Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
© 2001 ConceptFlow 1
SPACER
• Safety
• Purpose
• Agenda
• Code of Conduct
• Expectations
• Roles
© 2001 ConceptFlow 2
Safety
• Drills
• Issues
•
•
•
•
•
• Emotional
© 2001 ConceptFlow 3
Purpose
© 2001 ConceptFlow 4
Agenda
© 2001 ConceptFlow 5
Administrivia
• Breaks
• Lunch
• Pagers, Blackberrys & Cell Phones
• Facilities
•
•
•
© 2001 ConceptFlow 6
Code of Conduct
• Stay focused
• Openness and trust
• One person speaks at a time
• No whining
• Breaks as needed
• Start and stop on time
• Enjoy learning
• Your turn....
•
© 2001 ConceptFlow 7
Your Expectations?
© 2001 ConceptFlow 8
Roles
• Black Belts
• Facilitator
• Others
© 2001 ConceptFlow 9
The Breakthrough Strategy
© 2001 ConceptFlow 10
Module Objectives
© 2001 ConceptFlow 11
Goals Of Six Sigma
Defects Defects
GOAL
Client target
© 2001 ConceptFlow 12
The Breakthrough Strategy
© 2001 ConceptFlow 13
Benefits of Following the 12 Steps
© 2001 ConceptFlow 14
Overall Problem Solving Approach
Measure Analyze
y = f ( x1 , x2 ,..., xk )
Control Improve
© 2001 ConceptFlow 15
Dynamics Of Execution Strategy - The
Funnel Effect
Optimized Process
© 2001 ConceptFlow 16
Road Maps
© 2001 ConceptFlow 17
Breakthrough Strategy (DMAIC)
Step Focus
Define the Project, the Customers and the ‘Big ‘Y’? Y
D efine 0
y
4 Establish Process Capability of Creating y
Phase
y
A nalyze 5 Define Improvement Objectives For y
7 Screen Potential Causes For Change In y & Identify Vital Few xi x1, x2, ... xn
Vital Few x i
C ontrol 11 Determine Ability To Control Vital Few xi
12 Vital Few x i
Implement Process Control System On Vital Few xi
© 2001 ConceptFlow
Colors reflect training week
Define / Measure
Identify the 'y' or 'y's'
as the focus of your
project (KPOV)
Problem Statement
KPOVs (y's) Availability of
Goals, Objectives
Validate Resources
Big Picture Big "Y" Project Metrics Charter
Performance BB/Team
CT Trees for Little "y" or Project Schedule,
Data Training Needs
- CTC y's Delivery Milestones,
Capable Barriers
- CTQ Performance Resources (Project
Measurement Schedule
- CTD Standards Plan)
System on y's Budget
Little "y" Gap Analysis Team Members,
Data Collection /
Process Owner
Sampling Plan
Business Impact
2. 3.
1. Create Phase
Wk 1 Define Validate
Select CTQ Project Gate
Performance Measurement
Characteristics Definition Reviews
Standards System
© 2001 ConceptFlow 19
Define/Measure Tool Linkage
Voice Of the Client
CT Tree
Critical to Satisfaction
Quality Cost
Delivery CTC
CTQ
CTD
CTQ CTC
CTQ CTQ CTD CTC CTC
CTD CTD
Requirements Requirements
S I P O C
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Clients
Input Boundary Output Boundary
X Y
N
Complete Complete Traveler Gather
Need For Contact Information Auth.
Travel Request Travel Information Customer
Travel Agency Correct Code? Y
Form Authorization Verification Billing Info
All
Measurement
Systems Data type
?
Observational
MSA
Variable MSA
Resolution? Attribute
MSA
Gage name:
OK
Date of study:
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Response Reported by:
Tolerance:
Misc:
Accuracy/Bias? 200
%Contribution
%Study Var
%Tolerance
1.1
1.0
0.9
Percent
0.8
OK 0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part
0.6
0.5
0.4
Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
100
Linearity?
