POLAROID

A Case on Process Control

Presented by: Anish Kirolikar Jaspreet Kaur Nrupen Kamtekar Prakhar Nigam Uttam Kumar Das

Introduction

Polaroid - manufactures cameras, photographic equipment and accessories Two main divisions
The

Technical and Industrial Division The Consumer Photograph Division

The company produced two main types of films:

The

peel apart film The integral film (R2 facility)

Factory Layout

1st floor

Spring Production

Stamped out of sheet metal in a ten-staged metal pressing operation.

Pod Production
Designed such that reagent would be released from the front seal of the pod. Flows between negative and positive to develop image. Operates when film frame are ejected from the camera.

Packaging

2nd and 3rd floor

Cartridge Production and Assembly

Quality and Process Control at R2

All films that were produced were checked by the Quality Control department

Sampled 15 finished cartridges out of every lot of 5000. These finished cartridges each contained 10 frames

If defects were found,

Lot was put on hold for further testing Either reworked or rejected

Subsequent lots were subjected to more intense and rigorous testing

Also increased the sample size on these lots

Quality and Process Control at R2

The QC department ended up rejecting just over 1% (50 cartridges per 5,000) in 1984 Used to check 32 random cartridges for each lot at each stage of the process Took specific measurements of different characteristics

Measurement combined with the operators knowledge were used to determine if a lot should be rejected or not

Problems with existing quality control

Testing of the cartridges was very destructive and expensive

Resulted in sample crap - $1.28 mn Rejected lots additional $2 mn

Handling of the cartridges increased the chances of developing defects

Passed repackaged handled again increased defects

Use of a perfect testing camera did not match customers cameras Sampling did nothing to improve quality

Lead to high costs If the control sampling was cut in half, the outgoing defects

Project Greenlight

Focused on improving the quality control processes while reducing the number of samples 3 parts :

Adoption of statistical process control principles Production operators

would be given the process control tools that the process engineering technicians had been using expected to make disposition decisions themselves

Quality control auditors

concentrate on training operators operationalizing specifications on new products

Project Greenlight

Operators responsible for taking measurements and recording them If the machine was operating outside of the control limits, the machine was automatically shut down Maintenance would be called and the machines had to be cleaned, re-calibrated and restarted Operators were no longer allowed to tweak the machines.

Results Project Greenlight

Mixed results
Was

supposed to cut down the defects and testing losses. The reported defective rate from the operators and auditors was reduced from 1% to 0.05% The defective rate from the central process auditors had shot up from 1% to 10%

Lack of trust between the auditors and the operators The nature of defects also changed

Integral Film Production

Negative Positive + Thick long strips were placed between the two + Craft Material at the top + Lamination + Film Frame + Top Cover Sheet Plastic Box Subassembly + End Caps Cartridge + Pod Plastic Box + Battery + Spring

Process Quality & Capability level

At 1% defect level
10000

DPMO. process would be under 4.1 sigma level.

ZL = (-LSL)/sigma = 2.33

Process Capability Cpk = Min(ZL,ZU)/3

Cpk = 2.33/3 = 0.7766

Going beyond 1%

Customer specification limit would remain same, thus to increase Cpk process variation must be reduced as much as possible. This means making process more robust and decreasing defects. Try to achieve
6sigma

level 3.4 DPMO

Control Chart for Pod Weight

Sample 1 2.792 2 2.81 3 2.777 4 2.799 5 2.803 6 2.788

2.774
2.797 2.819 2.754 2.784 2.844 2.806

2.783
2.79 2.787 2.793 2.781 2.799 2.786

2.799
2.785 2.809 2.82 2.733 2.781 2.836

2.82
2.795 2.862 2.846 2.801 2.802 2.815

2.812
2.866 2.823 2.823 2.823 2.82 2.836

2.807
2.826 2.816 2.807 2.844 2.813 2.808

2.843
2.816 Range 0.09

2.766
2.79 0.044

2.795
2.823 0.103

2.778
2.802 0.084

2.835
2.78 0.086

2.783
2.804 0.025 CL SD UCL LCL 2.805 0.025 2.879 2.730

Chart
2.880 2.860 2.840 2.820 2.800 2.780 2.760 2.740 2.720 Mean UCL LCL Max Min

Analysis

Acc to chart,
Performance variability is within the control limit Hence process is in control

Reducing quality control expense

Wastage of checked samples Reworking costs of tested samples Increase in defects due to reworking process

