Tools for

Process
Improvement
Other Tools for Process
Improvement
 Kaizen Blitz
 Poka-Yoke
 Process Simulation
Key Idea

A kaizen blitz is an intense and rapid

improvement process in which a team or a
department throws all its resources into an
improvement project over a short time
period, as opposed to traditional kaizen
applications, which are performed on a
part-time basis.
 Poka-Yoke (Mistake-Proofing)

 An approach for mistake-proofing processes

using automatic devices or methods to avoid
simple human or machine error, such as
forgetfulness, misunderstanding, errors in
identification, lack of experience,
absentmindedness, delays, or malfunctions
Three Levels of Mistake-
Proofing
 Design potential errors out of the product or
process – Eliminates any possibility that the
error or defect might occur
 Identify potential defects and stopping a process
before the defect is produced – Requires time to
stop a process and take corrective action.
 Find defects that enter or leave a process –
Eliminates wasted resources that would add
value to nonconforming work, but clearly results
in scrap or rework.
Common Poka-Yoke Examples
(from John Grout’s Poka-Yoke Web Page)
Key Idea

Process simulation is an approach to

building a logical model of a real process,
and experimenting with the model to
obtain insight about the behavior of the
process or to evaluate the impact of
changes in assumptions or potential
improvements to it.
Tools for Concept Development
 Concept development – the process of
applying scientific, engineering, and business
knowledge to produce a basic functional
design that meets both customer needs and
manufacturing or service delivery
requirements.

 Quality
function deployment (QFD)
 Concept engineering
Quality Function Deployment

technical
requirements
component
characteristics
process
operations quality plan
Key Idea
QFD benefits companies through
improved communication and
teamwork between all constituencies
in the value chain, such as between
marketing and design, between
design and manufacturing, and
between purchasing and suppliers.
House of Quality
Interrelationships Customer
requirement
priorities
Technical requirements

Voice of Relationship
the matrix
customer

Technical requirement Competitive

priorities evaluation
Building the House of Quality
1. Identify customer requirements.
2. Identify technical requirements.
3. Relate the customer requirements to the
technical requirements.
4. Conduct an evaluation of competing
products or services.
5. Evaluate technical requirements and develop
targets.
6. Determine which technical requirements to
deploy in the remainder of the
production/delivery process.
House of Quality Example
Your team has been charged with
designing a new camera for Great
Cameras, Inc.
The first action is
to construct a
House of Quality
 Interrelationships

House of Quality Example

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
What the Attributes and
Evaluation

customer
wants Customer
importance
rating
(5 = highest)
Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color correction 1
 Interrelationships

House of Quality Example

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
Low electricity requirements
Attributes and
Evaluation

Aluminum components

Ergonomic design
Auto exposure
How to Satisfy
Customer Wants
Paint pallet
Auto focus
 Interrelationships

House of Quality Example

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

High relationship Technical

Attributes and
Evaluation

Medium relationship
Low relationship

Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color corrections 1

Relationship matrix
 Interrelationships

House of Quality Example

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation

Low electricity requirements

Relationships
between the
things we can do

Aluminum components

Ergonomic design
Auto exposure

Paint pallet
Auto focus
 Interrelationships

House of Quality Example

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
Attributes and
Evaluation

Lightweight 3
Easy to use 4
Reliable 5
Easy to hold steady 2
Color corrections 1
Our importance ratings 22 9 27 27 32 25

Weighted
rating
 Interrelationships

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

House of Quality Example

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
Attributes and

Company B
Company A
Evaluation

How well do
competing products
meet customer wants

Lightweight 3 G P
Easy to use 4 G P
Reliable 5 F G
Easy to hold steady 2 G P
Color corrections 1 P P
Our importance ratings 22 5
 Interrelationships

How to Satisfy
Customer Wants

House of Quality Example

Competitors
Analysis of
What the
Relationship
Customer
Matrix
Wants

Technical
Attributes and

Failure 1 per 10,000

Evaluation

Panel ranking
Target

2 circuits
values
(Technical

2’ to ∞
0.5 A
attributes)

75%
Company A 0.7 60% yes 1 ok G
Technical
evaluation Company B 0.6 50% yes 2 ok F
Us 0.5 75% yes 2 ok G
House of Quality Example

Low electricity requirements

Aluminum components

Ergonomic design
Auto exposure

Company A

Company B
Paint pallet
Auto focus
Completed
Lightweight 3 G P
House of Easy to use 4 G P

Quality Reliable
Easy to hold steady 2
5 F G
G P
Color correction 1 P P
Our importance ratings 22 9 27 27 32 25

Failure 1 per 10,000

Panel ranking
Target values
(Technical

2 circuits
attributes)