R Chart by Operator By Operator
[ , ] 95. %CI 0.15 1 2 3
UCL=0.1252
1.1
1.0
Sample Range
P rcent 0.10 0.9
0.8
OK
0.7
0.05
90 R=0.03833 0.6
0.5
0.00 LCL=0 0.4
0 Operator 1 2 3
Percent
Stability? 80 1.1
1.0
Xbar Chart by Operator
1 2 3 1.1
1.0
Operator*Part Interaction
Operator
1
2
Sample Mean
0.9 UCL=0.8796 0.9
Mean=0.8075 3
Average
0.8
OK
LCL=0.7354 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
70 0.4
0.3 0.4
0 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Precision ?
60
Bob Sue Tom
Appraiser
© 2001 ConceptFlow 21
Analyze
5. 6. 6.
4.
Define Identify Identify Phase
Establish
Performance Variation Wk 2 Variation Gate
Process
Objectives Sources Sources Review
Capability
(final) (Subjective) (Statistical)
Define
Baseline Current Control Plan
Rational Active and/or Passive BB
Performance Detail Process Map Data Collection /
Subgroups MBB
Benchmarking Brainstorming Sampling Plans
Active data Process Owner
/ Competitive Fishbone/CE FMEA Graphical Techniques
collection Champion
Analysis MistakeProofing Multi-Var
Valid Data Fin. Analyst
VOC (specs) SPC (Ys & Xs) ANOVA Validate Business
SOP's Variance Components Support
Laws of Nature Hypothesis Testing Project Tracking
Process Knowledge Correlation Maj. Stakeholder
Regression Documentation
© 2001 ConceptFlow 22
What Is a Control Chart?
I and MR Chart
70
UCL=66.49
Individual Value
60 Region of
50 Mean=50.06 non random
40 variation
LCL=33.63
30
Subgroup 0 50 100
1
20 UCL=20.19
Region of
Moving Range
10 random
R=6.179
R = 13 . variation
0 LCL=0
LCL = 0
Patterns within the “Region of random variation” can also indicate non-randomness
© 2001 ConceptFlow 23
Control Chart Selection Process
Characteristic
Selected
No Constant No
No Rational Yes Proportions Counts sample size u Chart
Subgroup
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Ability to calculate s No
np or p Chart
for each subgroup
Yes
Average Chart
(Xbar-s)
© 2001 ConceptFlow 24
Process Capability
Eliminate
out of
No
Process Start
control Stable? Characteristic
situation Selected
Control Chart
Yes
Summary
Statistics Summary Alternate
Statistics
Poisson
Binomial Attribute
Type?
Data normal?
No Convert
Descriptive Statistics to ppm
Histogram Capability Capability
Normality Plot
Analysis Analysis
Capability (Binomial) (Poisson)
Transform
Analysis Process Z DPU
data Calculate
(Normal)
Box-Cox Transformation Cp, Cpk Sigma
DPMO/ppm
Z Z Table
© 2001 ConceptFlow 25
The Standard Normal Curve
95.44% …………………….90-98%
99.73% …………………….99-100%
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Mean Point of
Interest
Z=3 Z=
( X − µ)
σ
1σ 2σ 3σ
© 2001 ConceptFlow 27
Transforming a Data Distribution to a
Standard Normal Curve
σ
95% of the
observations will
fall within ± 2
standard
deviations
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Z-Scale
© 2001 ConceptFlow 28
Z-Score Relationship to Six Sigma®
Philosophy
A six sigma process would have six standard deviations between the
mean and both spec limits for a short term capability study
LSL USL
1σ st
6σ s What is the
minimum number
t
of Z’s between
the spec limits
and the mean?
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Z-Scale
© 2001 ConceptFlow 29
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Sigma
ZLT estimates
ZLT PPM or
DPMO over
ZST the long-term
© 2001 ConceptFlow 30
Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO)
Number of Defects D
= DPU =
Total Units U
© 2001 ConceptFlow 31
Hidden Factory
S U
Operation Verify Product
Hidden Factory:
Rework
Defects and
Rework
Scrap
100
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 70 Units
Units
© 2001 ConceptFlow 33
C&E Matrix Construction
Detailed Process Map
Voice Of the Client
Ÿ Correct
Ÿ Authorized Travel Traveler Billing
Ÿ Auth. Code Ÿ Agency Request Ÿ Correct Traveler
Info Into
Ÿ Travel Request Entered Information Ÿ Updated
System
Profile
X Y
N
Complete Complete Traveler Gather
Need For Contact Information Auth.
