The 9/15/2008 posting initiated the design of experiments portion of the case study.  The primary purpose of the experimental design was to reduce the variation in the outer diameter produced by a grinding operation.   That posting reports that the team was primarily interested in estimating the following effects:

A – Feed Rate
B – Wheel Speed
C – Work Speed
D – Wheel Grade
AB – Interaction between A and B
AC - Interaction between A and C

Gijo states that the experimental design was developed using an L₈ orthogonal array.  He references Phadke (1989) for use of orthogonal arrays to construct designs.   Taguchi made extensive use of orthogonal arrays in constructing robust designs.  Hicks and Turner (1999, p381) give a table for using an L₈ orthogonal array to construct a design with the desired properties.   That is, we do not want the A, B, C, D, AB, and AC effects aliased with each other.   Two effects that have the same estimator are aliased.  The previous posting on September 15 gives the design and estimates of the factor effects.   Clearly the design meets the desired criterion since the factor effect estimates are all different.

However, consider the estimates of the of the BC, BD and CD interaction effects shown in the following table.

Note that the BC interaction effect is exactly equal to the negative of the D effect, the BD interaction effect is equal to the negative of the C effect and the CD interaction effect equals the negative of the B effect.  That is true because the sequences of +1 and -1s in the BC, BD and CD columns are precisely the negatives of those in the D, C and B columns.    With this design, the BC and D effects are aliased.   That is, if the BC effect is not zero, then our estimate of the D effect is affected by the BC effect.   Similarly, the BD effect estimate is aliased with the C effect, and the CD effect is aliased with the B effect.  Then this design provides no information on whether the BC, BD and CD interaction effects are negligible.   Also, this design can give a biased estimate of the D effect if the BC interaction defect is significant.

Montgomery (2005, p. 288) gives a standard one-half fraction of the 2⁴ factorial design.   Call it the 2^4-1 design.  This design uses 8 experiments and has four factors.   The properties of this design are:
·        Estimates of the main effects are not aliased with any two-factor interactions.
·        Estimates of the main effects are aliased with three factor interactions.
·        Every two factor interaction is aliased with another two factor interaction.   That is AB=CD, AC=BD and BC=AD.

The 2^4-1 design might be superior to the one described by Gijo.   Estimates of the A, B, C and D effects are not aliased with any two factor interaction.  Also, estimates of the AB and AC effects are not aliased with a main effect.

The next posting will present results from the experimental design.

References

1. Gijo, E. V. (2005). "Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques." Quality Engineering 17(2): 309-315.
2. Hicks, Charles R. and Kenneth V. Turner Jr. (1999).  Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, Oxford University Press.
3. Montgomery, Douglas C. (2005). Design and Analysis of Experiments, 6^th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4. Phadke, Madhav S. (1989).  Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall.

The response variable was a measure of the variability of the outer diameter of the machined components.   One could use the estimated variance, i.e. s², for each set of experimental conditions.   That is, one would replicate the experiment for each set of experimental conditions and estimate s².  Gijo chose to use -10*ln(s²).   He lets the symbol S/N represent the -10*ln(s²).  Could S/N mean that the response is a Taguchi signal-to-noise ratio?   Montgomery (2005, p. 469) discourages the use of signal-to-noise ratios.   He states that a more effective approach is to model the mean and variance separately.   Hunter (1987) comes to the same conclusion.   Gijo does not justify the use of S/N other than a reference to the 3^rd edition of Montgomery’s book.

A response variable that has a constant variance over the set of experimental conditions facilitates regression analyses of the results.   Montgomery (2005, p. 83) recommends the use of the logarithmic transformation when the standard deviation of the response is proportional to its mean.   Let’s proceed by assuming the team used S/N since they wanted to estimate the contribution of the selected factors to the variance of the outer diameter and the standard deviation was roughly proportional to the mean.

The following table gives the experimental design and the observed response for each experiment.   The team replicated the experiment twice for each set of experimental conditions.   From the two observed outer diameters, they calculated a variance estimate, i.e., s², and from that computed the response value S/N.  The -1 and +1 symbols represent the lower and higher levels of the respective factors. 

