Kellog Quality Lecture

Process Quality & Improvement
 Quality & the Voice ofModule

the Customer
 What is Quality?
 Quality Programs in practice
 Voice of the Customer
 Process Capability and Improvement
 Process Capability
 Checking for Improvement: Quality Wireless
 Control Charts & Voice of the Process
 Statistical Process Control (SPC)
 Quality Wireless (B)
 Why 6-Sigma?
 Flyrock Tires
Operations/Quality Slide 1 © Van Mieghem

What is Quality?
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lexus 76
Cadillac 103
Infiniti 110
Acura 111
Buick 112
 Here is how specific brands Mercury 113
Porsche 117
ranked in J.D. Power and BMW 118
Associates' annual initial Toyota 121
quality survey. Jaguar 122

Honda 128
 The study is based on Volvo 128
responses from more than Chevrolet

Audi
130
132
52,000 people who bought or Mercedes-Benz 132
leased new 2003 cars and Lexus

INDUSTRY AVERAGE
Oldsmobile
76
133
134
trucks.
 The survey is done in the first
CadillacChrysler
Ford 103 136
136
Dodge 137
90 days of ownership. The Infiniti Lincoln 110 139
figures represent the number Nissan 139
of problems per 100 vehicles. Acura Pontiac

Hyundai
111 142
143
 Source: J.D. Power 2003 Buick

Volkswagen
112
143
GMC 144
Initial Quality Study Suzuki 144
Mercury Jeep
Subaru
113 146
146
Porsche Mazda
Mitsubishi
117 148
148
158
BMW 118
Saturn
Saab 160
Mini 166
Toyota Kia
Land Rover
121 168
190
JaguarSlide 2 122
Operations/Quality Hummer © Van Mieghem 225
8 Dimensions of Quality
 Performance
 Features
 Serviceability Q of design
 Aesthetics
 Perceived Quality
 Reliability
 Conformance Q of process conformance
to design = process capability
 Durability

Quality in Practice:
1. Elements of TQM
 Management by fact
 Cross-functional (process) approach
 Culture and leadership
– Customer focus
– Employee focus
– High performance focus
 Continuous improvement
 Benchmarking
 External alliances - the value chain
Source: Eitan Zemel

2. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
 www.quality.nist.gov
 1 Leadership 110
 2 Strategic Planning 80
– Strategy Development Process
 3 Customer and Market Focus 80
 4 Information and Analysis 80
 5 Human Resource Development and Management 100
 6 Process Management 100
– Product and Service Processes
– Support Processes
– Supplier and Partnering Processes
 7 Business Results 450
• TOTAL POINTS 1000

Malcolm Baldridge
Award Winners
2002
Motorola Commercial, Government & Industrial Solutions
Sector (Manufacturing)
SSM Health Care (Health care)
Branch-Smith Printing Division (Small business)
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
2001 Award Recipients' Stock
Clarke American Checks, Inc., San Antonio, Texas Outperforms S&P 500
(manufacturing);
Pal's Sudden Service, Kingsport, Tenn. (small business); For the past seven years, the Commerce
Chugach School District, Anchorage, Alaska (education); Department's National Institute of
Pearl River School District, Pearl River, N.Y. (education);
University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wis. (education). Standards and Technology has
compared winners of the Malcolm
2000 Baldrige National Quality Award to the
Dana Corporation-Spicer Driveshaft Division, Toledo, Ohio Standard & Poor's 500.
(manufacturing) The Baldrige group consistently has
KARLEE Company, Inc., Garland, Texas (manufacturing)
outperformed the S&P 500; this year
Operations Management International, Inc., Greenwood
Village, Colo. (service) the Baldrige group beat the S&P 500 by
Los Alamos National Bank, Los Alamos, N.M. (small 4.4 to 1.
business).
1999 1997
3M Dental Products Division (mfg)
STMicroelectronics, Inc. - Region Americas (mfg) Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation (service)
Solectron Corporation (mfg)
BI (service) Xerox Business Services (service)
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (service) 1996
Sunny Fresh Foods (small business) ADAC Laboratories (mfg)
Custom Research Inc. (small business)
Dana Commercial Credit Corp. (service)
Trident Precision Manufacturing, Inc. (small business)
1998
Boeing Airlift and Tanker Programs (mfg)
Solar Turbines Incorporated (mfg)
Texas Nameplate Company, Inc. (small business)
3. ISO 9000 and 4. ?
 Series of standards agreed upon by the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO): (http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/iso9000-14000/iso9000/iso9000index.html)
 Adopted in 1987
 More than 100 countries
 A prerequisite for global competition?
 ISO 9000: “document what you do and then do as you documented.”
– Most companies providing service strive for ISO9002, while mfg companies that do design go for 9001
– The familiar three standard (below) have now been integrated into ISO9001:2000.
Design Procurement Production Final test Installation Servicing
ISO 9003
ISO 9002
ISO 9001
Costs of Quality
 Cost of Conformance
– Cost of Appraisal Quality Lever
Benefits of Building Q in Early
– Cost of Prevention
Product
Design Process
 Cost of Non-Conformance Design
Production
– Cost of Internal Failure Improve

