All 2 entries tagged 6Sigma
No other Warwick Blogs use the tag 6Sigma on entries | View entries tagged 6Sigma at Technorati | There are no images tagged 6Sigma on this blog
November 17, 2011
The test date!!!
We finally got into order; leaving aside a few last minute changes, and got set to begin the experiment.
According to the Cause and effect diagram, we had tried to resolve the major capacity of our initial problems and this was the time to test our solutions.
The results as clear as they can be...
with an exception of a special cause which we identified during the actual experiment stage; since it was explicit, we knew exactly the reason why the time of 8min 16sec's came for the delivery of 1 plane.
But apart from that, looking at the average time being 210 sec's and the tolerance limits being 195-225 seconds.
Our 11 experiments which came in common cause had 4 such delivery times which were out of tolerance limits of the customer.
3 of these experiments were due to early timing, which means that our process timing had improved monumentally rather we had become over-effective.
Apart from that we were within the tolerance limits which brought to us making further calculations on our experiment to derive our Cp, Cpk. sigma level and DPMO.
It was evident from our recorded times that we had improved our process.
Taking into consideration the training of the operators played the major role here.
So, thanks to
Without the efforts of these highly skilled operators we would have never worked it out.
Apart from the major improvement, the role of positioning our stocks also gave us a better position on our records.
Lastly, the balance that we created between operator's operations, streamlining their efforts and making the operations work in a equal proportion according to effort, time, sensitivity all gave us an edge in our final test.
Although we initially found out the most financially effective solution was to have 3 operators but this did not seem an economically viable solution so we increased to having 4 operators as a trial.
This test lead to increased pressure on almost all the pressures with 2 of them being focused on tightening more than 7-9 bolts and nuts.
The efforts lead to having 5 operators and 1 logistics person and eventually we resorted to having 6 operators and no logistics.
The opportunity cost of making deliveries on time weighed more than having stocks present at the workstation and not having the WIP to work on. This factor further elaborated into the fact that 1 logistics person could not handle the tools, equipment and material of 6 operators without creating lapses and delays for the whole process.
Our efforts gave us a bright light on how minor adjustments could and can in reality make a big difference on the process and resultantly on the final outcome of the process. in our case, the quality of our aeroplanes and the delivery time of the planes was improved visibly and we further came up with future enhancements/improvements which could be taken into consideration to further improve the process.
Congrats to you all!!!
November 15, 2011
PUISS kicks off with this interactive PMI e-learning yellow belt series.
A mix of theoratical and practical learning points amalgamated into 26 15-20min each modules.
Giving the audience a complete idea of how a single six sigma project is implemented.
going into the exact details of the documentation required.
Figuring out the issues surrounding the process and then identifying the most problematic one of them (selecting a priority) leading to further processes which dwell deeper into the problem to find the root cause behind the priority (problem).
By this stage, i had realized the realistic importance of the scatter diagram, pareto chart and even the fish bone (cause - effect diagram). On an honest note, i had read and studied these charts earlier as well but never knew whether they could they be practically applied.
if one does abridge the learning material that was available to us in the PMI yellow belt training, there is one fact which Jan also explicitly mentioned during his lecture.
The Socio-emotional factors contribute to somewhere around 80-90% of the issues when implementing a six sigma project/approach.
Apparently i underwent such a socio-economic factor today during our experiments session where we were to implement the concepts we had learned in the PMI yellow belt.
Yes, the first day of the exercise when we had observers was a really fun day.
we learned about the process and Oliver's comments as our Quality person were an addition to our thoughts and experience aswell.
According to the exercise yesterday the 14th of November, we as a group of 7 operators were given different tasks and were meant to assemble this aeroplane by the use of microscopic tools.
i do admit, it seemed pretty easy to me in the beginning as well, but once we started to assemble this as a trial for our very first try i was the last
person to finish at around 4min for
my Operation! This was one of the
14 operations which we had to finish.
The quality checks proved that most of our assembled units still had bolts which had to be tightened, in certain areas the parts were not correctly installed and a few parts were not assembled according to the assembly guide given to us.
today, the 15th seemed to be a welcoming day as we studied further into the practices or our assembly the day before.
Graeme had already worked out the Individual Control Charts and the Moving Range charts for us to enable us to visually understand and make sense of our averages and upper & lower limits and also bring upon a comparison to the target average time and tolerances which were allowed to us by the customer.
Apart from making a loss due to the delay in delivery we had, we were giving the company a loss which in professional terms an unbearable loss to bear so we had to come up with changes which would remove this deviation from the target and bring the assembly in line/ on target with the customer demand/requirement.
Thus came in Kairu Ishikawa's Cause and effect diagram (generally known as the fishbone diagram), we as Team1 proceeded with the formation of our fishbone diagram which lead to a bringing all of us a clear picture of the problems which we had gathered together as a team.
Now, as far as i had in my mind, we were to just note down the problems we saw in the process; which included that some of the parts had to be adjusted as well in such a manner that the materials (screws and nuts) could be placed with an easier and time effective situation, but to my surprise we were all informed by Graeme and Jane that we are to proceed with the improvement process!
This meant, work out the possible problems which can be resolved and then go for the hit&trial method where we were to time the assembly process and check whether the improved process was within the customer requirements or not. If NOT, then go back to resolve the issue again in an effective manner or deal with another issue if the first problem could not be adapted anymore.
Currently we stand at a point where we are quite positive that we will deliver on the customer requirements.
But nothing can be said at this point...
final result will come tomorrow.
till then, i leave this as the W.I.P we left today for the trials we will have tomorrow.