Travel Request Travel Information Customer
Travel Agency Correct Code? Y
Form Authorization Verification Billing Info
Rating of
Importance to
Client
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Scop Process
ing Outputs
Process
Inputs Total
KPIV
Identi
ficatio 1
n 2
3
4
5
Team Ratings
6
MEASUREMENTS MATERIALS PEOPLE 7
Freq of Training
Co. Profiles
Updates
Times
sys
inte
Self
Time Zones
te
Traveler Profiles
r ne
Qu
Pro
ms
eue
t
add
Cre
ces
em
dit
ail
s
car
PO Damage
d
Delivery
Defects
PO Damage
Zabar Volume Call Routings
Maintenance
Call Volume Postal Service
Phone Service
Servers
y ida
Da e of
Ticket Types
l
Ho
Tim
es
Terminals
T-1
y
Lin
Carrier Updates
© 2001 ConceptFlow 34
C&E Matrix Scoring
Process
Inputs Total
1
2
3
4
5
6 C&E Matrix, Pareto of Customer Requirements
7
As They Relate To The Process
7000
6000
5000
Count
4000
3000
2000
1000
Pareto Chart
ca s g rte
que s( ce
s t/Iti P ro nsa eo are illi n s-s ou ers
Defect e i n
r oc e s
e so u r
ct
Tic k e
ve le r
e r Tr a
y T i m
w e st F
o rp B
Pr o fe
e : C
Oth
Ti m to P R
rre Tra alls
P
li ve
r Lo C
vi c
e
erv
ic
m e C o C D e e r S
Ti S
© 2001 ConceptFlow 35
FMEA Construction
X Y
6000 N
Complete Complete Traveler Gather
Need For Contact Information Auth.
Travel Request Travel Information Customer
5000 Travel
Form Authorization
Agency
Verification
Correct
Billing Info
Code? Y
Count
© 2001 ConceptFlow 36
FMEA Construction (continued)
sys
inte
Self
Time Zones
tem
Traveler Profiles
rne
Qu
Pro
eue
t
add
Cre
ces
em
Comp Downtime Resources/Shift
res
d
a
s
it c
il
Computer Prog Experience Level
ar d
PO Damage
Delivery
Defects
PO Damage
Zabar Volume Call Routings
Maintenance
Call Volume Postal Service
Phone Service
Servers
y id a
Da e of
Ticket Types
l
Ho
Tim
es
T-1 Terminals
y
© 2001 ConceptFlow 37
RPN on Pareto Chart
© 2001 ConceptFlow 38
Initial Control Plans
Percent
0.8
100 0.7
0.6
0.5
Sample Range
0.10 0.9
0.8
Ÿ Correct 0.05
0.7
R=0.03833 0.6
Traveler Billing
Agency Request Ÿ Correct Traveler LSL USL
0.5
Info Into Process Data
0.00 LCL=0 0.4
Entered Information Ÿ Updated 0 Operator 1 2 3
System USL 12.0000
Profile Xbar Chart by Operator
Within Operator*Part Interaction
1.1 1 2 3 1.1 Operator
Target * 1
Traveler Gather 1.0 1.0
Information 2
Sample Mean
Contact LSL 10.0000
0.9
Overall
UCL=0.8796 0.9
Information Customer
Average
0.8 Mean=0.8075 3
FMEA
LCL=0.7354 0.8
Agency Correct Mean 9.8614
0.7
0.7
Verification Billing Info 0.6
0.5
0.6
Date (Rev):
Process Current
Cpk /
Spec Measure Control
Process Date %R&R or Reaction
Input Output (LSL, ment Method Who Where When
Step (Sample P/T Plan
USL, System (from
Size)
Target) FMEA)
© 2001 ConceptFlow 39
Data Collection Plan
What to Defect Type of Type of Operation Data Sampling
Measure Definition Measure Data Definition Collection Plan
form
Service Quality Professionalism, Courteous Output/Process Discrete Continuous Ordinal scale 1-5 where 1 = did Survey form tracked by job number Internal audit by trained personnel;
not meet expectation, corporate accounts, 3 branches, 2