Product
100:1
– Cost of External Failure
10:1
1:1
Time
Low Visibility High Visibility
Reward Reward

Components of Quality
 Voice of the customer
– Customer Needs
– Quality of Design
 Voice of the process

– Quality of Conformance
– Process Capability
 Process Control and Improvement

Voice of the Customer: Linking Customer Needs to
Business Processes
Business Process Customer Need Internal Metric
Reliability (40 %) % Repair Call
Product (30%) Easy to Use (20%) % Calls for Help
Features/Functions (40%) Function Performance Test
Knowledge (30%) Supervisor Observations
Sales (30%) Response (25%) % Proposals Mad on Time
Follow-Up (10%) % Follow-Up Made
Delivery Interval (30%) Average Order Interval

Overall Quality Installation (10%) Does Not Break (25%) % Repair Reports
Installed When Promised % Installed on Due Date
No Repeat Trouble (30%) % Repeat Reports

Repair (15%) Fixed Fast (25%) Average Speed of Repair
Kept Informed (10%) % Customers Informed
Accuracy, No Surprise (45%) % Billing Inquiries

Billing (15%) Response on First Call (35%) % Respolved First Call
Easy to Understand (10%) % Billing Inquiries

Source: Kordupleski et al., CMR ‘93.

Voice of the Customer:
Quality Function Deployment
 What do customers want?

 Are all preferences equally important?
 Will delivering perceived needs deliver a competitive
advantage?
 How can we change the product?
 How do engineering characteristics influence customer
perceived quality?
 How does one engineering attribute affect another?
 What are the appropriate targets for the engineering
characteristics?

Correlation:
X Strong positive
House of Quality X X
X
Positive
Negative
X X
* Strong negative
Im Engineering
Water resistance
Accoust. Trans.
Competitive evaluation
Check force on
Energy needed
Energy needed
po Characteristics
to close door
to open door
level ground
rt a
resistance
Door seal
X = Ours
nc A = Comp. A
et
Window
Customer oC B = Comp. B
(5 is best)
us
Requirements t. 1 2 3 4 5
X X AB
Easy to close 7
Stays open on a hill X AB

5
Easy to open 6 XAB
A XB
Doesn’t leak in rain 3
No road noise 2 X A B
Importance weighting 10 6 6 9 2 3 Relationships:

Strong = 9
level to 7.5 ft/lb
Reduce energy
Medium = 3
Reduce energy
Reduce force
Target values
current level
current level
current level
to 7.5 ft/lb. Small = 1
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
to 9 lb.
5 BA BA
B B
B BXA X
Technical evaluation 4
A
X
X
3 A
(5 is best) 2 X A
X Source: Hauser and Clausing 1988
Operations/Quality 1 Slide 12 © Van Mieghem
Linked Houses From Customer To Manufacturing
Engineering Parts Key Process Production

Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics
Customer Attributes
Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
Key Process
Engineering
I II III IV
Parts
House of Parts Process Production
Quality Deployment Planning Planning

Benefits of QFD
Startup and Pre-production costs Japanese auto maker with QFD made fewer
at Toyota Auto Body changes than US company without QFD
Design
Changes
US
Japan
Before QFD
After QFD 90% of total Japanese

(39% of preQFD costs) changes complete
Job # 1 20 - 24 14 - 17 1 - 3 Job # 1 1-3

t time
months months months months
Source: Hauser and Clausing 1988

More New Product Development Tools
 Value analysis / Value engineering
 Design for manufacturability
 Robust design

Value Analysis/Value Engineering
 Achieve equivalent or better performance at a lower cost while maintaining
all functional requirements defined by the customer
– Does the item have any design features that are not necessary?
– Can two or more parts be combined into one?
– How can we cut down the weight?
– Are there nonstandard parts that can be eliminated?

