Implementing Six Sigma Quality at Better Body Manufacturing

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Overview

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

ABC Incorporated (ABC) is not achieving Six Sigma quality levels for all critical Body-Side Sub-Assembly dimensions as requested by their customers.
200000 150000 DPM

Dimension ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_3Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y ASM_6Y

DPM 172475 85824 19786 3874 776 4

100000 50000 0

ASM_7Y

ASM_8Y

ASM_3Y

ASM_9Y

Ensure that all critical body-side subassembly dimensions are within Six Sigma quality levels of < 3.4 DPM. Cp 2.0 and Cpk 1.67. Determined the correlation between body side and assembly dimensions. Evaluated the significance of Tonnage > 935 for ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y. Conducted a DOE for Clamp position for ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y. Change tonnage to > 935 to correct ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y Set clamp position to location 2 for ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y Re-machine A-pillar die to correct A_3Y and ASM_3Y
2

ASM_10Y

ASM_6Y

Problem Statement & The Goal

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

ABC Incorporateds customer wants ABC to apply Six Sigma problem solving methodology to insure that the body side subassembly is achieving Six Sigma quality levels of less than 3.4 defects per million for all critical body side subassembly dimensions. ABC needs an improvement strategy that minimizes the rework costs while achieving the desired quality objective. ABCs goal is to produce module subassemblies that meet the

customer requirements and not necessarily to insure that every individual stamped component within the assembly meets it original print specifications sub-system optimizations vs. local optimization.
A -Pillar Reinforcement Body Side Outer B-Pillar Reinforcement

Measure Phase
Key Variables: Assembly process variables:

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Weld Pattern (density), Clamp Location, and Clamp Weld Pressure Stamping process variables (body side): Press Tonnage, Die Cushion Pressure, Material Thickness

Body Assembly Dimensions ASM_1Y through ASM_10Y Assembly Dimensions with Highest Defects
200000
172475
DPM

150000

100000

85824

50000
19786 3874 776

0 ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_3Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y ASM_6Y

Analyze Phase
Resolution alternatives (based upon past experience): 1. Make adjustments to assembly process settings

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

2. Reduce variation of components through better control of stamping process input variables 3. Rework stamping dies to shift component mean deviation that is off target and causing assembly defects Target Performance Level: All ten critical assembly dimensions at Six Sigma quality level of 3.4 DPM. Cp 2.0 and Cpk 1.67
Fish Bone and P-Diagrams: Understanding potential causes of defects. From this we pick the assembly and component dimensions that require further analysis

Analyze Phase
Environment Quality Component Variability Gage R&R Yield Strength Humidity Temperature Operator

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Inspection Process Clamp Weld Pressure Weld Pattern (density) Clamp Location Methods

Training Body Assembly

Material Thickness

Die Cushion Pressure Press Tonnage Machine

Elastic Limit Materials

For our analysis we will do a DOE to check for levels that contribute to better quality product.

Control Variables
Clamp Location Press Tonnage Weld Density Die Pressure Clamp Pressure

Inputs
Material Thickness Yield Strength

Body Side Sub-Assembly Stamping Process

Outputs
Body Side Sub-Assemblies at Six Sigma quality levels

Noise Variables
Environment Inherent Variation

Error States
Dimensional defects 6

Analyze Phase
Analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y
Run Chart for ASM_7Y
1.0

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Run Chart for ASM_8Y

1.0
ASM_7Y

ASM_8Y

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

12

12

Subgroup Number
Number of runs about median: Expected number of runs: Longest run about median: Approx P-Value for Clustering: Approx P-Value for Mixtures: 4.00000 7.00000 5.00000 0.03464 0.96536 Number of runs up or down: Expected number of runs: Longest run up or down: Approx P-Value for Trends: Approx P-Value for Oscillation: 6.00000 7.66667 3.00000 0.10778 0.89222
Number of runs about median: Expected number of runs: Longest run about median: Approx P-Value for Clustering: Approx P-Value for Mixtures:

Subgroup Number
4.00000 7.00000 5.00000 0.03464 0.96536 Number of runs up or down: Expected number of runs: Longest run up or down: Approx P-Value for Trends: Approx P-Value for Oscillation: 8.00000 7.66667 2.00000 0.59781 0.40219

XY Plot of ASM_8Y and ASM_7Y

Conclusion: BS_7Y and ASM_7Y are following a similar trend. A correlation chart to study this further shows high correlation. (Pearson correlation, R of 0.701).

