Sie sind auf Seite 1von 43

Following

July Scrap Projects

VARIATION: THE
MAIN ENEMY
Breaking Through to the Next Level of Customer
Expectation

1 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Content
Following
July Scrap Projects •Customer Focus
•Sources of variation
•Impact Variation
•Six Sigma Concept
•DFSS Concept
•Transfer Functions and DFSS tools.
•Ramos Interiors Plant proactive cases:
•Ford L-30 High Slide Effort
•Ford P-221 Wobble
•Ford S197 D-Ring misalignment
•Toyota 483N Click Noise
•Toyota 500N Wobble
•Toyota 500N Click Noise
•Toyota 802N Cached extender

•Toyota 702N Vanity Rattle

•Conclusions
2 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects Customer Focus
Focusing on the customer is essential to the success of
any business. We all recognize this idea. But do we really
internalize this idea? Do we really believe that such a focus has
the potential to drive business growth and improve the quality of
our day-to-day work as well as improve the chance that our
business, and hence our jobs, will flourish?
Business growth depends on how well we meet customer
expectations in terms of quality, price, and delivery. In turn, our
ability to satisfy these needs with certainty is controlled by process
capability and the amount of variation in our processes. Then
variation has a direct impact on our business results in terms of
cost, cycle time, and the amount of defects that affect customer
expectations.

3 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects Sources of variation
In this way, the following assertion can be made:
"As certainty increases the likelihood of exceed customer
expectations would likewise increase."
Variation is the enemy, is also the enemy of customer satisfaction.
Variation drives the unknown, it adds to customer (and employee)
disbelief and lack of confidence in the ability of processes to deliver
customer satisfaction. Variation increases risk -- the risk that a result
will not meet expectations. Lastly, variation is a driver of defects.

4 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
Defects arise from variation, arising in turn from either process,
material, or design inadequacies. A defect results when a
characteristic doesn't conform to a standard, and can be uniformly or
randomly distributed in a process.
Thus, as the Variation is the main enemy, we should focus in detect
and reduce or eliminate it.

5 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects

Before, it has been shown that Variation have three main


causes:
Insufficient process capability caused by processes
which produce relatively high numbers of defective units
Inadequate design margin, which results in unnecessarily
and unreasonably tight process specifications (sometimes
tighter than the customer requires)
Unstable parts and materials, usually caused by vendors
who are not able to control their own processes and ship
materials which in turn yield variation in the customer's
processes

6 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Impact Variation
Following
July Scrap Projects
The inevitable result of excessive process variation is the
production of defects, which occurs when units are produced which
are outside the required specifications.
As well as, less certainty, belief, confidence, poor yield performance
and hence the cost of poor quality, then anything that strays from
the desired target has a cost or represents a loss.
In short, the more variation in our business processes then the less
we know.

Less Variation Excessive Variation Customer


Satisfaction

7 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
The Statistical Objective of Six Sigma
Following
July Scrap Projects
Process out off Target Excessive Variation
T a rg e t T a rg e t

L S L U S L L S L U S L

Centered Reduced
Process Spread
Target

Defects
LSL USL

Reduce
Reduce Variation
Variation && Center
Center the
the Process
Process —

Customers
Customersfeel
feelthe
thevariation
variationmore
morethan
thanthe
themean.
mean.

8 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
About one of the main sources of variation: Inadequate
Following
July Scrap Projects
design margin

As we know, producibility is inextricably linked to variation. From this


vantage point, it is easy to see how variation is the principal
determinant of product quality. In turn, the many facets of product
quality either directly or indirectly contribute to the overall reliability of
the end product, and hence to customer satisfaction. As a result of this
domino relationship, we may say that the assurance of optimum
product reliability is directly tied to an organization's ability to take a
design concept from development on through production which,
to a large extent, is tied to variation.

