
Million Opportunities)The Minitab output obtained for the Analysis is shown below.
Capability Analysis of Seat Visual Process
P C har t

Binomial P lot

P r opor tion

0.024

Expected Defectives

U C L=0.026045

0.026

_
P =0.022624

0.022
0.020

LC L=0.019202
1

10 13 16 19
Sample

22 25

425
400
375
350
360
390
420
O bser ved Defectives

28

C umulative % Defective

Dist of % Defective
Tar
8

S ummary S tats
(using 95.0% confidence)

% Defective

2.30

% Defectiv e:
Low er C I:
U pper C I:
Target:
P P M Def:
Low er C I:

2.28
2.26
2.24
2.22
5

10

15
20
Sample

25

30

U pper C I:
P rocess Z:
Low er C I:
U pper C I:

2.26
2.22
2.30
0.00
22624
22217

6
4
2

23035
2.0024
1.9947
2.0100

0.

00

0.

35

0.

70

1.

05

1.

40

1.

75

2.

10

2.

45

Fig 14: Process Capability analysis of Seat visual process before

Implementing DMAIC methodology
From Results the PPM Def level is 22,624 (i.e.22, 624 Defectives in 1 Million parts.)
The below table shows different Sigma levels for PPM rejections.
PPM Defectives

Sigma level

6,91,000

3,09,000

67,000

6,200

230

3.4

Fig 15: PPM defectives & Sigma level Comparison

By doing interpolation between 3 & 3 levels the Sigma level of the Seat visual process comes out to
be 3.5 Sigma.

11

UVA PROCESS
REPAIR &
SCRAP

Seat
repair

Rough finish,
Rings, Patches,
No sack hole,
Rubbing at sack hole,
Unground seat

Chamfer height
variation.

Acqueous Cleaning not ok

Jet broken,Pump
pressure less

Uneven chamfer
band

Guide to shaft TR not ok

Guide to shaft TR
not checked after
TBT as per freq.

Vibrations &
chatter marks on
seat in soft stage

Roundness, Straightness,
Guide bore to seat TR

No specification in
drawing

100% sack hole

checking
poka yoke on all 5
spinner

Possibility of poka
yoke failure

Sack hole Drill breakage on

Retco

Poka yoke not working

properly

Type Mix-up ( P
type in DSLA &
vise versa

Possibility on all operations

during lot change, 80% on
Benzinger, ECM(10%),
Remaining 10%

Manual element

Guide bore to shaft

T.R bad

Guide to shaft TR not

checked after TBT as per
freq.

TR more than 100

microns

Seat TR wrt guide

bore

On spinner & retco m/c

more than 70
microns

Seat angle in soft

stage

On spinner & retco m/c

specification 58.8
(+/- 0.2)

Chamfer mandrel
angle in hard
stage

More/less than spec.

I/P parts

TR more
than 100
microns

Parts without sack

hole from soft
stage

More/less
than spec.

Fig 16: Tree diagram created from brainstorming session for Input part parameters

12

Measure
by gauge

Vibration

Today not Known

RPM

value-2250

Consult Mr.Kumavat

Workhead

Loading/
Unloading

Spindle height

Repeatability

Below 20

Female center

Grinding

Decide freq.

Job clamping pressure

Chuck clamp grinding

Once in a month

Loading spring wornout

Changing freq. once

in 2 months

Loading alignment
of component

Visual check
OK/ Not OK

Loading cylinder

Air leakage

Cylinder swing

In / Out positions
Changing freq.

To be decided

Once in
2 months

As per freq.

Angle master
Checking
bench
UVA
process
repair

Seat
Rejections

Visual inspection
microscopes

M/C
parameters

Seat profile

To be studied

Alignment of both
eyes

Scope condition
to be studied

Prepare
schedule

Frequent checking
by associates

RPM

value-60,000

spindle cooling

To be asked
to maintenance

Provision to fix pressure

gauge atleast to one m/c

Initial setting

wheel form wear

Ref.setting piece to be made

New seat wheel

Ensure positive cutting

after dressing

Height gauge to
check height diff.

New wheel diameter

4,600 mm

After dressing

spindles

Setting
parameters

Adaptor

TR < 10

Dressing ring

periodic replcment & TR

coolant
systems

3.5 to 4 bar grinding

/ dressing coolant

4,300 mm

changing freq. every

3 months

Tip breakage sensing

poka yoke

confirmation of poka
yoke once in a shift

Dressing depth of cut

Grinding wheel

Dressing freq.