1.0

ASM_7Y

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

ASM_8Y

Analyze Phase
Capability Analysis of B_7Y Capability of B_7Y
Process Data USL Target LSL Mean 0.70 * -0.70 0.11

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Capability Analysis of BS_7Y Capability of BS_7Y

USL
Process Data USL 0.700000 Target * LSL Mean -0.700000 0.899444

LSL

LSL

USL

0 DPM

Within Overall

698416 DPM

Within Overall

Sample N 36 StDev (Within) 0.0788122 StDev (Overall) 0.0791215

Sample N 36 StDev (Within) 0.149640 StDev (Overall) 0.383691

Potential (Within) Capability Cp 2.96 CPU 2.50 CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 2.95 2.49 3.41 2.49 3.43 2.50 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp 1.56 CPU -0.44 CPL Cpk 3.56 -0.44 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 0.61 -0.17 1.39 -0.17
1.3

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Observed Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Observed Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL 666666.67 PPM Total 666666.67

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL 0.00 PPM > USL 908706.09 PPM Total 908706.09

Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL 15.33 PPM > USL 698400.06 PPM Total 698415.39

XY Plot of ASM_7Y and BS_7Y

BS_7Y

Conclusion: B_7Y has 0 ppm compared to ~700K DPM in BS_7Y. Furthermore, BS_7Y shows strong correlation on dimension ASM_7Y. (Pearson correlation, R of 0.786).

1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.5

ASM_7Y

Analyze Phase
XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y
1.5

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

XY Plot of Tonnage vs. BS_7Y

BS_7Y

1.0

0.5

905

915

925

935

945

Tonnage

Conclusion: Tonnage values above 935 greatly improves BS_7Y and brings it closer to the mean. Lets see what impact this has on ASM dimensions 7Y, 8Y, 9Y, and 10Y by creating a subset of the data looking only at Tonnage > 935.
9

Analyze Phase
Impact this has on ASM dimensions 7Y, 8Y, 9Y & 10Y on Tonnage
Capability Analysis of ASM_7Y at Tonnage > 935
Process Data USL Target LSL Mean Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall) 1.00 * -1.00 0.09 12 0.163174 0.147855

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Capability Analysis of ASM_8Y at Tonnage > 935

USL
Within Overall
USL Target LSL Mean Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall) Process Data 1.00000 * -1.00000 -0.12833 12 0.101825 0.089161

LSL

LSL

USL
Within Overall

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 2.25 2.05 2.46 2.05 2.04 1.86 2.23 1.86 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk 3.27 3.69 2.85 2.85 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 3.74 4.22 3.26 3.26

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0
Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0
Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

Capability Analysis of ASM_9Y at Tonnage > 935

Process Data 1.00000 * -1.00000 0.52083 12 0.206010 0.177098

Capability Analysis of ASM_10Y at Tonnage > 935

Process Data

LSL

USL
Within Overall
USL Target LSL Mean

LSL
1.00 * -1.00 0.39 12

USL
Within Overall

USL Target LSL Mean

Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall)

Sample N StDev (Within) StDev (Overall)

0.215541 0.187663

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 1.88 0.90 2.86 0.90 1.62 0.78 2.46 0.78 *

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk 1.55 0.94 2.15 0.94 * Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 1.78 1.08 2.47 1.08

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 3408.51 3408.51

Cpm

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0
Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 576.00 576.00

Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 10010.77 10010.77

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 2326.72 2326.72

Conclusion: Setting Tonnage to greater than 935 resulted in ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y meeting the goal of <3.4 DPM. ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y require further analysis.
10

Analyze Phase

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

DOE for Response Variable ASM_9Y DOE factorial analysis shows Clamp Position is the only significant factor in determining ASM_9Y dimension DOE Response Optimization for ASM_9Y Clamp Location Location 2 Location 2 Weld Density (welds per X inches) 1.33 1.33 Set Clamp Position to Location 2Clamp (level Pressure1) 2100 psi 2100 psi Optimizer recommends setting Weld Density to 1.33 weld per inch (level 1), but this appears to be a robust parameter, which could be changed for the benefit
Input Variable Proposed ASM_9Y Setting Proposed ASM_10Y Setting

of process without reducing quality if processing time or cost shows a benefit. Optimizer recommends setting Clamp Pressure to 2100 psi (level 1), but this appears to be a robust parameter, which could be changed for the benefit of process without reducing quality if processing time or cost shows a benefit. Run additional tests at recommended settings to confirm results Weld Density and Clamp Pressure are robust parameters and can be set to optimize the process capability to maximum level and lowest cost.

11

Analyze Phase

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

DOE for Response Variable ASM_10Y DOE factorial analysis shows Clamp Position is also the only significant

factor in determining ASM_10Y dimension

DOE Response Optimization for ASM_10Y Setting clamp to location 2 also improves ASM_10Y

Recommend same settings used to improve ASM_9Y to improve process capability which also allows for no changes to machine setup and helps reduce possible process concerns Run additional tests at recommended settings to confirm results Weld Density and Clamp Pressure are robust parameters and can be set to optimize the process capability to maximum level and lowest cost.