Robust Quality: Taguchi’s View of Cost of Variability
Non-conformance to
design cost
$$$
0
Actual
Lower Design Upper value Lower Design Upper
Tolerance Spec Tolerance Tolerance Spec Tolerance
Traditional View Taguchi’s View

Quality & the Voice of the Customer:
Key Learning Objectives
 Elements of TQM / Baldridge / ISO 9000

 Costs of Quality
 Components of Quality
 Voice of the Customer
– Linking business processes to customer needs
– Product Design Methodologies:
 Convert customer needs to product and process specifications: QFD
 Value Engineering

Operations Management:
Module
 Quality & the Voice of the Customer

What is Quality?

Voice of the Customer

Statistical Process Control (SPC)
 Why 6-Sigma?

Flyrock Tires

Process Capability
 Percent defective
– Proportion of output that does not meet customer specifications
 Sigma-capability
– Number of standard deviations from the mean of the process output to the
closest specification limit.

Quality Wireless (A): Capability
Within Specs Out of Specs
20
Quality Wireless (A): Capability
 Proportion of days within specification in 2003-04 = 491/731 = 0.672
 The call center had a mean hold time of 99.67 with a standard deviation of 24.24.
With a specification of 110 seconds or less,
σ-capability of call center = (110 – 99.67)/24.24
= 0.426
The call center is a 0.426-sigma process.
Expected fraction of days within specifications from a 0.426-sigma process =

NORMSDIST(0.426) = 0.665

What is Process Improvement?
After Before Critical customer requirement
“Defects”=
Service is
unacceptable to
customers
Product/Service
Output Measure
Continuous Improvement:
PDCA Cycle (Deming Wheel)
Institutionalize the change or Plan a change aimed

abandon or do it again. at improvement.
4. Act 1. Plan
3. Check 2. Do
Study the results; Execute the change.
did it work?

Quality Wireless (A): Checking for Improvement
 Performance in April 2005: Mean = 79.50, Standard deviation = 16.86

 What is the probability of observing such a sample if performance has not
improved relative to 2003-04?
– Mean hold in 2003-04 = 99.67
– Standard deviation = 24.24
– Given that April 2005 had 30 days, we need to consider distribution of samples of
size 30. The standard deviation of sample means = 24.24/√30 = 4.43
– Probability of observing a sample of size 30 with mean 79.50 or less =
NORMDIST(79.50, 99.67, 4.43, 1) = 2.64E-06

the Customer
 Why 6-Sigma?
 Flyrock Tires

Has Process Performance Changed?
Quality Wireless (B)
 Average hold time from September 1-10 =86.6 seconds
– Ray yells at supervisors
 Performance improves from September 11-20 to an average hold of 74.4
seconds
 What do you think of Ray’s management style?

Performance Measurement Implications:
Inventory Manager and Weight watchers
WIP
Weight watchers
rule: measure only
Award Given weekly…
JFMAMJJASON month
WIP
Manager repents and kicks...
JFMAMJJASON DJF month
WIP
.. and concludes that kick ... mgt works !?
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J month

Statistical Process Control (SPC):
Sources of Variability and Conceptual Framework
 Every process has variation that comes from two sources:
1. Inherent (common cause)
2. External (assignable cause)

➨ Objective: Identify inherent variability and eliminate external variability.
 First get the process “in control” by eliminating external variability. (A

process is “in control” if it has only inherent variability.)
 To improve the system, attack common causes (methods, people, material,
machines). This is the role of management.