5 = exceeded expectation shifts, 10 operators within branch,
10 trials per operator at random
Service Delivery Time in queue, Time to process Output/Process Continuous for times collected; Queue = answering service to Time study form for auditors; time in Time in queue and time to process
Time to deliver itinerary/ticket discrete counts for defects agent pick up queue and time to process collected by auditors above;
Process time = agent pick up to Internal time stamps on collection estimated collection is One Week
Delivery error:
end call form by job number; time stamped for to determine baseline
• Agent error
E-ticket Itinerary: end call to pick up
• Profile error
message sent
• Mail error
Ticket mailed: end call to FedEx
pickup
© 2001 ConceptFlow 41
Graphical Analysis
Pareto Chart
Pareto Chart for Defects Box Plots
100
400
80
300
Percent
60
Count
200
40
100
20
0 0
s e to ry
d res ax
ID
rro
r
rad his rs
Defect Ad gT d eE gT lete the
ong ron sin p O
Wr W Tra Mis om
Inc
Count 274 59 43 19 10 18
Percent 64.8 13.9 10.2 4.5 2.4 4.3
Cum % 64.8 78.7 88.9 93.4 95.7 100.0
© 2001 ConceptFlow 42
More Graphical Analysis
Normal Probability
Main Effects Plot
© 2001 ConceptFlow 43
Hypothesis Testing Roadmap
In general:
START
• If P > 0.05, then fail to reject HO
• If P < 0.05, then reject HO Attribute Contingency Table
Variable or
• Ensure the correct sample size is taken Attribute
1 or 2 2 HO : FA Independent FB
Factors? Factors HA : FA Dependent FB
Data? 2
Stat > Tables > Chi Test
1
H O : Data is normal Variable Factor
H A : Data is not normal 1-Proportion Test
HO : P1 = Pt
Stat > Basic Stat > Normality Test or 1 Factor 1, 2 or more 1 Sample HA: P1 ≠ Pt
Levene’s Test Stat > Basic Stat > Descriptive Statistics 1 or >1 Levels? 1 level
Factors? t = target
(graphical summary) to test Stat > Basic Stat >
H O : σ 1 = σ 2 = σ 3 ...
H A : σ i ≠ σ j for i ≠ j
Assumption that sample size is sufficient
2 or more 1-Proportion
(or at least one is different)
Factors
Stat > ANOVA > 2-Proportion Test
Test for Equal Variance
(If the Null Hyp is rejected,
2 or 1, 2 or more Is data 2 Samples HO : P1 = P2
more levels? Data Not normal? Design of 2 levels to test HA : P1 ≠ P2
use 2 sample T test) levels
Normal Experiment Stat > Basic Stat >
2-Proportion
Fail to reject HO
1 level
Bartlett's Test
*Data is * basichypothesis tests H O : σ 1 = σ 2 = σ 3 ...
Test for Test for Std.Dev.
2 levels or Normal are robust to reasonable
H A : σ i ≠ σ j for i ≠
j
median or (or at least one is different)
> 2 levels? Test Std.Dev.? departures from Stat > ANOVA > Test for Equal Variance
Medians normality If sigmas are NOT equal, reduce data to determine which is different
2 levels only Test for Std.Dev.
Test for Test for means
1, 2 or >2 More than
mean or
Mann-Whitney Test 2
levels? 2 levels Std.Dev.?
Chi Test 1-Way ANOVA
H O: M 1 = M 2
HO: σ 1 = σ t (assumes equality of
H A: M 1 ≠ M 2
H A: σ 1 ≠ σ t 1 variances)
Stat > Non-parametric > t = target level HO : µ 1 = µ 2 = µ 3 ...