No reliance on operators individual judgement

Standardized

procedures and settings to be

followed

Control Chart for Finger Height

Sample 1 2.021 2 2.158 3 2.049 4 1.959 5 2.107 6 1.875

1.836
2.004 2.177 2.167 2.016

2.256
2.166 2.171 2.032 2.108

2.099
1.955 2.068 2.032 2.105

2.269
2.125 2.143 1.955 2.037

2.193
1.988 1.979 2.018 1.957

2.193
2.009 2.278 2.007 1.881

1.939
2.179 1.962 2.26 Range 0.424

2.302
2.189 2.128 1.99 0.312

2.019
1.97 1.976 1.863 0.15

2.154
2.067 2.228 2.183 0.314

2.104
2.088 2.036 2.02 0.236

1.83
1.903 1.949 1.889 0.448

CL
SD UCL LCL

2.060
0.118 2.415 1.705

Chart
2.600 2.500 2.400 2.300 2.200

2.100
2.000 1.900 1.800 1.700 1.600

Mean

UCL

LCL

Max

Min

Finger Height Control Chart Shift A

2.700 2.500

2.300
2.100 1.900 1.700 1.500 Mean UCL LCL Min Max

Most of the data in shift A exceeds UCL

Finger Height Control Chart Shift B

2.500 2.300 2.100

1.900 1.700
Mean UCL LCL Min Max

Most of the data in shift B is within the control range

Finger Height Control Chart Shift C

2.500 2.300 2.100

1.900
1.700 1.500 Mean UCL LCL Min Max

Most of the data in shift C is below the LCL

Types of defects

Acc to auditor, excess reagent defect

to Greenlight 10% Post implementation of Greenlight 22%
Prior

Leads to increased rejection rates of nondefective product as well Customer is unaware of the existence of such a defect
Higher

wastage and losses

Defects
Type of defect Operator Defects Auditor Cumulative % of Defects Defects Cumu. Defect

Excess reagent
Frame feed failure Dirt from assembly Insufficient reagent Damaged spring Double feed Malformed box Misalignment on assembly Positive Sheet defect Excess flash on box

4
2 0 1 3 2 1 1 2 2

11
9 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 2

15
11 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4

21%
15% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6%

Marginal lamination
Negative Sheet defect Grand Total

1
3 22

2
2 50

4
3 72

6%
4% 100%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0%
21%

5%

Excess reagent
15%

Frame feed failure

8%

Damaged spring
7%

Dirt from assembly

7%

Insufficient reagent Double feed

7% 7%

Analysis of Defects

Positive Sheet defect

Negative Sheet defect Malformed box Misalignment on assembly Excess flash on box Marginal lamination

% of Cumulative Defects

7% 6% 6% 6% 4%

Inferences

Improper proportion of reagent is one of the frequently occurring defects The top 5 defects constitute around 60% defect Almost 60% defects is produced by the operator himself

50

100

150

200

250

0 224

Excess Regent

196

Frame feed failure

175

Positive Sheet Defect

175

Negative sheet defect

168

Damaged Spring

140

Misalignment on assembly

125

Dirt from assembly

120

Double feed

96

Malformed box

96

FMEA: Risk Priority Number

Excess flash on box

75

Insufficient Regent

72

Marginal Lamination

Shingos Transformational Process

Comparison
OLD Process

Greenlight Process

Operator can change the speed temperature, and pressure of the machine Maintenance has unique set of solution with each machine Operators produce consistent quality by tweaking based on experience

Operators have to shut down the machine Maintenance has to determine standardized best practice procedure for all the machine Processes have been standardized

Change Management

Change management approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations to a desired future state with the help of new process/changes Polaroid Operator based statistical process control (SPC)
Cut

Costs Superior product quality

Implications

Hard to change the concept of work mapped in the head of the workers
Operator

thinks that shutting down the machine is more expensive Maintenance thinks their job is depersonalized QC personnel do not trust the operators Engineering technicians feels that they are better than the operators Increase in defect rate from central process auditors (1% to 10%)

Quality Circles

Quality circle - Polaroid

OLeary
Murray Bud

Rolfs

Recommendations
1.

Operator responsibility:

Need to treat downstream process as a customer Should aim at Doing it Right the first time Should shut machine as soon as process is out-ofcontrol
Convince operators about potential impact of their process on overall quality Introduce SPC training modules for Operators Inculcate a culture of Quality in the Organization at all levels

2.

Management responsibility:

Recommendations
3.

Process Control measures:

Apply SPC at the injection moulding machines to control defects Automation of data collection methods Process Documentation & Product Quality Rating should be introduced Schedule maintenance periodically Use checklist
Motivate operators towards achieving Polaroids Quality objective Link incentives to operators salaries to ensure adherence to revised Quality norms

4.

Change Management:

Thank You!!!

Who did what

Jaspreet Intro+ Control Charts Anish Change management & quality circle Nrupen Process Quality and capability, Assembly chart Prakhar Fema, Transformational process, Recommendations Uttam Fema, Deftects analysis, Putting together presentation, Recommendations