2’ to ∞
0.5 A
75%
Company A 0.7 60% yes 1 ok G
Technical
Company B 0.6 50% yes 2 ok F
evaluation
Us 0.5 75% yes 2 ok G
Quality Loss Function
 Shows that costs increase as the
product moves away from what
the customer wants
 Costs include customer
dissatisfaction, warranty
and service, internal
scrap and repair, and costs to
society
 Traditional conformance
specifications are too simplistic
 Quality Loss Function
High loss L = D2C
Unacceptable where
Loss (to L = loss to society
producing Poor
organization, D = distance from
customer, Fair target value
and society) Good C = cost of deviation
Best
Low loss Target-oriented quality
yields more product in
the “best” category
Target-oriented quality
brings product toward
Frequency the target value
Conformance-oriented
quality keeps products
within 3 standard
deviations
Lower Target Upper
Specification Figure 6.5
Chapter 6 Product & Process Design in Manufacturing
Quality Loss Function
Genichi Taguchi states that instead of
constantly directing effort toward
controlling a process to assure
consistent quality, design the
manufactured good to achieve high
quality despite the variations that will
occur in the production line.
 Quality Loss Function
• Taguchi’s loss function explains the economic
value of reducing variation in manufacturing.
• L(x) = k(x - T)2 [5.1]

where:
L(x) is the monetary value of the loss associated
with deviating from the target, T
x is the actual value of the dimension,
k is a constant that translates the deviation into
dollars
Example Traditional Goal Post View of
Conforming to Specifications
Exhibit 6.3 Variation in U.S.-Made Versus
Japanese-Made Television Components
Exhibit 6.4 Nominal-Is-Best Taguchi Loss Function
 Taguchi Example

Suppose that the specification on a part is 0.500 ± 0.020 cm. A detailed

analysis of product returns and repairs has discovered that many failures
occur when the actual dimension is near the extreme of the tolerance
range; that is, when the dimensions are approximately 0.48 or 0.52 and
costs $50 for repair.

Thus, in Equation 5.1, the deviation from the target, x – T is 0.02 and L(x)
= $50. Substituting these values we have 50 = k(0.02)2 or k = 50/0.0004
= 125,000.

Therefore the loss function is L(x) = 125000(x – T)2.

This means when the deviation is 0.10, the firm can still expect an average
loss per unit of L(0.10) = 125,000(0.10)2 = $12.50
 Taguchi Example (continued)

Knowing the Taguchi loss function helps designers to

determine appropriate tolerances economically. For example,
suppose that a simple adjustment can be made at the factory
for only $2 to get this dimension very close to the target.

If we set L(x) = $2 and solve for x – T we get

2 = 125000(x – T)2
x – T = 0.004

Therefore, if the dimension is more than 0.004 away from the

target, it is more economical to adjust it at the factory and the
specifications should be set as 0.500 ± 0.004.
Design Review

 Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

a systematic method of analyzing product failures
 Fault tree analysis (FTA)
a visual method for analyzing interrelationships
among failures
 Value analysis (VA)
 helps eliminate unnecessary features and
functions
 FMEA for potato chips
Failure Cause of Effect of Corrective
Mode Failure Failure Action
Stale low moisture content tastes bad add moisture
expired shelf life won’t crunch  cure longer
poor packaging thrown out better package seal
lost sales shorter shelf life

Broken too thin can’t dip change recipe

too brittle poor display change process
rough handling injures mouth change packaging
rough use chocking
poor packaging perceived as old
lost sales

Too Salty outdated receipt eat less experiment with recipe

process not in control drink more experiment with process
uneven distribution of salt health hazard introduce low salt version
lost sales
Fault tree analysis (FTA)
Value analysis (VA)
 Can we do without it?
 Does it do more than is required?
 Does it cost more than it is worth?
 Can something else do a better job?
 Can it be made by
 a less costly method?
 with less costly tooling?
 with less costly material?
 Can it be made cheaper, better, or faster by someone
else?
Cost Reduction of a Bracket
via Value Engineering

Figure 5.5
Design for Environment
 Design for environment
 designing a product from material that can be recycled
 design from recycled material
 design for ease of repair
 minimize packaging
 minimize material and energy used during manufacture,
consumption and disposal
 Extended producer responsibility
 holds companies responsible for their product even after its
useful life
Design for Environment (cont.)
 Measure Design Quality
 % of revenue from new  % of parts that can be
products or services recycled
 % of products capturing  % of parts used in
50% or more of market multiple products
 % of process initiatives  % of parts with no
yielding a 50% or more engineering change
improvement in orders
effectiveness  Average number of
 % of suppliers engaged components per
in collaborative design product
 Things gone wrong
(TGW)
Engaging the Workforce in
Process Improvement
 Technical skills
 Shared vision
 Behavioral skills
Key Idea

Compared to the technical tools for

gathering and analyzing data, the “soft
skills”—those that involve people—such as
project management and team facilitation,
are more difficult to teach and learn.
Skills for Team Leaders
 Conflict management and resolution
 Team management
 Leadership skills
 Decision making
 Communication
 Negotiation
 Cross-cultural training
Skills for Team Members

 Effective meetings
 Shared decision making