Statistical Process Control:
Control Charts
Signal that a special

cause has occurred
m + 3σ
Upper Control Limit
F(z)
hypothesized 99.74
(sampled) %
process output t
mean m
m - 3σ
Lower Control Limit
Control Improvement

Various Patterns in Control Charts
Pattern Description Possible Causes
Normal Random Variation
Lack of Stability Assignable (or special) causes (e.g. tool,

material, operator, overcontrol
Cumulative trend Tool Wear
Cyclical Different work shifts, voltage

fluctuations, seasonal effects

Calibration versus Quality:
Sharp shooters

SPC – Quality Wireless (B)
 After the improvements, daily hold time has an average of 79.50 and a
standard deviation of 16.86.
 Since we are considering samples of size 10 (10 days), we need to consider
the distribution of sample means. Sample means have an average of 79.50
and a standard deviation of 16.86/√10 = 5.33.
 Probability of observing 86.6 or higher even if process is in control = 1-
NORMDIST(86.6, 79.50, 5.33, 1) = 0.0915

SPC – Quality Wireless (B)
 Probability of observing 74.4 or lower even if process is in control =
NORMDIST(74.4, 79.50, 5.33, 1) = 0.1693
 What we need is a hypothesis test each time we observe a sample – Does
the sample belong to the in-control population or not?

SPC – Setting Control Limits
 Upper Control Limit = UCL = Mean + 3σXbar
 Lower Control Limit = LCL = Mean - 3σXbar
 In the case of Quality Wireless
– UCL = 79.50 + 3×5.33 = 95.49
– LCL = 79.50 - 3×5.33 = 63.51
 The process was in control when samples with means of 86.6 and 74.4
were observed.

Control Charts & Voice of the Process:
Key Learning Objectives
 The role of variability in evaluating performance
 A process that is
– in control has only inherent (from common cause) variation

There is a known distribution for the (sampled) output with mean m and std. dev.
σ → output typically within the control limits m ± 3σ
– out of control has variation from an assignable cause
 Observations outside the control limits are so unlikely if process is in control that it is
likely that process is out of control
 Pareto analysis to identify key causes of error
 SPC framework for process control and improvement
 SPC Tools:
– Viewing quality data as a run chart to infer performance over time.
– Constructing control charts .
– Identifying whether a process is in or out of control.
– Then link this to improvement:
 Constructing a Pareto diagram to prioritize areas for improvement.
the Customer
 6-Sigma: What and Why?
 Flyrock Tires

99.9% Suppliers
 At least 20,000 wrong prescriptions per year

 More than 15,000 newborns dropped by doctors or nurses
 No electricity, water or heat for 8.6 hours each year
 No telephone service or TV transmission for nearly 10 minutes each week
 Two short (or long) landings at O’Hare each week

Why 6-Sigma?
 2 sigma:
– 69.1% of products and/or services meet customer requirements with 308,538 defects per million
opportunities.
 4 sigma:
– 99.4% of products and/or services meet customer requirements ... but there are still 6,210
defects per million opportunities.
 6 sigma:
– 99.9997% (“5 nines”) – Close to flaw-free for most businesses, with just 3.4 failures per
million opportunities (e.g. products, services or transactions).

Magnitude of Difference Between Sigma Levels
# sigma’s
Operations/Quality Slide 40
1 © Van Mieghem
Why 6-Sigma?
 Impact of # of parts/stages in a process
Probability that process/product
Probability that process/product meets specs meets specs
3 -sigma 4 - sigma 5 - sigma 6 - sigma 100.0%
# of steps/parts
1 93.3% 99.4% 99.98% 99.9997%
10 50.1% 94.0% 99.8% 99.997% 10.0%
50 3.2% 73.2% 98.8% 99.98%
100 0.1% 53.6% 97.7% 99.97%
1.0% 3 -sigma
144 0.00% 40.8% 96.7% 99.95%
369 10.0% 91.8% 99.9% 4 - sigma
740 1.0% 84.2% 99.7% 5 - sigma
1044 0.1% 78.4% 99.6% 0.1% 6 - sigma
1590 0.00% 69.1% 99.5%
19581 1.0% 93.6%
42559 0.00% 86.5% 0.01%
100000 71.2%
1000000 3.3%
0.001%
 Impact of mean
* These numbers allow ashift
mean shift of 1.5
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
σ–. P(output outside specs) vs. P(detection of mean shift) # steps/components

Relationship Between Sigma Capability, Proportion
Defects, and Cpk
zσ zσ
 m − LSL USL - m 
Cpk = min  , 
 3σ 3σ 
LSL m USL
z Sigma Process Probability of meeting specs Defects per million Cp k

z 2 F (z ) - 1 2 - 2 F (z ) z /3
1 0.682689480482 317310.519518 0.33
2 0.954499875928 45500.124072 0.67
3 0.997300065554 2699.934446 1.00
4 0.999936627931 63.372069 1.33
5 0.999999425790 0.574210 1.67
6 0.999999998020 0.001980 2.00
7 0.999999999997 0.000003 2.33
* These are “raw” numbers; excluding mean shifts.