Mann-Whitney Stat > Basic HA : µ i ≠ µ j for i≠ j
Stat > Display Desc > Test for
2 levels Test for Is Data (or at least one is different)
Graphical Summary mean or
Mood’s Median Test Dependent? Stat > ANOVA > 1-Way
(if target sigma falls
Std.Dev.? means
(used with outliers) between CI, then fail to (select stacked or
H O : M 1 = M 2 = Mj 3 ... reject H O ) Test for unstacked data)
Test for
H A : M i ≠ M for i ≠ j mean or No, Data is
Std.Dev.? means
(or at least one is different)
drawn
2 or Stat > Non-parametric > Test for independently
more 1-Sample Wilcoxon
Mood's test
Test for Std.Dev. from 2 Yes, Data
levels or
1-Sample Sign Std.Dev. populations is Paired
Kruskal-Wallis Test HO: M 1 = M t
(assumes no outliers) H A: M 1 ≠ M t
H O : M 1 = M 2 = M 3 ... t = target Chi Test
2 1-Sample F Test 2-Sample t Test Paired t Test
H A : M i≠ M j for i ≠ j Stat > Non-parametric > HO: σ 1 = σ t
t Test HO: σ 1 = σ 2 H O: µ 1 = µ 2 HO: µ 1 = µ 2
(or at least one is different) HA: σ 1 ≠ σ 2 H A : µ 1≠ µ HA : µ 1 ≠ µ
and either 1-Sample H A: σ 1 ≠ σ t 2 2
Stat > Non-parametric > Sign or 1-Sample t = target HO: µ 1 = µ t Stat > Basic Stat > Stat > Basic Stat >
Kruskal-Wallis Wilcoxon HA : µ 1≠ µ Stat > ANOVA >
Stat > Basic t 2-Sample t Paired t
t = target Test for Equal
Stat > Display Desc > (if sigmas are equal, use
Stat > Basic Stat > Variance
Graphical Summary pooled std dev to compare.
1-Sample t
(if target sigma falls If sigmas are unequal
between CI, then fail to compare means using
reject H O ) unpooled std dev)
© 2001 ConceptFlow 44
Process Flow Of A Hypothesis Test
DECIDE:
What does the evidence suggest?
Reject Ho? or Fail to reject Ho?
© 2001 ConceptFlow 45
Goal is to Collect Variable Data
Outputs (Y)
Attribute Variable
Proportion tests, T-tests, ANOVA,
Inputs Attribute Chi-Square DOE, Regression
(X)
Variable Discriminant Correlation, Multiple
Analysis, Logistic Regression
Regression
© 2001 ConceptFlow 46
Improve
KPIVs Implementation
Identif y Relationships Buy-in
Optim. Input Levels Availability of
Identif y Potential Optimal
- y=f (x) Resources
Critical Xs and Robust
- s=g(x) BB/Team
Improvement Settings f or
Conf irmation Runs / Pilot Training Needs
Opportunities Xs with
To-be process Barriers
Ranked importance Tolerances
Alternative Solutions Schedule
of KPIV's
Budget
8.
7. 9.
Discover Variable Phase
Screen Establish
Wk 3 Relationship Gate
Potential Operating
y=f(x) Review
Causes Tolerances
s=g(x)
© 2001 ConceptFlow 47
Improve Phase Roadmap
IMPROVE PHASE
Identifies and validates the
optimum operating conditions
MODELING
• Discover variable relationships
• What’s the best combination of the X’s (inputs) for
producing the best Y (output) to meet or exceed the CTQ
• Diagnose PIV performance and establish performance
objectives
SELECT IMPROVEMENTS
• Identity alternative solutions
• Determine the optimum solution
• Cost benefit analysis
VALIDATE IMPROVEMENT
• Pilot test improvements
• Ensure that optimum inputs truly result in
desired output
• Update FMEA and process map
© 2001 ConceptFlow 48
Correlation Coefficient
90 100
80 90
70
80
60
70
Y
Y
50
60
40
50
30
r = +1.0 40 r = -1.0
20
10 20 30
10 20 30
X X
76
r = 0.0
75
74 No correlation
Y
73
72
71
10 20 30
X
© 2001 ConceptFlow 49
Regression Plot
Regression Plot
Sales = -4710.51 + 10.0720 Shelf Space
2000
1500
Ybar
Y
1000
© 2001 ConceptFlow 50
Correlation and Regression
© 2001 ConceptFlow 51
Improve Phase Roadmap
IMPROVE PHASE
Tests multiple variables at
different levels to screen,
characterize and optimize
process output
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
(DOE)
• Simulation or physical
© 2001 ConceptFlow 52
Strategy of Experimentation
© 2001 ConceptFlow 53
The ANOVA Results
© 2001 ConceptFlow 54
The Pareto of Standardized Effects
The Pareto Chart of effects shows the ranking of the variation identified
by each source. Note the “line of significance”
© 2001 ConceptFlow 55
Main Effects, Interactions and Cube Plots
Y Can we
Define the characteristic restrict population
or property of interest of interest?