9 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
In order to better grasp such interconnectivity, let us consider the
classical "bathtub" reliability curve. The bathtub curve is formed by
the blending of three different curves. First, there is the portion of the
bathtub effect that is due to quality failures. When a new unit of
product fails after a short period of operation, we say that it was an
"infant mortality," for obvious reasons. The second part of the
curve is due to the inherent characteristics of the design. The
product failure rate, attributable to the design, would tend to form a
straight line across the graph, thereby forming the floor of the
bathtub curve. The third and last curve on the graph is related to
natural "wear-out" of the individual elements that comprise the
product. Infant Mortality
Random Failure
Wearout
(Useful Life)
h(t) decreasing Design Related Failures
h(t) increasing
Hazard Rate, h(t)

h(t) constant

Manufacturing Wearout
Defects Failures

Time
Random
10 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R. Failures
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects

If initial capability of the processes, components, and material could be


high enough to ensure that any given unit of product will not fail during
initial operation, there would be little, if any, need for test, inspection, or
burn-in.
In this way, the ability to forecast reliability is highly dependent upon
a measure of the interplay within and between the design,
manufacturing processes, and material. In addition, we may also say
that the cost-effective optimization of reliability requires that we
"design for producibility." This implies that the product designs will be
relatively impervious or as some would say, "robust" to natural,
unavoidable sources of process, component, and material variation. In
turn, this assumes that we have a quantitative knowledge of process,
component, and material capabilities.

11 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Eliminating the inherent characteristics of design failures:
Following
July Scrap Projects
DFSS
Pushing beyond Current Six Sigma
DMAIC Methodology
Create products that have 6σ Quality “designed
in”:
• How our customers with 6σ performance on
their CTQ’s
• Have 6σ reliability
• Have 6σ manufacturability
• Have high performance/cost ratios

¾Outside-In: Focus
¾Outside-In: Focus on
on meeting
meeting customer’s
customer’s CTQ’s
CTQ’s
¾Insight through
¾Insight through variance:
variance: Statistical
Statistical design
design to
to reduce
reduce
performance
performance variability
variability
12 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects An Opportunity to Break Through “the Wall”

< ~4σ Process improvement through DMAIC methodology


at ~4σ Diminishing returns from just focusing on process

> ~4σ Requires product/process design for Six Sigma


(DFSS). A new design is required

DFSS is
Process Improvements
6
Plus DFSS essential
5 DFSS Benefit to exceed
4
Z (σ) customer
3
Process Improvements
expectations
2
Only
1
0

Time

DFSS
DFSS Gets
Gets Us
Us Beyond
Beyond Improving
Improving Marginal
Marginal Designs
Designs // Processes
Processes
13 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Design Opportunity Assessment
Following
July Scrap Projects

Cost to Correct Quality and Reliability


Much early Six Sigma effort are here

$
Maximize LEVERAGE in the Quality
Efforts here!

Planning Research Design Prototype Production Customer

Difficult to see/predict Easy to see


Defects are: Easy to fix Costly to fix

Biggest
Biggest Opportunity
Opportunity for
for Impact
Impact is
is Design
Design Stage!
Stage!
14 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
Moving From Reactive to Proactive

Reactive Predictive
Design Transition Design
Quality to ... Quality

FROM TO
Evolving Requirements CTQ Flowdown from Customer
Expectations
Design rework / tweaking Control Critical Design Parameters

Modeling / Simulation with


Build & Test Design / Process Capability
Flow-up

Measurement Statistical Quality Prediction

“Test in” Quality “Design in” Quality

15 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects

Proactive vs. Reactive Design Strategies


The Results
Number of
Amount of Effort Required

Design Changes
Proactive Company Reactive Company
(6 σ Company Experience) (Typical Experience)

Start Production
Project Time Line

16 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects Going from DMAIC to DFSS when you hit a
“wall”

17 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
How do Ramos Interiors Plant is doing that?

18 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects Some DFSS Tools used in order to reach the
effort…
1. Transfer Functions Development
• Screening and Improvement DOE's.
• DOE
• Regression
• Design Expert
• Minitab®
• Analytical / Simulation. Monte Carlo

2. Tolerance Analysis. Loop Diagram


3. Shainin basics

19 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Transfer Functions Development
Following
July Scrap Projects

Sources of Transfer Functions


Y = f(X1,X2,...)

• Engineering Knowledge
• Market Analysis
• Physics
• Models & Simulations
• Empirical DoE to Generate Regression
Equation
• DoE on Computer Model to Generate
Equation
20 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Transfer Functions
Following
July Scrap Projects

X1 Y1
Factors CTQ’s
X2 Transfer Functions Y2 (Dependent
(the
Independent Yi = fi (X1, X2, … Xm) Variables)
Variables)
XM YM

X’s: Transfer Functions: Y’s:

The factors that The mathematical The parameters


affect the CTQ’s. relationships between that measure the
the independent and quality of a
dependent variables product or
process.