Six Sigma:
Core methodology
 Six Sigma was introduced by Motorola in 1986 as a new method for
standardizing the way defects are counted (in response to increasing
complaints from the field sales force about warranty claims)
 The problem-solving framework and work-breakdown structure can be easily

remembered using the acronym DMAIC:
1. Define the problem to determine what needs to be improved
2. Measure the current state against the desired state
3. Analyze the root causes of the business gap
4. Improve by team brainstorming, selecting and implementing the best solutions
5. Control the long-term sustainability of the improvement by establishing
monitoring mechanisms, accountabilities and work tools

Six Sigma: From original defects control to overall
business improvement methodology
 AlliedSignal (now Honeywell) and GE successfully applied and
popularized Motorola’s Six Sigma methodology as part of leadership
development, going far beyond counting defects.
 Now, six sigma is an overall high-performance system that executes

business strategy using four steps:
1. Align executives to the right objectives and targets using a balanced scorecard
2. Mobilize improvement teams using DMAIC
3. Accelerate results by action learning and integrating all teams so the
cumulative impact on the organization is “accelerated.”
4. Govern the process through visible executive sponsorship, review, and
sharing best practices with other parts of the organization

Quality Performance at Flyrock:
1. How well do we meet customer specs?
 At the extruder, the rubber for the AX-527 tires had thickness specifications of 400
± 10 ‘thou’ (.001’’). Susan and her staff had analyzed many samples of output
from the extruder and determined that if the extruder settings were accurate, the
output produced by the extruder had a thickness that was normally distributed with
a mean of 400 thou and a standard deviation of 4 thou.
 If the setting is accurate, what proportion of the rubber extruded will be within
specifications?

1. How well do we meet customer specs? Definition of Process Capability
 Link: Voice of the Customer with Voice of the Process
Process Capability
= How well is process capable of meeting customer specifications?
 Equivalent Measures of Process Capability:

1. Proportion of output flow units meeting customer specs
– Example: at Flyrock:
2. Sigma-capability = the number of std. deviations to the closest specification limit

USL − m m − LSL 
= min  , 
 σ σ 
– Example: the Sigma capability of Flyrock’s extrusion process =

2. Statistical Process Control
 Susan has asked operators to take a sample of 10 sheets of rubber each hour from the
extruder and measure the thickness of each sheet. Based on the average thickness of
this sample, operators will decide whether the extrusion process is in control or not.
 Given that Susan plans 3-sigma control limits, what upper and lower control limits
should she specify to the operators?
– UCL =
– LCL =

Quality graphs for current process
A: Meeting Customer Specs B: Keeping Process in Control
Sample Mean
X
UCL
-3
403.8
LSL USL
-2
-1
σ =4 400
0
4
σX = = 1.26
1
10
385 390 395 400 405 410 415
2
LCL
3
396.2
 Sigma capability =
 Prob(Meeting specs) = time
 Prob(sample mean within control band) =
 Prob(investigate) =

3. Impact and Detection of Mean Shift
 If a bearing is worn out, the extruder produces a mean thickness of 403 thou when the
setting is 400 thou. Under this condition, what proportion of produced sheets will be
defective?
 Assuming the earlier control limits, what is the probability that a sample taken from
the extruder with the worn bearings will be out of control?
 On average, how many hours are likely to go by before the worn bearing is detected?

Quality Performance at Flyrock: current
process
… but worn bearing (mean shift)
-3
-2
Sample Mean
X
-1
UCL
403.8
403
0
LSL USL
1
σ =σ4 = 4
2
400
4
σX = = 1.26
3
10
385 390 395 400 405 410 415
403
LCL
396.2
 Prob(Meeting specs) =
time
 Prob(sample mean within control band) =

4. Improving Process Capability
 What if extrusion is to become a 6-Sigma process?
– Target mean =
– Target standard deviation =
 Process improvement has resulted in the extrusion process having a mean of 400
thou and a standard deviation of 1.67 thou. What should the new control limits be?
– UCL =
– LCL =
 What is the proportion of defectives produced?