12

Analyze Phase
DOE for Response Variable ASM_3Y DOE factorial analysis shows that no factors are significant

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Response Optimization shows no solution for response optimizer

Observe Process Capability of A_3Y and BS_3Y ASM_3Y and A_3Y have a similar mean shift in the -Y direction Correlation of Output Variables No dimensional correlations appear to exist between ASM_3Y and A_3Y or BS_3Y Stepwise Regression Analysis of BS_3Y Tonnage and Die Pressure appear to be significant in determining dimension BS_3Y Tonnage values < 920 may improve BS_3Y Die Pressure appears to have no clear correlation to BS_3Y
13

Analyze Phase
Process Capability of BS_ 3Y and ASM_3Y at Tonnage < 920

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Created subset of body data looking only at dimensions with Tonnage < 935

Tonnage < 920 appears to improve the mean of BS_3Y slightly, but has no impact on improving the mean of ASM_3Y.
Capability Analysis of ASM_3Y
Die remachined to move mean +0.80

Capability of A_3Y and ASM_3Y with +0.80 mm mean offset

Manipulate data for A_3Y and ASM_3Y by +0.80 mm to simulate re-machining Process capability shows 0 defects for A_3Y and ASM_3Y with this mean offset

Process Data USL Target LSL Mean Sample N 1 * -1 0 36

LSL

USL
Within Overall

StDev (Within) 0.0851436 StDev (Overall) 0.0971725

Potential (Within) Capability Cp CPU CPL Cpk Cpm Overall Capability Pp PPU PPL Ppk 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 *

-1.0

-0.5
Observed Performance

0.0
Exp. "Within" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.5

1.0
Exp. "Overall" Performance PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

PPM < LSL PPM > USL PPM Total

0.00 0.00 0.00

14

Analyze Phase
Conclusions

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

From the analysis of ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y we can conclude that:

Setting tonnage > 935 results in ASM_7Y and ASM_8Y meeting the goal

Analyzing ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y helps determine that:

Setting clamp position to location 2, weld density to 1 weld every 1.33 and clamp pressure to 2000 psi helps with dimensions ASM_9Y and ASM_10Y

Analyzing ASM_3Y helps us conclude that:

Re-machine A-Pillar die to move A_3Y to nominal which could cause BS_3Y to shift towards nominal effectively shifting ASM_3Y to nominal

15

Analyze Phase

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

With the recommended changes the process performance will improve significantly
Dimension Mean ASM_1Y ASM_2Y ASM_3Y ASM_4Y ASM_5Y ASM_6Y ASM_7Y ASM_8Y ASM_9Y ASM_10Y -0.035 0.259 0.000 0.009 -0.330 -0.284 0.090 -0.128 0.521 0.395 StDev Overall 0.165 0.152 0.097 0.115 0.145 0.160 0.148 0.089 0.180 0.191 DPM_Obsv DPM_Within DPM_Exp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2.90 2.30 2.08 2.25 3.74 2.87 1.54 1.49 2.05 3.26 3.53 3.72 2.24 2.04 3.27 3.50 2.50 1.60 1.86 2.85 Pp 2.01 2.20 Ppk 1.94 1.63 Cp 2.47 2.31 Cpk 2.39 1.71

16

Improve Phase
Recommendations for improving the process:
Set Tonnage to above 935 to improve ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y Set Clamp to Location 2 to improve ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Re-machine the A-Pillar die to move the mean of A_3Y to nominal which in turn

will move ASM_3Y to nominal

Implement the above recommendations and run additional samples to verify results.

17

Control Phase
Recommended controls :

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

Implement a gauge on the body side component press to monitor tonnage Implement an alarm and shut-off feature on the body side press if tonnage

falls below 935 tons

Implement poke-yoke clamping fixture that ensures clamp is always in

Position 2
Establish an affordable control plan for ongoing monitoring of the 10

critical assembly dimensions.

18

Summary

D M A I
Define Measure Analyze

Improve Control

ABC Incorporated is not achieving Six Sigma quality levels for all critical BodySide Sub-Assembly dimensions as requested by their customers. BBM needs to apply Six Sigma problem solving methodology to establish an improvement strategy that minimizes rework costs, yet achieves the desired quality objective. Bring the key process output variables within Six Sigma quality level of < 3.4 DPM. Cp 2.0 and Cpk 1.67 Set Tonnage to above 935 to improve ASM_7Y & ASM_8Y Set Clamp to Location 2 to improve ASM_9Y & ASM_10Y Re-machine the A-Pillar die to move the mean of A_3Y to nominal

Implement a gauge on the body side component press to monitor tonnage Implement an alarm & shut-off feature on body side press if tonnage falls below 935 Implement poke-yoke clamping fixture that ensures clamp is always in Position 2 Establish control plan for ongoing monitoring of the 10 critical assembly dimensions.

19