21 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Uses of Transfer Functions
Following
July Scrap Projects

Analysis Prediction Probabilistic


Design

Determine Build equations Find the set of


which factors that can be used factor values that
are important to quickly and optimizes the
in the system. inexpensively mean while
predict system minimizing the
Sensitivities behavior at new sensitivity to
operating points variation.
and/or conditions.
Probabilistic
Optimization Optimization

FanModulePareto
Robust Design
Operability
FODTolerance
Legend
Sf press_to_fill time_cycle cost_total Design for
Reliability
0.534 80 17.5 2.22

X1 0.532 75
2.2
press_to_fill

time_cycle
17

cost_total
0.53 70
Clearance, %Diameter 2.18
Sf

246.1 0.528 65
16.5
0.526 60 2.16

Durability 260
0.524 55 16 2.14
273.9 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 245 250 255 260 265 270 275

OperatingLine dTemp_Melt dTemp_Melt dTemp_Melt dTemp_Melt

GasPathLeakage
0.54 74 18.5 2.2

Unbalance X2
0.535
0.53
72 18
2.19
press_to_fill

time_cycle

70 17.5

cost_total
0.525
68 17 2.18
Sf

Airflow 60
0.52
0.515
66 16.5
2.17
0.51 64 16
71.1

Maintainability 82.2
0.505
60 65 70 75 80 85
62
60 65 70 75 80 85
15.5
60 65 70 75 80 85
2.16
60 65 70 75 80 85
dTemp_Mold dTemp_Mold dTemp_Mold dTemp_Mold

DovetailWear&Cracking
Efficiency 0.534 90 22 2.4

X3 0.532 20
Speed 80 2.3
press_to_fill

time_cycle

cost_total

0.53 18
70 2.2
Sf

1 0.528 16

RotorThrust 5.5
0.526
60
14
2.1

0.524 50 12 2

LifeLimitedComponentPart Life 10 0 2 4
Time_Inj
6 8 10 0 2 4 6
Time_Inj
8 10 0 2 4 6
Time_Inj
8 10 0 2 4 6
Time_Inj
8 10

LRURemovalTime
ModuleIntegration 0.6 68.5 17 2.178
2.176
X4 68 16.9
press_to_fill

time_cycle

0.55 2.174
cost_total

ModuleCriticalSpeed/Frequency 67.5 16.8 2.172


Sf

35 0.5 2.17
67 16.7
2.168
42.5

0 33 66 99 132 165 198


0.45 66.5 16.6 2.166
50 35 40 45 50 35 40 45 50 35 40 45 50 35 40 45 50
Press_Pack Press_Pack Press_Pack Press_Pack

22 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects

Using Transfer Functions


to Predict CTQ
A1
Distributions
X1
0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10

A1

X2 Transfer Function
A1

Y
Y = f (X1, X2, … Xm)
5.00 6.84 8.67 10.51 12.34

0.74 0.89 1.04 1.19 1.34

A1

XM
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30

Predicted
Factor CTQ
Probability Probability
Distributions Distribution

23 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tolerance Analysis. Loop Diagram
Following
July Scrap Projects

Types of Tolerance Analysis


Tolerance Analysis

Linear Non-linear

Worst Case General Classical Worst Case Partial Monte Exact


Analysis Root Sum Root Sum Analysis Derivative Carlo Analysis (i.e.,
e.g. Y = X1+ X2 Squares Squares Analysis Simulation analytical,
(RSS) (RSS) closed-form)

Explicit Black Box


Equation e.g. FEM, Simulation
Known code
e.g. Y = X1 * X2

24 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Analysis Table
Following
July Scrap Projects

Sensitivity coefficient is a
Part or process step Targeted Mean value Std. Dev. - initially based on tolerance relative weighting of the
factor description field initial setting Data collection divided by 6. Input this directly influence of this factor on DPU is the probability that parts will be
enter the X's here period after measuring the factor. changing the response produced outside the tolerance range.