Quality graphs for improved 6σ process
Sample Mean
X
403.8
LSL USL
401.6 UCL
-3 -2 -1 0
1.67
σX = = 0.53
400 10
1
LCL
2
398.4
3
385 390 395 400 405 410 415
396.2
 Sigma capability = time

 Prob(Meeting specs) =  Prob(sample mean within control band) =
5. Benefits of a 6Sigma process
 Return to the case of the worn bearing where extrusion produces a mean thickness
of 403 thou when the setting is 400 thou. Under this condition, what proportion of
produced sheets will be defective (for the 6-sigma extrusion process)?
 Assuming the new control limits, what is the probability that a sample taken from
the extruder with the worn bearings will be out of control?
 On average, how many hours are likely to go by before the worn bearing is
detected?

Flyrock: Improved 6sigma process
… but with worn bearing (mean shift)
Sample Mean
X
-3 -2 -1 0
403
1
LSL USL
2
401.6 UCL
3 -3 -2 -1 0
1.67
σX = = 0.53
400 10
1
LCL
2
398.4
3
385 390 395 400 405 410 415
403
time
 Prob(Meeting specs) =  Prob(sample mean within control band) =

Key Learning Objectives: Six Sigma
 Specification limits: Voice of the customer
– Use output (population) distribution with mean m, stdev σ
– This is where we determine sigma-capability
 Control limits used to verify if process is in control (internal), i.e., is maintaining

capability: Voice of the process
– Use sample mean distribution with mean m, stdev
σ
σX =
n
 Six Sigma and Process capability are measures of the quality delivered (external):
links VoP with VoC
 Improving capability may require variability reduction and/or mean shift

– Typically, customer specs are fixed and cannot be relaxed
 Reducing number of stages/parts improves capability

Kellog Quality Lecture

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kellog Quality Lecture

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Process Quality & Improvement

 Quality & the Voice ofModule

Operations/Quality Slide 1 © Van Mieghem

quality survey. Jaguar 122

responses from more than Chevrolet

leased new 2003 cars and Lexus

figures represent the number Nissan 139

of problems per 100 vehicles. Acura Pontiac

 Source: J.D. Power 2003 Buick

Operations/Quality Slide 3 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 4 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 5 © Van Mieghem

Design Procurement Production Final test Installation Servicing

– Cost of Internal Failure Improve

Operations/Quality Slide 8 © Van Mieghem

 Voice of the process

 Process Control and Improvement

Operations/Quality Slide 9 © Van Mieghem

Business Process Customer Need Internal Metric

Reliability (40 %) % Repair Call

Product (30%) Easy to Use (20%) % Calls for Help

Features/Functions (40%) Function Performance Test

Knowledge (30%) Supervisor Observations

Sales (30%) Response (25%) % Proposals Mad on Time

Follow-Up (10%) % Follow-Up Made

Delivery Interval (30%) Average Order Interval

Installed When Promised % Installed on Due Date

No Repeat Trouble (30%) % Repeat Reports

Kept Informed (10%) % Customers Informed

Accuracy, No Surprise (45%) % Billing Inquiries

Easy to Understand (10%) % Billing Inquiries

Operations/Quality Slide 10 © Van Mieghem

 What do customers want?

Operations/Quality Slide 11 © Van Mieghem

Stays open on a hill X AB

Easy to open 6 XAB

Importance weighting 10 6 6 9 2 3 Relationships:

Engineering Parts Key Process Production

Operations/Quality Slide 13 © Van Mieghem

After QFD 90% of total Japanese

Job # 1 20 - 24 14 - 17 1 - 3 Job # 1 1-3

Source: Hauser and Clausing 1988

Operations/Quality Slide 14 © Van Mieghem

 Value analysis / Value engineering

 Design for manufacturability

Operations/Quality Slide 15 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 16 © Van Mieghem

Traditional View Taguchi’s View

 Elements of TQM / Baldridge / ISO 9000

Operations/Quality Slide 18 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 19 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 20 © Van Mieghem

Within Specs Out of Specs

 Proportion of days within specification in 2003-04 = 491/731 = 0.672

Expected fraction of days within specifications from a 0.426-sigma process =

Operations/Quality Slide 22 © Van Mieghem

After Before Critical customer requirement

Institutionalize the change or Plan a change aimed

Operations/Quality Slide 24 © Van Mieghem

 Performance in April 2005: Mean = 79.50, Standard deviation = 16.86

Operations/Quality Slide 25 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 26 © Van Mieghem

Operations/Quality Slide 27 © Van Mieghem