Montgomery (2005, p208) shows how to calculate the average factor effects using the -1 and +1 coding.  For a single factor effect, we sum the products of the factor coding times the experiment response over all experiments.   Then we divide the sum by the number of -1, +1 pairs.   In this experiment, the number of pairs is 4.   The last row in the above table shows the estimated factor effects.   For an interaction effect, we multiply the experiment coding for each factor to get a coding for the interaction effect.

Notice that the estimated AB and AC interaction effects are larger than the single factor B and C effects.

The next posting will examine the properties of the experimental design.

References

1. Gijo, E. V. (2005). "Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques." Quality Engineering 17(2): 309-315.
2. Hunter, J. S. (1987). "Signal-to-Noise Ratio Debated." Quality Progress 20(5): 7-9.
3. Montgomery, Douglas C. (2005). Design and Analysis of Experiments, 6^th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Experimental design terminology defines the effect of a factor as the change in the response produced by a change in the level of the factor.   Assume that the response in this experiment is the variance of the outer diameter measurements.   For example, if increasing the feed rate from .0008 to .0010 mm/revolution increases the variance of the outer diameter by .003 mm² then the feed-rate (factor A) effect is .003 mm².  When the difference in response to a factor level change is not the same at all levels of another factor, an interaction effect exists between the factors.   The factor A effect might be .003 mm² when the wheel speed is 2200 rpm and .005 mm² when the wheel speed (factor B) is 2400 rpm, then an interaction effect exists between factors A and B.   The magnitude of the interaction effect is the average difference between the two A effects.   Thus the AxB interaction effect is (.005-.003)/2 = .001 mm².

The team selected an experimental design the enables them to estimate the effects of the four factors in the above table.   They also wanted to estimate two interaction effects: 1. (AxB) between Feed Rate and Wheel Speed (AxB) and 2. (AxC) between Feed Rate and Work Speed.  The linear graph shown below depicts the effects the experimental design must be capable of estimating.  That is, the A, B, C and D effects, the AxB and AxC interaction effects and the error variance.

The next posting will describe the experimental design. 

References

1. Gijo, E. V. (2005). "Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques." Quality Engineering 17(2): 309-315.

Davies (2007) describes a case study involving the treatment of minor injuries and medical problems in an emergency department in England.   Receptionists route arriving patients with minor injuries or medical conditions are routed to the “Minors” department.   The standard processing procedure has receptionists in the Minors department assign patients to a queue for triage nurses who assess the patient condition and needs.   Then the triage nurse routes the patients to a doctor or nurse for treatment.   The nurses are qualified to assess and treat minor injuries but not to handle minor medical conditions which are handled by doctors.   These nurses are Emergency Nurse Practitioners (EPNs).  Call this procedure “See” and “Treat”.   The UK national health service recommended that emergency departments skip the triage nurse step.   The health service recommended that receptionists route patients to a doctor or ENP for diagnosis and treatment.  Call this procedure “See & Treat”.   The intent was to reduce patient system time by eliminating a step and its associated queuing time.   The following figure depicts the “See & Treat” patient flow.

Davies describes a simulation model for comparing the two procedures.   This model represents the processing of individual patients, their waiting times, and individual task processing times.   Inputs to the model would include distributions for task times, distributions for times between patient arrivals, and the numbers of doctors and EPNs.  The following figure presents some of the simulation results.   The new procedure “See & Treat” that eliminates the triage step gives the lowest system time.

References

1. Davies, R. (2007). "See and Treat" or "See" and "Treat" in an Emergency Department. 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. Washington, DC.
   

The Multi-Vari Chart graphically shows variation of a quality characteristic for multiple factors.   The purpose of the chart is to permit identification of the factor or factors having the greatest effect on variability.

Recall the example in the previous posting taken from Breyfogle (2003, page 389).  An injection molding process produced plastic cylindrical connectors.   The example included data from a sample of two parts collected hourly from four mold cavities for three hours consisting of measurements at three locations on the parts.  The three locations are bottom, middle, and top.  We want to display the variability by location, cavity and part.  The following figure shows averages over the three hours by location, cavity and part.   The figure shows that cavities 2,3 and 4 had larger diameters at the ends (top and bottom) while cavity 1 had a taper.   Thus, cavity and location have an interacting effect.

References

1. Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   

To illustrate the Box Plot, we refer to an example given by Breyfogle (2003, page 389).  An injection molding process produced plastic cylindrical connectors.   Breyfogle presents data from a sample of two parts collected hourly from four mold cavities for three hours consisting of measurements at three locations on the parts.   The Box Plot for the aggregated data appears below. 

1. Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   

GOAL/QPC, an educational consulting company, noticed a new book proposing seven new QC tools.   This book (Mizuno, 1988) was eventually translated into English.  GOAL/QPC created the Memory Jogger Plus+ (Brassard, 1989) featuring these new tools.  They called these new tools the ‘Seven Management and Planning Tools’ to differentiate them from the ‘Seven Major SPC Tools’.   The Seven Management and Planning Tools are:

1. Affinity diagram
   
2. Interrelationship digraph
   
3. Tree diagram
   
4. Prioritization matrices
   
5. Matrix diagram
   
6. Process decision program chart (PDPC)
   
7. Activity network diagram
   

Montgomery (2005, page 148) identifies ‘Seven Major SPC Tools’.  He calls them the ‘Magnificent Seven’.  They are:

1. Histogram (3/25/2008 and 5/1/2008 postings) or stem-and-leaf plot
   
2. Check sheet
   
3. Pareto chart (2/25/2008 and 5/18/2008 postings)
   
4. Cause and effect diagram (2/28/2008 posting)
   
5. Defect concentration diagram
   
6. Scatter diagram (3/28/2008 posting)
   
7. Control chart (1/30/2008, 2/11/2008, 2/14/2008, and 4/1/2008 postings)
   

Earlier, Ishikawa (1985) identified ‘Seven Major TQM’ (Total Quality Management) tools.   They are:

1. Histogram
   
2. Flowchart
   
3. Pareto chart
   
4. Cause and effect diagram
   
5. Run charts and graphs
   
6. Scatter diagram
   
7. X-bar and R control charts
   

One could say that Montgomery replaced the ‘flowchart’ and ‘run charts and graphs’ with the ‘check sheet’ and ‘defect concentration diagram’.   Montgomery also generalized the X-bar and R control charts with all control charts.

References

1. Brassard, M. (1989). The Memory Jogger Plus+^â. Salem, NH, Goal/QPC.
2. Mizuno, S. (1988). Management for Quality Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Cambridge, Productivity Press.

1. ‘Poor scheduling practices’ (6 outgoing arrows),
   
2. ‘Late order from customer’ (5 outgoing arrows), and
   
3. ‘Equipment breakdown (3 outgoing arrows).
   

A concern with a large number of input arrows is affected by a large number of other concerns.  Thus, it could be a source of a quality or performance metric.   ‘Poor scheduling of the trucker’ has 4 input arrows.   A measure of poor scheduling performance of the trucker could indicate the magnitude of system problems causing late delivery.

References:

1. Benbow, D. W. and T. M. Kubiak (2005). The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ASQ Quality Press.

Form a team of knowledgeable individuals with respect to this quality issue.    The team will select a number, e.g., from six to twelve, of the potential causes from the Cause & Effect diagram.   Call these potential causes concerns.   The process for generating the Interrelationship Digraph will construct causal relationships among the concerns.   The word digraph is a combination of the two words diagram and graph.  The resulting digraph reflects the collective judgment of the team.

Benbow and Kubiak (2005, page 40) specify a procedure for constructing the digraph.   List the concerns on a sheet of easel paper or a whiteboard. Pick a pair of concerns.   Ask the team to specify whether the first concern influences the second, the second concern influences the first, or whether there is no influential relationship between the concerns.    If the team decides there is an influential relationship, draw an arrow from the most influential concern to the other concern.  Does the first concern influence the second more than the second concern influences the first?   If so, draw an arrow from the first concern to the second.  Repeat this assessment for all possible pairs.  A good way to proceed is to arrange the concerns in an approximate circular pattern.   Start with the concern in the 12 o’clock position and call it the first concern.   Compare it with the concern in the next clockwise position.  Then, move clockwise and select another concern to compare with the first concern.   Repeat this process until all possible combinations of concerns have been compared by the team.

The next posting will illustrate the construction of an interrelationship digraph.

• Experimental Design.  A systematic planned variation of input factors for an actual process.   The experimenter observes the effect of these variations on important quality characteristics.   The 1/30/2008 posting mentions the use of designed experiments by an OEM manufacturer to determine an improved raw material composition.  The 2/28/2008 posting discusses the effort by a company to reduce the rejection rate at one of its machine shops.   Based on a Cause & Effect diagram, project members selected four factors for further analysis based on designed experiments.   These factors were Feed Rate, Wheel Speed, Work Speed, and Wheel Grade.   Analysis of the experimental results identified “optimum” levels for the four factors.
• Model Building.  One could construct a model of a process that predicts quality performance based on input variables.   The 2/18/2008 posting describes the actions of a Midwest manufacturing firm to reduce time delays experienced by customers contacting their order processing center.  They constructed a simulation model of the order-taking process.  Using the simulation model they determined the staffing level of customer service representatives by the hour of a work day to meet time-delay objectives.  Why don’t software companies use simulation models to specify technical support personnel requirements?

Subsequent postings will illustrate the use of experimental design and model building to Study Cause and Effect.

The previous step analyzed common-cause variation to identify the source (s) of variation.   If the previous step did not identify the source or if knowing the source does not reveal the root cause, we proceed to study cause and effect.  

Some of the tools we might use in this step are:

• Scatter plot.   A plot of a quality characteristic versus a potential explanatory variable.   See the plot in the 3/28/2008 posting showing the effect of solvent feed ratio on output weight.
• Cause & Effect Diagram.  A diagram portraying the potential causes of an effect.  See the diagram in the 2/28/2008 posting showing the potential causes of rejections at the grinding operations.  Frequently, the Cause & Effect diagram summarizes the results of a brainstorming session.   However, some improvement efforts will use data to substantiate the cause and effect diagram.
• Box Plot.   Box Plots depict the relationship between a discrete variable, such as location on a part, and the distribution of continuous variable, such as a dimension.
• Multi-Vari Charts.   Multi-Vari charts display variations in categories that aid in identifying causes.
• Interrelationship Digraphs.   Teams construct cause and effect relationships from a list of issues.

The next posting will summarize additional tools for this step.   Subsequent postings will give examples of Box Plots, Multi-Vari Charts and Interrelationship Digraphs.

1. Britz, G. C., D. W. Emerling, et al. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical Thinking. Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.
   
2. Hoerl, R. and R. D. Snee (2002). Statistical Thinking - Improving Business Performance. Pacific Grove, CA, Duxbury.
   

Histogram – Stratification.   The posting on 3/25/2008 describes statistical thinking by a team at Ricoh’s Numazu plant.   The plant makes raw material used as ingredients for copy machine toner.  The team wanted to reduce variation in output quantity which indicated a lack of control of the underlying process.   After removing a special cause, the team constructed a histogram of the output quantity.   The histogram clearly displayed excessive variation and two peaks.   The process flow chart showed a split after phase 2 into 2 separate lines, i.e., line A and line B.   Separate histograms for the two lines showed the output from line B was consistently lower that line A.  Constructing separate histograms for the two lines illustrates stratification by line.  Next, the team conducted a brainstorming session to formulate their collective thinking about the causes of excessive variation and the differences between the two lines.   They documented the results with a cause and effect diagram.   The brainstorming session and the construction of a cause and effect diagram illustrate step 7, Study Cause & Effect.

Stratification requires identifying a stratification factor, such as time of the day, and the partitioning of this factor into logical categories.   What tools may we use to aid in the selection of a stratification factor?    The team in the example above noticed two peaks in a histogram.   Breyfogle (2003) provides some guidance for this question.

1. On page 220, Breyfogle states that patterns on a control chart may suggest the need for stratification.   A sequence of points with small up and down variation relative to the control limits may suggest that the sequence of points comes from a single strata.   The opposite situation where a sequence of points that do not have values near the center line may indicate the combination of two strata.
   
2. On page 385, Breyfogle suggests dividing the data into categories based on posing basic questions such as who, what, when and where.
   

Disaggregation may be aided by constructing a process map such as the one used in the posting on 2/21/08.    The process map (Breyfogle, 2003, p. 103) is a flowchart with key process input variables listed for each step in the process.

1.     Breyfogle, F. W. (2003). Implementing Six Sigma. Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

·        Disaggregation – Stratification.  The posting on 2/18/2008 describes statistical thinking by a Midwest manufacturing firm to reduce waiting times by customers.   The company’s goal was to have 95% of incoming customer calls answered by a customer service representative in less than 2 minutes.   Based on a process flowchart, team collected service time data for each step in the process.   That is disaggregation.   The team also collected data for estimating the distribution of incoming calls by time of the day.   That is stratification by the time of day.  They used these data as inputs to a simulation of the call answering process.  They used the simulation construct staffing levels by the hour of the day.   The construction and use of the simulation illustrates step 7, Study Cause & Effect.
·        Disaggregation – Regression Analysis.  The posting on 2/21/2008 describes statistical thinking by a manufacturer of automotive door frames.  The purpose was to eliminate a problem meeting dimensional specifications of the finished product.   Shop floor personnel thought that variations in the incoming raw material characteristics caused the problem meeting dimensional specifications.  The team defined important quality characteristics for each step in the process.   They included quality characteristics of the incoming material.   The manufacturer collected data listing the important quality characteristics as well as the final part dimensions.    A regression analysis showed no effect by the incoming material characteristics.    Moreover, it identified several quality characteristics having a significant effect on finished product dimensions.    The regression analysis also showed that the left and right door frames had significantly different variation for two quality characteristics.   These results motivated corrective action and eliminated the need for rework.   In this example, the team did not need to employ step 7, Study Cause & Effect.

·         Stratification – Pareto Chart.  The posting on 2/25/2008 describes statistical thinking by a company experiencing a high rejection rate in one of its machine shops.   In order to determine the root cause of these rejections they stratified by classifying the rejections with respect to machine type causing the rejections.   Then they created a Pareto Chart ranking the frequency of rejections by machine type.   They found that 60% of the rejections were due to grinding problems.   This finding did not give them the root cause of the rejections, but it allowed them to focus on grinding operations.  Their next step was to construct a cause and effect diagram and then to design experiments to determine improved grinding procedures.   This next step illustrates the implementation of the Study Cause & Effect step, step 7 in the Hoerl-Snee process improvement strategy.
·         Regression Analysis – Stratification.  The posting on 3/4/2008 describes statistical thinking by Pease Industries to reduce the defect rate of decorative glass inserts for a wooden entry door.   The prevailing opinion was that humidity and temperature variations in the mold department were the root cause.  The team collected data and did a regression analysis using temperature and humidity as independent variables and the number of defects as the dependent variable.   The result was no correlation between the independent variables and the number of defects.  They collected more data and stratified the data by part type, month of occurrence and day of week.   They were surprised by the result showing day of the week strongly affecting the defect rate.   A Chi-Square test showed the day of the week was statistically significant.   The next step was to construct a Cause-and-Effect diagram and do a Is-Is Not analysis.   This step illustrates the Study Cause and Effect step, step 7.

In both of the above examples, the use Cause-and-Effect diagrams, designed experiments and the Is-Is Not analysis required the previous results from the Analyze Cause and Effect steps.   One needs to identify the effects prior to studying the effects.

Common-cause variation affects all of the data which distinguishes this step from the Address-Special-Causes step.  The purpose of the Analyze-Common-Cause-Variation step is to identify sources of variation.     Locating the sources of variation might also reveal its root cause without significant additional analysis.  On other occasions, knowing a source of common-cause variation might require further analysis to determine its root cause.   This additional analysis is performed in the next step, Study Cause and Effect.

Some of the tools we might use in this step are:

• Stratification.  Define a stratification factor such as the day of the week or machine.   Partition the factor into logical categories.  Compare the data for each category to highlight differences.
• Disaggregation.  Define quality measures for sub-processes or individual process steps.  Study the variation in the individual sub-processes.  How does it contribute to the overall process variation?
• Pareto Chart.  Classify defects into categories.  Highlight the categories having the most frequent occurrences.    
• Histogram.  Plot the distribution of quality measures.  One or more peaks might indicate the presence of categories that could be examined by stratification.
• Regression Analysis.   Existing opinion might suggest one or more input variables that influence the output quality measure.   A regression analysis might verify this opinion or indicate that these variables have negligible effect.

References

1. Britz, G. C., D. W. Emerling, et al. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical Thinking. Milwaukee, WI, ASQ Quality Press.
   
2. Hoerl, R. and R. D. Snee (2002). Statistical Thinking - Improving Business Performance. Pacific Grove, CA, Duxbury.