Analysis Table
Variable Information Tolerance Dist. Type % Cont.
Factor Short or Lower Upper % or Normal or to σ Sensitivity
Description Mean Long Term Std Dev Limit Limit Actual Uniform Response Coef. DPU ZST
Block 1 4 s 0.6667 2 2 A N 35.00% -1 2.1E-02 3.53
Block 2 2 s 0.5774 1 1 A U 25.00% -1 0.0E+00 N/A
Block 3 4 s 0.0533 4 4 % N 40.00% -1 2.1E-02 3.53
Envelope 13 s
Left buton will execute macro to calculate sensitivity
coeficients. Right button will clear current
Tolerance - the Actual (A) number of units above and below mean
sensitivities. Always clear previous sensitivity values Two options; N (normal) or U (uniform).
that the 'X' is allowed to vary. Enter all positive numbers or an
before calculating new ones On parts with a uniform distribution this
allowed percentage (%) of the mean value
probability is shown to be zero, with
Mean Response→ 3 truncation outside the tolerance range.
Response Upper Spec Limit 6
Response Lower Spec Limit 0 Push the appropriate buttton to hide or unhide all rows. Percent contribution that the
There are 20 total available for X's. individual component (X) has on
Enter the equation that Summary Table the Standard Deviation for the
defines how the X's are Response Components entire system.
related to the response Worst Case
Mean Std Dev DPU ZST Lower Limit Upper Limit DPU ZST
3 1.149 0.009 3.866 -0.160 6.160 4.20E-02 3.81 Rev 2.0a

Enter the ACTUAL values for Equivelent short term


the upper and lower Equivelent short term Z for the DPU of components
specifications Z for the DPU in Summary Table Total of all the
Expected output variation DPUs in column J
Same number as in based on Std Dev of X's
"Mean Response" cell and sensitivity coef. Probability that response will be out of What this specification limits
specification range, based on the Mean would be if worst case techniques
and Std Dev in the Summary Table were used to establish them

25 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Simulation before go ahead:
Following
July Scrap Projects

Predicting the performance


Monte Carlo Simulation

Crystal Ball
OptQuest
Perform optimization over multiple Monte Carlo
simulations
Genetic Algorithm based optimizer
Crystal Ball Developer’s Kit
Write advanced macros
Build custom reports
Automate post-simulation analysis
Crystal Ball Extenders
Tornado charts, Correlation matrices, Decision
tables, ...

26 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Shainin basics
Following
July Scrap Projects
Analysis tool to find the principal component affecting in the
assembly , which are uses to switch on/off or BoB (Best of the
best) and WoW ( Worst of the worst) principles.

27 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects Ramos Interiors Plant proactive cases:

Ford L-30 High Slide Effort


Ford P-221 Wobble
Ford S197 D-Ring misalignment
Toyota 483N Click Noise
Toyota 500N Wobble
Toyota 500N Click Noise
Toyota 802N Cached extender
Toyota 792-592 Vanity Rattle

28 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Ford L-30 High Slide Effort
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
During the SOP of FY06 to February FY06, 7298 PPM’s has been
impacted and scrapped because a high slide effort (>20N) in Visors for
Ford L-30 program.

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 4
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 7,298

29 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
Tools Used
Component Search

45
40
35
High
Response 30
25 Low

20 Upper +DL

15 Upper -DL
10 Low er +DL
5 Low er -DL
0 Reassembly

Reassembly

UpperCover
Extrusion

Cushion
Results

Elbow

LowerCover
Initial

#1

#2
Step

Shainin Study Extrusion main


contributor (Out of
specifications)
Statistical Design Analysis Spreadsheet Statistical Design Analysis Spreadsheet
Response Description: Gap-Interference L30 Performance Analyst: R. Arévalo Date: 04-Sep-06 Response Description: Gap-Interference L30 Performance Analyst: R. Arévalo Date: 04-Sep-06

Analysis Table Analysis Table


Variable Information Tolerance Dist. Type Var. Variable Information Tolerance Dist. Type Var.
Factor Short or % or Normal or Sensitivity % Factor Short or % or Normal or Sensitivity %
Description Mean Long Term Std Dev Lower Upper Actual Uniform Coef. DPU ZST Cont. Description Mean Long Term Std Dev Lower Upper Actual Uniform Coef. DPU ZST Cont.
Extrusion 14.08 S 0.0200 0.09 0.09 A N 0.5 5.373E-04 4.77 30% Extrusion 13.98 L 0.0200 0.09 0.09 A N 0.5 6.901E-06 5.85 50%
Lower Housing 13.84 S 0.0200 0 0.18 A N -0.5 5.000E-01 1.50 30% Lower Housing 13.94 L 0.0200 0 0.18 A N -0.5 5.000E-01 1.50 50%