6 parts

Feed rate

Details to be taken

Grinding

Fig 17: Tree diagram due to machine related parameters

From two tree diagrams created above it is clear that there are 7 parameters related to input part
parameters & 23 machine related parameters. To know the impact of each parameter on seat
rejections it was necessary to validate each parameter using statistical methods. In Six Sigma method
used for root cause validation is Hypothesis testing.

Statistical hypothesis testing:

A statistical hypothesis test is a method of making statistical decisions using experimental data. It is
sometimes called confirmatory data analysis. In frequency probability, these decisions are almost
always made using null-hypothesis tests.

13

sub cause

Suspected sources
of variations
(SSV's)

Uneven
chamfer
band

End
date
Test used Results obtained

Conclusions

50 parts with chatter marks were

processed on UVA along with 50
ok parts

One part from each machine

given to FMR lab,
Life no. are noted

2
proportions
test
49 bad in 50 with The impact of drill
chatter marks, 1 damage in soft stage
bad in 50 without on Seat rejections is
16-Dec8-Jan-08
chatter marks
Significant.
08

16-Dec8-Jan-08
08

The seat RZ & The impact of drill life

Rmax values of
on
all parts are
seat rejections is
within limits
Insignificant

12 parts bad in
The impact of
Take 50 parts with TR more
2
50 TR bad parts Uneven chamfer band
than 85 & put them on UVA also 3-Mar-09 3-Mar-09 proportions
1 bad in 50 TR ok on Seat rejections is
process 50 normal parts
test
parts
Significant

A trial TR checking gauge

is developed

Guide to shaft TR is
not
checked in soft
stage

Guide to shaft
TR not ok

The drill form

Roundness,
Take one parts each from
deteriorates with
Straightness GB
spinners & Retco having
usage & the parts at
to seat TR not
different tool life & give them
later stages
Vibration checked in soft
to FMR lab for seat form
of tool life have
s&
stage
checking
roughness
more
chatter
3
marks on
seat in
Due to drill damage
soft stage
Drill damage on
on machines
When such parts come on
Spinners &
vibrations & deep UVAsort out such parts & put
Retco
lines are produced
them on UVA for trial.
on seat.

Start date

0 bad parts in
Take 275 parts with cleaning & 25
The impact of aqueous
2
275 ok parts
parts without cleaning & process
cleaning on chamfer
8-Nov-08 8-Nov-08 proportions 0 bad parts in 25
them on same chamfer grinding
height variation is
test
without cleaning
m/c & same UVA m/c.
Insignificant.
parts

Trial taken

To take a trial this involves

All parts came ok
Take 30 parts with chamfer height
The impact of chamfer
taking parts with chamfer
2
on UVA, chamfer
(-30 to -10), 60 parts within spec (- 15-Nov- 15-Novheight variation on
height more, less & within
proportions height variation
10 to +10) & 30 parts with (+10 to
08
08
seat rejections is
specification & processing
test
did not cause any
+30) & process them on UVA.
Insignificant
them on UVA.
defect on UVA.

Take a trial which involves

processing parts without
aqueous cleaning.

Actions taken

Chamfer height Part location in UVA

variation causes
becomes
seat rejections at improper due to
UVA
chamfer variation.

Seat does not get

cleaned properly so
Aqueous
location of part on
cleaning not ok chamfer grinding
Jet broken,
m/c is outside due
Pump pressure to dirt present. This
less
outside location
chamfer
results in seat
1
height
rejections.
variations

Sr.N Root
o.
cause

Validation of all SSVs using Statistical testing: (Input part parameters)

14

Poka yoke
failure on
Retco machine

Poka yoke
failure on
spinner
machine

sub cause

Chamfer
mandrel
angle
in soft
stage

More or
less than
specification

Actions taken
Trial taken

Start date

End
date
Test used

Results obtained

Conclusions

Chamfer mandrel
Chamfer mandrel 4 mandrels given to
angles checked
angle to
tool room
25-Nov- 25-Decby Sine bar method
be verified in tool for chamfer angle
08
08
& Microscope
room
verification
method

