Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By Samuel E.
Windsor,
Delta Sigma
Solutions LLC
Background
An electroplating company supplying silver plated machined parts for a
telecommunications company was experiencing a rejection rate of just
over 16,000 ppm at the customer facility.
The parts were 100% visually inspected at the silver plating facility for
defects consisting of pits, blisters, voids and rough surfaces. When accepted, the parts were wrapped and shipped to the customer, where they were
sampled and inspected by the customer. If parts were rejected, they were
returned to the supplier for a process referred to as strip and replate.
In this process the existing silver was removed, the part cleaned and new
S I X
S I G M A
F O R U M
M A G A Z I N E
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
23
Results
The results were analyzed using a simple spreadsheet (many statistical software packages also have this
capability.) But a spreadsheet was not required
because the data could also be analyzed manually.
The study was conducted with a sample of 30 parts
selected by their degree of compliance to the actual
engineering requirement. Eight of the 30 parts were
considered unacceptable to varying degrees, and 22
were considered acceptable, some marginally.
Acceptability was determined by the agreement of
two of the customers product engineers. Each part
was numbered and the engineering decision recorded
for each part as the standard.
Two experienced inspectors from the customers
receiving department were chosen to participate.
Each inspector would evaluate each part in the morning and afternoon of the same day, yielding a total of
120 inspection data points. As the study was conducted, the results were recorded for each piece next to
the appropriate number on the data collection sheet.
The results are shown in Table 1.
The data analysis indicates inspector one agreed
with himself in 83% of the cases and with the standard
in 53% of the cases. Inspector two agreed with his own
results 90% of the time and with the standard 23% of
the time.
In total, the percentage of time both inspectors
agreed with their own results and with the standard
was 13%. In 33% of the cases, the inspectors agreed
with each other on both trials but not necessarily with
the standard.
An identical experiment with the same 30 parts was
Inspector
one
Inspector
two
Inspector
one
Inspector
two
Agreed with
own results
83%
90%
Agreed with
own results
83%
90%
Agreed with
standard
53%
23%
Agreed with
standard
40%
43%
Investigation
Both
inspectors
Both
inspectors
Agreed with
each other on
both trials
33%
Agreed with
each other on
both trials
33%
Agreed with
each other and
with standard
13%
Agreed with
each other and
with standard
70%
24
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
W W W . A S Q . O R G
Sample
Inspector one
Inspector two
number Standard Try one Try two Try one Try two
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Attribute gage
R&R known
population
Inspector one
Inspector two
sample number Standard Try one Try two Try one Try two
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
A = accept; R = reject.
Inspector one
83.33%
40.00%
Inspector two
90.00%
43.33%
A = accept; R = reject.
S I X
S I G M A
F O R U M
M A G A Z I N E
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
25
Inspector
two
Agreed with
own results
93%
90%
Agreed with
standard
93%
90%
Both
inspectors
Agreed with
each other on
both trials
83%
Agreed with
each other and
with standard
83%
Inspector
two
Agreed with
own results
97%
97%
Agreed with
standard
93%
90%
Agreed with
each other on
both trials
Both
inspectors
83%
Agreed with
each other and
with standard
83%
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
26
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
W W W . A S Q . O R G
Inspector one
93.33%
93.33%
Inspector two
90.00%
90.00%
S I G M A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Inspector one
96.67%
93.33%
Inspector two
96.67%
90.00%
A = accept; R = reject.
nificant results by dramatically improving the agreement between the customer and supplier and among
inspectors within the two organizations.
F O R U M
M A G A Z I N E
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
27
28
A U G U S T
2 0 0 3
W W W . A S Q . O R G