Mean Response→ 0.02


Mean Response→ 0.12
Upper Spec Limit
Upper Spec Limit
Lower Spec Limit 0
Lower Spec Limit 0
Summary
Summary Response Components
Response Components Worst Case Limits
Worst Case Limits Mean Std Dev DPU ZST Lower Upper DPU ZST
Mean Std Dev DPU ZST Lower Upper DPU ZST
0.02 0.0141421 7.865E-02 2.91 -0.025 0.155 5.000E-01 2.17 Rev 2.0
0.12 0.0183848 5.291E-11 7.96 0.075 0.255 5.005E-01 2.17 Rev 2.0

Results and performance (After supplier controlling)

Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 6


Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 3.4

30 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Ford P-221 Wobble
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
P221 Visor rattle (“tick noise”) in the vehicle when the visor is on ‘down’
position, at 45° from stow-position and movement fore-and-aft.
First noticed in Dearborn FCPA Audit. Dearborn alert: Norfolk (NAP) and Kansas City
(KCAP) had same conditions.
Dates of visors with problem at customer locations range from 4/3 through 5/17.Total
visors verified 9744 and 1600 Rejected ( 16.5%) LH only, all colors and versions.
Issue correlated with “elbow wobble” at fore and aft as well as cross car directions.

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 2.47
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 166,314
31 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects
Normal Probability Plot of the Standardized Effects
(response is BKT THK, Alpha = .05)
99
Effect Ty pe
E
Not Significant
95 AE Significant

90 F actor N ame
A M elt Time
80 B Bladder P ressure
C Bladder D elay
70 D S eal Time
Percent

60 E C ore S ide
50
40
30
20

10

5 BDE

A
1
-5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Standardized Effect

Screening DOE, Core LH design is different from RH and significant

RH SPRING/ELBOW CORE FOLDED

The Differences
Results and performance (After supplier controlling)
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) =
On going
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = On going
32 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Ford S197 D-Ring misalignment
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
During the end of April´2006 the AAI-Ford customer reported D-ring
misaligned during the visor vs. car marriage, resulting as a campaign by a 3rd. Party
during 3 months after.

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 4.0
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 4,173

33 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects

Total Envelopment
aprox.= 17.10 mm

Design Intent Reviewed Founding

“Z”
Poin
t
Ga
“A p
First Core
Attachme
3.0 mm
” nt
Y1
D-Ring
posts Second
Limiting Core
Ga
up Attachme
p 0.60 mm
position nt4
Y2

Design Performance Suggest Improvement

Results and performance (After supplier controlling)


Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) =
On going
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = On going

34 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Toyota 483N Click Noise
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
Since 3 years ago, before SOP at Ramos Plant, the 100% of 483N visor
program had a clicking defect during elbow rotation reported by TMMC and they alert
TMMJ, causing large warranty returns as well as scrapped visors at Ramos Plant.
Then since SOP a containment and rework were implemented at 100% of the visors
as well as a rework from supplier to bend elbow tube.
At Ramos plant SOP, immediately a containment was implemented consisting on a
Noise Cabin and rework to test and verify 100% of production.

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 1.58
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 467,062

35 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects
Almost parallelism
2.5
Within specifications
2 WoW
BoB
1.5 Wow +DL
WoW -DL
1 BoB +DL
WoW
BoB -DL
0.5

0 Tending to close (Bent out


of specifications)
R eas s em bly #1

R eas s em bly #2
Initial R es ults

Ex trus ion/Spring

Inner Spring

0
Elbow as s y
As s y
BoB=0.6°

The
The significant
significant component
component isis the
the Elbow
Elbow TUBE,
TUBE, itit makes
makes
the
the difference
difference between
between WoW
WoW and and BoB
BoB (( Noisy/
Noisy/ Not
Not noisy)
noisy)

ƒDesign Intent Forecast: Gap


ƒAccording to specifications, there is a gap between elbow and extrusion by 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 56 Outliers
design at worst and better conditions: .018 176

.013 132

.009 88

.004 44

Spec: 13.41 +/- 0.20 Spec: 12.90 +/- 0.25

Min: 13.61 Min: 13.15


.000 0

Max: 12.65
ƒMin Inner Max:
Gap=13.21
0.20 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.80
13.21-13.15=0.06 mm Gap mm

ƒMax Inner Gap= 13.61-12.65= 0.96 Gap Always Gap!!!