N
Evaluate relevance of planned
data for desired inferences, Risk
PROCEED
i.e., evaluate whether there is a “gap” OK?
© 2001 ConceptFlow 58
Cost / Benefit Studies
© 2001 ConceptFlow 59
Pilot
10. 11.
12.
Validate Determine Final Project Certification
Wk 4 Implement
Measurement Process Presentation/ &
Process
System & Capability Phase Gate Celebration
Control
Improvements (Ys and Xs)
© 2001 ConceptFlow 61
Ve
co rba
© 2001 ConceptFlow
co nsi l Ins
Pr ntro dere tru
oj c
ec l fo d ac tion
ts r S ce s
ix p –
Si tab No
g m le t
a
Least
Least
St
a
Pr n d
o c ar
ed d O
ur p
es era
SO (S tin
OP g
Ev ’ sP ’s)
alu w
at /Tr
io ain
n in
St g
a &
Co tis
nt tica
ro
l ( l Pr
SP o c
Po C ) es
(M a k s
ist Y -
Effort to Implement
ak o k
eP e
ro
Pr of
o in
Re c e s g)
-d s
es or
Control Effectiveness Most
Most
ig Pr
n od
uc
De t
sig
n
Fo
rS
ix
Si
gm
Employ the Control Method that ensures the Greatest
a
Process. Typically, a combination of several are required
Control with the Least Amount of On-Going Effort from the
62
Control Phase Roadmap
CHANGE CONTROL
SUSTAIN EXPECTATIONS
© 2001 ConceptFlow 63
Major Control Tools
Specification/
Sub Process CTQ Specification Measurement Who Where Decision Rule/
Sub Process Requirement Sample Size Frequency SOP Reference
Step Characteristic Method Measures Recorded Corrective Action
KPOV KPIV USL LSL
1S
2
015
10
5S 2S
5
0
4S 3S
© 2001 ConceptFlow 64
Module Objectives
© 2001 ConceptFlow 65
Exercise
© 2001 ConceptFlow 66
Exercise: Rapid Fire Catapult Launch
OBJECTIVE:
To fire the catapult and record the distance in inches for each of the launches.
The measured distance will be from the front of the launcher base to the point
where the ball hits the floor. Use a data sheet to record the distances in the
order in which they were obtained and who fired the catapult
Target is 60 inches; Spec limit is: LSL= 50, USL = 70
RULES
1.Every shot will be launched with the same catapult settings:
a Let it set as is
b. Stop angle = 130 degrees
2. Each member of the team will perform an equal number of launches (as near as possible).
A “launch” consists of loading, pulling back, and releasing. Do 5 each
3.There will be a time limit of 15 seconds between successive launches. Each group is to be
self policed with a penalty associated to late firings.
4. You must get plan approval before any launches
5. 5 practice shots MAXIMUM.
© 2001 ConceptFlow 67
CTS Statement
Deliverables
Process Flow Map
Cause and effect for problem “missed target”
Measurement System Analysis
Run Chart, control chart
Histogram, normal probability plot
Tally Sheet for “missed target”
Pareto, box plots
Descriptive Statistics – Mean, Median, Std. Dev., Variance
Confidence Interval for Mean and Std. Dev.
Hypothesis test for means comparing operators, tables
Capability Study
Vary one factor, hold all other constant, take 10 shots and plot
correlation
© 2001 ConceptFlow 68
Trademarks and Service Marks