No
variation
in output

As there in no
variation in
output statistical
test cannot
be performed

The impact of
chamfer mandrel
angle on seat
rejections is
Insignificant

Trial is taken which 285 parts with seat

involves
angle more
3 bad in 285 angle The impact of
2seat angle more were processed up to 21-Nov- 28-Novmore parts,
Seat angle more
proportions
parts are processed
seat visual
08
08
0 bad in 300 angle on seat rejections
test
up to seat visual for along with 300 angle
ok parts
is Insignificant
checking.
ok parts

p-type in DSLA lot

One type mix up part
breaks the
was put
The impact of
2adaptor& grinding
Collect at least 15 on UVA 20315 & it's 20-Nov- 20-Novtype mix up on
proportions wheel, which results
mix up parts
effect on
08
08
Seat rejections is
test
in 50 bad in 50,with
seat rejections is
Significant.
normal parts 0 bad
observed
in 50.

No sack hole part

One no sack hole
breaks the grinding
Poka Yoke put off Collect at least 15
part was put
The impact of No
2
wheel tip & m/c gets
due
No sack hole parts on UVA 20315 & it's 13-Jan- 13-Jansack hole parts on
proportions
immediately
to various
prefarably of DSLA
effect on
09
09
seat rejections is
test
stopped, during
reasons
normal Shaft
rejections was
Significant
redressing 50 parts
observed
came bad.

Suspected sources of
variations
(SSV's)

80% on
75% Benzinger,
10% on ECM.
Part type Possibility on Manual element
5
mix up all operations may be present,
Elevator condition
in soft stage is
poor
Angle not
checked as per
Seat angle On spinner
frequency/Drill life
6
in soft
& Retco
over, Drill
stage
machines
resharpening
improper

Parts
without
4 sack hole
from soft
stage

Sr.
Root cause
No.

(Input part parameters continued..)

15

RPM

Trial taken

Start date

End
date

At 5 bar pressure 0 bad in

50,
at 4 bar pressure 29 bad in
50 parts.

The job clamping pressure was

varied ti 4 bar & 5 bar & it's
30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09
impact on seat rejections is
observed.

Female
center

Job
Air supply to job clamping
Chuck clamp
clamping
is varied to different levels
grinding
pressure
& it's effect was observed

2 proportions
test

All parts before doing

female center grinding
2-proportions
came ok, also all parts after
test
doing female center
grinding came ok

50 parts were processed

we checked parts before &
before doing female center
Grinding freq. after doing female center
grinding & 50 parts were
12-Mar-09 12-Mar-09
not decided
grinding for checking
processed after doing female
difference
center grinding

At both repeatability levels

all parts came visually ok
2-proportions
test

conclusions

The impact of Job

clamping pressure on
seat rejections is
Insignificant.

The impact of female

center
grinding on seat
rejections
is Insignificant

The impact of Spindle

height
repeatability on Seat
rejections is Insignificant

The impact of Workhead

rpm
on seat rejections is
Insignificant

Workhead vibration values The impact of workhead

of all machines are within 3
vibration on seat
mm/sec.
rejections is Insignificant

Results obtained

Take 50 parts with 2150 rpm,

No variation in
At both rpm values all
13-Feb-09 16-Feb-09
take 50 parts with 1750 rpm
output observed 50 parts came visually ok

No variation
output
observed

Test used

Check repeatability<20,
50 parts each were processed
Repeatability take trial with processing
with repeatability of 10 &
12-Mar-09 12-Mar-09
below 20
parts with different
at20.
repeatability values.

Rated RPM value is 2150

RPM

Workhead vibration values of

Check workhead vibration
all machines are checked with 13-Feb-09 16-Feb-09
values of all machines
help of vibratometer

Actions taken

Spindle
height

Workhead

Earlier not
known

Vibration

value-1800
rpm

Suspected
sources of
variations
(SSV's)

Sr.
Root cause sub cause
No.

Actions taken for machine related parameters

16

Changing
freq.

Loading
spring
wornout

11

Checking
bench

Air supply
for parts
cleaning

Visual
inspection
microscope

Angle master

10

Loading
cylinder

No supply
provided

A workshop on microscope
handling to be arranged

18-Dec-08 18-Dec-08

30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09

Parts to be checked with 50 parts taken with air cleaning

air cleaned & without air
& 50 parts taken without air 30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09
cleaning
cleaning

Associates awareness
about microscope
adjustment to be done.