Noise simulation if Gap<=0


Results and performance (After supplier controlling)
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) =
New Design On-going
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = T.B. Validated
36 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Toyota 500N Wobble
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
Since the beginning of the FY06 and before a 0.1% of wobble defect has
caused customer dissatisfaction and several scrap quantity for LH only. For May´06
this caused hard containment by TMMI and VDC affecting customer perception and
Scrap and Containment costs.
The core design follows the same intent design as Ford P221
program.

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 3.12
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 898
37 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is Average Thk, Alpha = .05)
S c a tt e rp lo t o f W o b b le v s A v era g e T h k
1 .4
2.002
Factor Name
A Melt Time
1 .2 BC B General Pressure
C Blader Delay
D Blader Pressure
1 .0 CD

0 .8
Wobble

Term
0 .6
A
0 .4

C
0 .2

0 .0 B

1 5 .0 0 1 5 .2 5 1 5 .5 0 1 5 .7 5 1 6 .0 0 1 6 .2 5 1 6 .5 0 1 6 .7 5
A v e r a g e Th k 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Standardized Effect

Correlations: Wobble, Average Thk


Pearson correlation of Wobble and DoE
Average Thk = 0.7
P-Value = 0.000

Results and performance (After supplier controlling)


Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) =
Currently Issue Controlled by Thermo Fold
parameters but risk still until design change
implementation
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = T.B. Validated
38 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Toyota 500N Click Noise
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
Since the beginning of the FY06 and before a 0.4% of clicking noise
defect has caused customer dissatisfaction and several scrap quantity. For May´06
this caused hard containment by TMMI and VDC affecting customer perception and
Scrap and Containment costs.

NO OK

Before performance
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 2.48
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 6411

39 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects
From Routing Method Vs Shift, the Failure Modes Detected via PFMEA
significant contributor is the Method the
Shift is not significant. and Engineering changes suggested
The model can be used to predict the
performance with 95% confidence.

Harness and Fabric trapped


bellow cam step.
Logistic Regression

Add pockets or
Harness Routing windows and
Change routing
trapped below harness change cut
method
clip and clip troubles fabric
interference
Results and performance (After supplier controlling)
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) =
Proposals under validation in Holland
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = T.B. Validated

40 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Toyota 802N Cached extender
Following
July Scrap Projects
Problem Statement.
Since the beginning of FY06 0.06% defective Visors about cached
extender has been detected by the customer impacting in scrap, containment and
premium freight costs.

Failure Mode:
Bezel Unseated

Effect: Cached
Before performance Extender
Baseline Process Sigma Level (Short-term) = 2.50
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 6331

41 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB
Tools Used
Following
July Scrap Projects
S ta tis tic a l D e s ig n A n a lys is S p re a d s h e e t
R e s p o n s e D e s c rip tio n : B e ze l E n g a g e m e n t G a p A n a lys t: R . A ré v a lo D a te : 0 6 -J u n -0 6

A n a lys is T a b le
V a ria b le In fo rm a tio n T o le ra n c e D is t. T y p e % C o n t.
F a c to r S h o rt o r % or N o rm a l o r to σ S e n s itiv ity
D e s c rip tio n M ean L o n g T e rm S td D e v Lower U pper A c tu a l U n ifo rm R esp on se C o e f. DPU Z LT
B e ze l 3 .6 2 S 0 .0 3 8 0 0 .1 0 .1 A N 4 2 .4 2 % 1 4 .2 9 4 E -0 2 1 .7 2
C o re 3 .1 3 S 0 .0 4 2 0 0 .1 1 0 .1 1 A N 5 1 .8 2 % -1 4 .3 9 4 E -0 2 1 .7 1
F a b ric 0 .4 S 0 .0 1 4 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 A N 5 .7 6 % -1 5 .8 2 7 E -0 1 -0 .2 1

