Statistical Thinking to Improve Quality

This posting discusses the seventh step, Study Cause and Effect, of the Hoerl-Snee Process Improvement Strategy.   Refer to the figure in the April 4 posting for an overview of the process.  Use Britz et al (2000) and Hoerl and Snee (2002) as references.

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.

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.
   

Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An additional example appears below illustrating the Analyze Common-Cause Variation step, step 6, in the Hoerl-Snee process improvement strategy.   Refer to the posting on 5/18/2008 for a description of this step.   Following the example, the posting summarizes some suggestions by Breyfogle (2003) to assist in stratification and disaggregation.

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.

References

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

 

Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 07:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This posting continues the resin output variation example described to illustrate the Hoerl-Snee process improvement strategy.   We take this example from Britz et al (2000).   It also appears in Hoerl and Snee (2002).

Having removed the special cause, the Ricoh team focused on output quantity variability.   A histogram displays this variability, and the following figure shows recent output data.  This histogram displays an unexpected pattern indicating a combination of two underlying distributions for the output quantity.   Notice the peaks at 4284 and 4308 kg.

The process flowchart appearing in the previous posting suggested that these two component distributions were due to the split after phase 2 into two separate lines, i.e., lines A and B.   The following histograms shown below confirmed this difference.   The output from line B was consistently lower than line A.   Based on the needs of their customers, the team established the limits shown in the histograms, i.e., 4300 kg ± 5 kg.

Clearly, the variation in output quantity is excessive.   Next the team conducted a brainstorming session to document their collective thinking on potential causes of excessive variation and differences between the two lines.   The following cause and effect diagram shows the result of this session.

The next posting will describe the investigation based on the potential causes shown above.  
Note that the improvement process is iterative. Gather data, identify special cause, gather more data, notice differences, and then conduct brainstorming session.   This improvement strategy looks more like Shewhart’s Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) than the DMAIC steps recommended for Six-Sigma projects.   Also, the team didn’t adopt a specified target until after two data analysis steps.   That is, their Define step occurred in their second PDCA cycle.

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.
   

Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Cause and Effect Diagram graphically portrays the potential causes of an effect.   The causes are grouped into categories.   Common categories are manpower (personnel), materials, methods and machines.   When the diagram uses these specific categories we might call the diagram a 4M diagram.  Depending on the effect, the diagram might display other categories.   The diagram is also known as an Ishikawa diagram since Dr. Ishikawa devised its first use of the diagram.   Another name for the diagram is a Fishbone diagram because of its appearance.   Recording the results of a brainstorming session is a typical use for the diagram.   A project might use a brainstorming session to generate a list of potential causes of an effect or a quality problem.  

We will continue the case study reported by Gijo (2005) to illustrate the Cause and Effect diagram.   The previous post presented a Pareto chart for a machine shop showing that the grinding operations generated most of the rejections experienced by the shop. They estimated grinding machine capability based on a sample of 40 parts.   The estimated P_pk for this sample was .49.  This result verified the lack of grinding machine capability. 

Selected individuals participated in a brainstorming session to generate a set of potential causes of grinding machine rejections.    The following figure shows the resulting causes. 

 

After further study, 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.  The estimated P_pk  at the optimum factor levels was 1.25 based on a sample of 40 parts.   This showed significant improvement.

References

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

 

Posted by Gordon M. Clark at 08:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)