Scope condition study

schedule to be prepared

Check requirement of
frequent verification of
microscope condition

Alignment
of both eyes
not there

Frequent
checking by
associates

take GRR of seat

angle master

Checking freq. to be
reduced

Master
showing
wrong
reading

30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09

Take a trial without checking

loading alignment of
component.

While setting machine

check
alignment for ok / Not ok

No problem of air leakage

30-Jan-09 30-Jan-09

Changing freq. once in two

months.

End
date

Loading spring was

changed with a broken one
& it's effect on seat
rejections was observed

Start date

Trial taken

Actions taken

Air leakage Electrical servo motor used

Loading
Loading /
alignment of Visual check
Unloading
component

Suspected
sources of
variations
(SSV's)

sub cause

Sr.
Root cause
No.

2 proportions
test

conclusions

GRR found to be ok

The quick hit achieved

With air cleaning

10 parts bad in 50,
without air cleaning
22 parts bad in 50.

The impact of Air supply

for parts cleaning on
Seat rejections is
Significant

The impact of seat

visual microscope
condition on seat
rejections is
Significant.

The impact of Angle

master on
seat rejections is
Insignificant.

The impact of Air

cylinder on
seat rejections is
Insignificant.

The impact of Loading

with & without checking
alignment of component
loading alignment all 50
on seat rejections is
parts came visually ok
Insignificant.

with ok spring all 50 parts The impact of loading

came ok, with broken
spring broken on seat
spring 35 bad in 50.
rejections is Significant

Results obtained

When 50 parts checke

with faulty microscope 35
2 proportions
came bad, when they are
test
checked with ok scope
only 50 came bad.

No test
performed

No hypothesis
test performed

2 proportions
test

2 proportions
test

Test used

(Machine related parameters continued)

17

Adaptors

Dressing
ring

17

Setting
parameters

16

15

14

13

To be asked to
maintainance

One worn out ring was

placed & wheel was
dressed with that ring.
Parts are taken for trial.

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

Adaptor Tr checked
take 50 parts with adaptor
If TR out of
every time machine is
TR<10
specification seat disturbed & it's impact
30-Jan-09
& again take 50 parts with
bad comes
on seat rejections
adaptor TR>10
observed

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

Initial setting parameters

were disturbed & trial is 30-Jan-09
taken.

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

End
date

The new seat wheel

New seat wheel height
height was set at 3.15mm
to be set 3.1 mm, take
30-Jan-09
& it's effect on seat
trial with more height.
rejections was observed.

Ensure positive
cutting
after dressing

If dressing ring is
worn out, the
Trial taken which
Periodic
grinding wheel
involves placing a worn
replacement
form gets
out ring on Machine &
& TR
damaged. Due to
taking parts
which part comes
seat bad.

TR<10

New seat
wheel
setting

Initial setting was

disturbed & it's impact
Initial setting Wheel form wear
on seat rejections was
observed

Spindle
cooling

Start date

100 parts processed with

60,000 rpm, 100 parts
15-Jan-09
processed
with 50,000 rpm

Trial taken

Check whether spindle

cooling
All systems chekced
30-Jan-09
systems of all machines with Maintenance people
are running ok

12

Grinding
spindles

Take a trial with

different RPM values

value to be
60,000 RPM

RPM

Actions taken

Suspected
sources of
variations
(SSV's)

Sr.
Root cause sub cause
No.
Results obtained

when TR<10 0 bad in 50,

when TR>10 0 bad in 50

When new seat wheel setting

ok 0 bad in 50, when initial
setting not ok 30 bad in 50.

When initial setting ok 0 bad

in 50, when initial setting
disturbed 25 bad in 50.

2 proportions with wornout spring 45 badin

test
50, with ok ring 2 bad in 50.

2 proportions
test

2 proportions
test

2 proportions
test

No test
performed

Spindle cooling systems of all

machines are found to be
working ok.

3 parts in bad 100 with 60,000

2 proportions
rpm,1 bad in 100 with 50,000
test
rpm

Test used

The impact of Dressing

ring worn-out on seat
rejections is Significant.

The impact of Adaptor

TR on
Seat rejections is
Insignificant.

The impact of new seat

wheel
setting on Seat
rejections is Significant.

The impact of Initial

setting
on seat rejections is
Significant

The impact of Spindle

cooling
system on Seat
rejections is
Insignificant.

The impact of Spindle

cooling
on Seat rejections is
Insignificant

conclusions

(Machine related parameters continued)

18

6 parts

Dressing freq.

21

Incorrect decision
due to fear
of getting rejected
from assembly.

Lack of
operator
equalization

23

Operator

Manual knob
present

Feed rate

22

Grinding
program

3 microns

30-Jan-09

50 border case parts were

shown to operators & they
were shown to assembly
operators.

Daily rejections at seat

visual is checked for
verifications

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

Take 50 parts with 8 parts

dressing freq. Again take 50
parts with 6 parts dressing
freq.

Dressing freq. changed

& trial is taken

The feed rate was

Take parts with 50% feed
changed manually & it's
rate,
effect on seat rejections is Take parts with 100% feed
observed.
rate.

30-Jan-09

Take parts with 3 depth of

cut.
Take parts with 2 depth of
cut.

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

Start date

Dressing depth of cut is

varied & trial is taken

50 parts taken when poka

yoke on tip, again 50 parts
taken with poka yoke in
backsword position.

Poka yoke was shifted to

backward position & its
effect on seat rejections
was observed.

Confirmation of
poka yoke once
in a shift

Tip breakage
sensing poka
yoke

20

Grinding
wheel

Only checking is involved as

taking a trial is very
dangerous.

Check pressure,
temperature
of coolant system

The dressing/
Grinding
pressure varies

Trial taken

3.5 to 4 bar
grinding/
dressing
coolant

Actions taken

Suspected sources
of variations
(SSV's)

sub cause

Dressing
depth of cut

19

18

Coolant
systems

Sr.
Root cause
No.

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

30-Jan-09

End
date

The coolant system

parameters are
within limits

Results obtained

0 bad in 50 with 3
depth of cut.
0 bad in 50 with 2
depth of cut.

The impact of dressing

depth of cut on Seat
rejctions is
Insignificant.

The impact of poka

yoke on Seat
rejections is
Significant.

The impact of coolant

systems on Seat
rejections is
Insignificant.

conclusions

with 100% feed rate all The impact of feed rate

50 parts okwith 50 %
on Seat
feed rate all 50 parts
rejections is
ok again.
Insignificant.

Due to continuous
The impact of Operator
rejections from
2 proportions
equalization on seat
assembly section fear
test
rejections is
is set in visual
Significant.
operators.

2 proportions
test

0 bad in 50 with 6 parts The impact of dressing

2 proportions
freq. 0 bad in 50 with 8 freq. on Seat rejections
test
parts freq.
is Insignificant.

2 proportions
test

Poka yoke o tip 1 bad

2 proportions
in 50,
test
when poka yoke not on
tip 16 bad in 50.

2 proportions
test

Test used

(Machine related parameters continued)

19

Ishikawa Diagram for Major defects:

Ishikawa diagrams (also called fishbone diagrams or cause-and-effect diagrams) are diagrams that
show the causes of a certain event. Ishikawa diagrams were proposed by Kaoru Ishikawa in the
1960s, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process
became one of the founding fathers of modern management. It was first used in the 1960s, and is
considered one of the seven basic tools of quality management, along with the histogram, Pareto
chart, check sheet, control chart, flowchart, and scatter diagram. It is known as a fishbone diagram
Causes in the diagram are often based on a certain set of causes, such as the 6 M's, described
below. Cause-and-effect diagrams can reveal key relationships among various variables, and the
possible causes provide additional insight into process behavior. Causes in a typical diagram are
normally grouped into categories, the main ones of which are:
The 6 M's
Machine, Method, Materials, Maintenance, Man and Mother Nature (Environment): Note: a more
modern selection of categories is Equipment, Process, People, Materials, Environment, and
Management.
Causes should be derived from brainstorming sessions. Then causes should be sorted through
affinity-grouping to collect similar ideas together. These groups should then be labeled as categories
of the fishbone. They will typically be one of the traditional categories mentioned above but may be
something unique to our application of this tool. Causes should be specific, measurable, and
controllable.
Fish bone Diagram for Vital few Defects
Env ironment

Method

Dirt
accumulates on
part as it is near
to window

Material

Gauges not
calibrated on
elevator getting
jammed
Work
Instructions are
Complex
procedures

Frequent breakdowns

Drill Breakage
In coming quality
bad
Rough
Checking freq. is
Finish &
less
Motivation less

Coolant pressure varies

Rings
formation
on Seat

New operator

Detection is poor

Negligence

No Poka Yoke exist

Machine

Tool Quality

Awareness
Man

Fig 18: Cause & Effect diagram for majority of defects

The Five elements of Fish bone diagram generated during Brainstorming session are:
Man:

Motivation less in workmen due to incentive less.

New operator working in area

Negligence during night shift

Lack of Awareness among operators

20

Machine:

Frequent Breakdowns, causing increase in vibration level

Detection of Defects is not effective

Coolant pressure varies abruptly

No Poka Yoke present to detect Drill breakage which causes ring formation

Material:

Tool quality not up to the mark, drill life less

Drill breakage due to drill overuse

In coming quality of parts not ok (Part bend which causes drill breakage)

Checking frequency is less

Method:

Gauges are not calibrated on daily basis

Elevator which lifts the part to chuck gets jammed causing part damage

Work instructions are over dated

Program corrections are complex during type change

Environment:

Machine is near to open window which causes dirt accumulation on part which damages
surface during grinding.

Bar chart
The ideas generated during Brainstorming session were verified by Process Experts and the causes
having positive impact on rejections were listed out. Bar chart analysis was performed on these
parameters to know the causes which have significant impact on rejections.

% Rejections

Causes & their contribution in Rejections

45

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

21
15
8

11
% wise causes

Drill overuse

No Poka
Gauges not
Yoke present calibrated on
to detect Drill
time
breakage

Coolant
pressure
varies

Others

Causes

Fig 19: Bar Chart for Significant parameters

Chart clearly indicates that some system for early detection of Drill breakage needs to be
developed.

21

% Rejections

Causes & their contribution in Rejections

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

45

21
15
8

11
% wise causes

Drill overuse

No Poka
Gauges not
Yoke present calibrated on
to detect Drill
time
breakage

Coolant
pressure
varies

Others

Causes

Fig 20: Bar chart for causes & their contribution

IMPROVE PHASE:
A) Detection of drill breakage on machine:
To reduce rejections which were caused by drill breakage, a new Laser sensor was installed on
machine and its feedback was given to PLC logic of machine. When tip of drill is Ok Laser falls on drill
& gets distracted, ensuring the machine to run continuously. This Tip Breakage Sensor (TBS) was
installed such that it overlaps with part loading, so change in cycle time due to Sensor installation is
zero.

Fig 12: Tool breakage sensing Poka Yoke with OK drill mounted on machine

Fig 21: Tool breakage sensing Poka Yoke when tip of drill is broken

After successfully implementing this on one pilot machine, there was horizontal deployment of this
Poka yoke on all 8 machines.

22

B) Drill overuse by operator:

When 5 why Analysis was done for this problem, it was found that the new drills were issues from
stores on monthly basis, so at the end of every month drill overuse was a common problem. It was
decided to top-up drill shortage on every Saturday of week so as to maintain drill float on the line. Line
foremen

were

given

clear

instructions

about

drill

records

maintenance.

Accurate

drill

breakage/obsolescence is maintained and this point is added to Surprise audit committee.

C) Gauges & Microscopes are not calibrated on time:
For this cause a team of operators was formed to escalate the matter immediately when gauges are
not calibrated. Also calibration work was equally divided among quality people who calibrate gauges
once in three days.

D) Coolant pressure varies:

For this cause complete hydraulic circuit was checked for leakage. The team found that on Flow
control valve was faulty (worn out). The team insisted to change every valve of the circuit and
complete hydraulic circuit connections were changed with new one. Due to this major action the
leakage completely stopped. The coolant pressure variation problem is completely eliminated.
E) Others:
For all other causes following actions are taken

Window responsible for dirt accumulation was permanently closed & one exhaust fan was
installed at that place.

For new operator coming in area training sessions & supervision by skilled operators was
made compulsory.

Warning letters were issued for negligence from operators.

New & updated work instructions were put on machine boards.

CONTROL PHASE:
This phase defines control plans specifying process monitoring and corrective actions. It ensures that
the new process conditions are documented and monitored. All possible causes of specific identified
problems from the analysis phase were tackled in the control phase. Control solutions to identified
problems have been prepared in sequence to the improvements as explained above. This will prevent
the problems from recurring. The proposed control solutions to improve the previous solutions are
listed in sequence as follows.
A) Drill breakage Poka Yoke:
A Poka yoke monitoring sheet is maintained by shop. One shop Forman daily checks that all Poka
Yoke are working correctly & records it on a check sheet. A clear escalation model for problem
reporting is prepared for Poka Yoke failure.
B) Drill overuse by operators:
As weekly drill quantity top-up is done, it automatically ensures that every week drill quantity is verified
for shortage. A record sheet is maintained to keep all drills records.
C) Gauges calibration:
This issue was taken seriously by quality department & they have assigned special audit team to
ensure that gauges are calibrated on time.

23

D) Coolant pressure:
For all hydraulic circuits in shop, one preventive maintenance program is prepared. Operators are
given authorities to stop machine if leakage is found on it.
E) Operator related issues:
All operator related issues were taken to Worker Union and after their consent it is decided to take
strict action against the operator negligence is company.

RESULTS:
After completing the DMAIC methodology of Six Sigma, again the process capability Analysis was
done to know the improvement in Sigma level. One month data on Control phase was taken for the
Analysis.
Capability Analysis of Seat Visual Process
Binomial P lot

0.020

Expected Defectives

P C har t
1

P r opor tion

1
1

0.015

U C L=0.01344
_
P =0.01104

0.010
1

11

10 13 16 19
Sample

22 25

LC L=0.00864

300
250
200
150
160
240
320
O bser ved Defectives

28

C umulative % Defective

Dist of % Defective
S ummary S tats
(using 95.0% confidence)

% Defective

1.2

% Defectiv e:
Low er C I:
U pper C I:
Target:
P P M Def:
Low er C I:

1.1

1.0
5

10

15
20
Sample

25

U pper C I:
P rocess Z:
Low er C I:
U pper C I:

30

1.10
1.08
1.13
0.00
11039
10754
11330
2.2890
2.2791
2.2989

Tar
12
9
6
3
0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8

Figure 22: Process capability of seat visual process after applying DMAIC methodology

From the Minitab output it is clear that PPM defect level is reduced from 22,624 ppm to 11,031 ppm.
And Sigma level is Improved from 3.5 to 3.79 .
Rejections in PPM
25,000

22,624

Sigma level-3.5

PPM level

20,000

Sigma level
improved to 3.79

15,000
11039
10,000
5,000

Rejections in PPM

0
PPM rejections before Project

PPM rejections after DMAIC

Project

Fig 23: Results showing improvement in Sigma level of the process

A few more agreed recommendations are still to be implemented during plant shut down. The
estimated savings from the project after the implementation of all recommendations are expected to
be 1, 50,000Rs per Annum.

24

CONCLUSIONS:
The immediate goal of Six Sigma is defect reduction. Reduced defects lead to yield improvement;
higher yields improve customer satisfaction. The ultimate goal is enhanced net income. The money
saved is often the attention getter for senior executives. It has a process focus and aims to highlight
process improvement opportunities through systematic measurement. Six Sigma defect reduction is
intended to lead to cost reduction. Six sigma is a toolset, not a management system and can be used
in conjunction with other comprehensive quality standards present in the industry. The application of
Six Sigma technique for this project shows that company has taken a small step towards Six Sigma
Implementation on Company wide basis. Once Six Sigma finds its rightful place in the minds of higher
management, enormous gains can always be expected from its application. It is clear that the Six
Sigma methodology is highly beneficial to improve the performance of any manufacturing plant.

25

References
1) Kumar, P. (2002) Six Sigma in manufacturing, Productivity Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.196
202.
2) Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (1999) Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the Worlds Top Corporations, New York, NY: Double Day.
3) Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R. (2000) Successful implementation of Six Sigma:
benchmarking: General Electric Company, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7,
No. 4, pp.260281.
4) Mathew.H, Barth.B, and Sears.B, (2005) Leveraging Six Sigma discipline to drive
improvement, Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.121133.
5) Park, S.H. (2002) Six Sigma for productivity improvement: Korean business corporations,
Productivity Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.173183.

26