M e an R e sp on se→ 0 .0 9
R e s p o n s e U p p e r S p e c L im it

Failure Mode:
R e s p o n s e L o w e r S p e c L im it 0

S u m m a ry T a b le
Response C o m p o n e n ts
W o rs t C a s e L im its

Bezel
M ean S td D e v DPU Z LT Low er Upper DPU Z LT
0 .0 9 0 .0 7 5 8 4 7 1 .1 7 7 E -0 1 1 .1 9 -0 .1 3 0 .3 1 6 .6 9 6 E -0 1 0 .7 6 R e v: G E A 9 /1/9 8 B .M allory
 D r. M a u ric e L . B e rrym a n , 1 9 9 6 . A ll rig h ts re s e rv ed .

unseated Forecast: Gap


Stack-up analysis and Gap performance S ta tis tic a l D e s ig n A n a ly s is S p r e a d s h e e t
R e s p o n s e D e s c r ip tio n : B eze l E n ga ge m e nt G ap A n a ly s t : R . A r é v a lo D a te : 0 6 -J u n -0 6

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 16 Outliers A n a ly s is T a b le


.018 178 V a r ia b le In fo r m a tio n T o le r a n c e D is t. T y p e % C o n t.
F a c to r S h o rt o r % or N o rm a l o r to σ S e n s itiv ity
D e s c r ip tio n M ean L o n g T e rm S td D e v Low er U pper A c tu a l U n if o r m R esponse C o e f. D P U Z LT
B e ze l 3 .6 2 S 0 .0 3 8 0 0 .1 0 .1 A N 4 2 .4 2 % 1 4 .2 9 4 E -0 2 1 .7 2
C o re 2 .7 5 S 0 .0 4 2 0 0 .1 1 0 .1 1 A N 5 1 .8 2 % -1 4 .3 9 4 E -0 2 1 .7 1
F a b r ic 5 .7 6 % -1 5 .8 2 7 E -0 1 -0 .2 1
.013 133.5 0 .4 S 0 .0 1 4 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 1 A N

M ean R esponse→ 0 .4 7
.009 89 R e s p o n s e U p p e r S p e c L im it
R e s p o n s e L o w e r S p e c L im it 0

S u m m a r y T a b le
R esponse C o m p o n e n ts
W o r s t C a s e L im its
.004 44.5 M ean S td D e v D PU Z LT Low er U pper D PU Z LT
0 .4 7 0 .0 7 5 8 4 7 3 .9 1 1 E -1 0 6 .1 5 0 .2 5 0 .6 9 6 .6 9 6 E -0 1 0 .7 6 R e v : G E A 9 / 1 / 9 8 B . M a llo r y
 D r . M a u r ic e L . B e r r y m a n , 1 9 9 6 . A ll r ig h t s r e s e r v e d .

.000 0

Improvement via stack-up tolerances


-0.10 -0.01 0.08 0.16 0.25
Certainty is 94.47% from 0.00 to +Infinity mm

Monte Carlo gap and new performance


Simulation

Forecast: Gap(Modified)
10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 0 Outliers
.023 233

.017 174.7

.012 116.5

.006 58.25

.000 0
0.25 0.36 0.48 0.59 0.70
mm

Improvement: Reduce core thickness New gap performance Monte Carlo


simulation
42 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.
Arévalo C. SS/BB
Following
July Scrap Projects
What can we say as conclusions?

Here in, we had seen an over view about the effort we can do and we are making focus
in reach and exceed the customer expectations, not so far from other greatest world
wide companies and in the commodity of our facilities to make quickly response.
As well as we are using Six Sigma to improve our current processes, we can use
another systematic methodology that enables us to Design products and processes that
meet customer expectations (CTQ´s) to a 6s level before SOP by means of using
statistical methods to predict and improve quality and performance before building
prototypes whose can be validated using pilot runs, pre-production and production units
Although each of the DFSS tools can be applied to the design process in and of itself the
true '"global"' benefit can only be realized through an integrated application across the
board..
Simulation & DOE can be effectively used to identify leverage variables, establish
sensitivities of the response variable, and define tolerances through the deliberate
arrangement of competing settings among one or more independent variables. The goal
here is to provide the most efficient and economical means for arriving at valid and
relevant conclusions – resulting in reduction of variation at minimal cost.

43 Johnson Controls, Inc. © Sep 2006 R.


Arévalo C. SS/BB

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen