TM 1 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Readily Accessible Fast Retrieval Able to...

TM 1

©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill

Readily AccessibleReadily AccessibleReadily AccessibleReadily Accessible

Fast RetrievalFast RetrievalFast RetrievalFast Retrieval

Able to Store Able to Store Legacy DataLegacy Data

Able to Store Able to Store Legacy DataLegacy Data

Dialog Boxes

Web Based Access

Function / Feature Diagram – Fast Retrieval

Retrieve Specs by Retrieve Specs by Part NumberPart Number


Dialog Boxes

Web Based Access

Link to Component DRW

FunctionsFunctionsFunctionsFunctions Features


Web Based Access

Fig. 4-23

TM 2


Minimum #Minimum #Of User InputsOf User Inputs

Minimum #Minimum #Of User InputsOf User Inputs

DRW Retrievable byDRW Retrievable byLatest RevisionLatest Revision



Data Sortable Searching

Dialog Boxes

Function / Feature Diagram – Minimum # of User Inputs

Web Based Access



Dialog Boxes

Web Based Access



3D Cabinet

Fig. 4-24

TM 3


Information isInformation isAccurateAccurate

Information isInformation isAccurateAccurate




Data Sortable Searching

Dialog Boxes

Function / Feature Diagram – Information is Accurate

Web Based Access



Dialog Boxes

Web Based Access



3D Cabinet

Fig. 4-25

TM 4


QFD Flow Down

Functions Lin

k t

o c

om

po

ne

nt

dra

win

gs

We

b-B

as

ed

ac

ce

ss

Dia

log

bo

xe

s

Vir

tua

l ca

b v

iew

ing

Da

te S

ort

ab

le

Se

arc

hin

g

Vie

we

r c

us

tom

iza

tio

n

Drawings Retrievable by Latest Revision

g 3 c 2 c 2 c 2 g 3 c 113

g 3 Strong Relationship

3D Representation of Cabinet c 2 c 2 c 2 g 3 c 1 c 111

c 2 Moderate Relationship

Readily Accessible g 3 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 110

c 1 Weak Relationship

Retrieve Specs by Part number

c 2 c 2 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 110

Attribute Information on Drawing (Species/Color etc)

g 3 c 2 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 19

Capable of Storing Legacy Data/Drawings

c 1 c 2 c 2 c 1 c 1 c 18

Multiple Line Weights on Drawing High Print Quality

c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 g 38

15 14 12 10 9 9

Features

KEY

Fig. 4-26

TM 5


QFD Flow Down

Features Us

e C

as

e B

as

ed

T

rain

ing

M

ate

ria

ls

JS

P W

eb

Pa

ge

Bro

ws

er

Plu

g-i

n

Lin

k f

rom

Lis

t

Ja

va

Ap

ple

t In

pu

t b

ox

Lin

k f

rom

T

hu

mb

na

ils

Web based access g 3 g 3 g 3 g 3 g 3 g 3 18 g 3 Strong Relationship

Virtual cab viewing g 3 c 2 g 3 g 3 c 1 g 3 15 c 2 Moderate Relationship

Link to component drawing

g 3 g 3 c 2 g 3 g 3 c 1 15 c 1 Weak Relationship

Dialog boxes g 3 g 3 c 1 c 1 g 3 c 1 12

Date Sortable Searching g 3 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 1 c 1 10

Viewer customization g 3 c 1 g 3 c 1 c 1 c 1 10

18 15 13 12 12 10

Alternatives ( X's)

KEY

Fig. 4-27

TM 6


Design Scorecard

LSL USLInformation is Accurate

0 Errors (6 Sigma) 0 Errors (6 Sigma)

Fast Retrieval

0sec 3.3 min 4.82 min (1.4 Sigma) .75 min (6 Sigma)

Easy Retrieval (minimal inputs)

8 12 17 (0 Sigma) 10 (6 Sigma)

Easy to Interpret Format (number of line weights)

2 4 1 (0 Sigma) 3 (6 Sigma)

0 Errors (6 Sigma)

High Level Capability

Feature Capability (from Verification

Testing)

Spec/Target

CTQs

Description

Current Capability

Fig. 4-27a

TM 7


Verification CTQ Capability AnalysisDrawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim Lookup)

Combined Access DataPoints

Perc

ent

151050-5

99

95

90

80

70

605040

30

20

10

5

1

Mean

<0.005

2.921StDev 3.422N 52AD 5.964P-Value

Probability Plot of Combined Access DataPointsNormal

Sta

cked V

eri

fy a

nd B

ase

line

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Verify - Dim N Non-Dim

BLine - Dim N Non-Dim

6543210

Sta

cked V

eri

fy a

nd B

ase

line

Combined Access DataPoints

Verify - Dim N Non-Dim

BLine - Dim N Non-Dim

17.515.012.510.07.55.02.50.0

F-Test

0.005

Test Statistic 44.94P-Value 0.000

Levene's Test

Test Statistic 8.46P-Value

Test for Equal Variances for Combined Access DataPoints

Alpha: 0.05

Ho: Data is Normal

Ha: Data is not Normal

P-value: <0.005, therefore reject Ho.

Data is Not Normal. Perform Levenes test for equal variance

Conclusion: Use Mann -Whitney for data statistical analysis

Conclusion: Baseline capability based on 0 DPMO is 6 sigma

5.254.503.753.002.251.500.750.00

USLProcess Data

Sample N 26Mean 1.15635

LSL *Target *USL 3.30000Sample Mean 1.15635

Overall CapabilityPp *PPL *PPU 0.37Ppk 0.37

Observed PerformancePPM < LSL *PPM > USL 0PPM Total 0

Exp. Overall PerformancePPM < LSL *PPM > USL 57624.0PPM Total 57624.0

Process Capability of Combined V dataCalculations Based on Exponential Distribution Model

Fig. 4-28

TM 8


Verification CTQ Capability Analysis Drawing Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim Lookup)

Customer Expectations are 1.70 minutes or faster to access and print a drawing, from CTQ Survey. Is the new system running at the customers expectations? This is the Primary CTQ on our design scorecard.

Conclusion: DDL and the design of the user interface will meet customer expectations for drawing access time.

Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes

Ha = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes

Alpha = 0.05

Ho = Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes

Ha = Sample median is less than 1.70 minutes

Alpha = 0.05

P value = .002 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes

P value = .001 < 0.05Therefore reject HoHa = Sample median is less than 1.70 minutes

Fig. 4-29

TM 9


Design Scorecard

LSL USLInformation is Accurate

0 Errors (6 Sigma) 0 Errors (6 Sigma) 0 Errors (6 Sigma)

Fast Retrieval

0sec 3.3 min 4.82 min (1.4 Sigma) .75 min (6 Sigma) 1.07 min (6 Sigma)

Easy Retrieval (minimal inputs)

8 12 17 (0 Sigma) 10 (6 Sigma) 10 (6 Sigma)

Easy to Interpret Format (number of line weights)

2 4 1 (0 Sigma) 3 (6 Sigma) 3 (6 Sigma)

0 Errors (6 Sigma)

High Level Capability

Feature Capability (from Verification

Testing)

Spec/TargetCTQs

Description

Current Capability

Fig. 4-30

TM 10


Finish Quality Metric - QFD

Customer Needs Film

Thi

ckne

ss

Mic

rosc

ope

and

Film

T

hick

ness

Gag

es

Smoo

th to

Tou

ch

Vis

ual I

nspe

ctio

n

Vis

ual C

ompa

riso

n to

M

aste

r

Glo

ss M

eter

Prio

rity

Sco

re

Top Coat Coverage 9 9 1 1 1 1 11

Gloss/Sheen 1 1 1 1 1 9 11

Smooth to Touch 1 1 9 9 1 1 10

Wood Harmony 1 1 1 9 9 1 9

Rough End Grain 1 1 9 9 9 1 10

Consistent Color 1 1 1 9 9 1 12

Dirt in Finish 1 1 9 9 3 1 8

Mullion Profile Rough 1 1 9 9 3 1 2

CTQ Priority Score 16 16 40 56 36 16

Target Limits

Strong 9 Moderate 3 Weak 1

WEIGHT

Ways to measure

Fig. 4-31

TM 11


Fig. 5-2

TM 12


Fig. 5-3

TM 13


Fig. 5-9

TM 14


Fig. 6-1

TM 15


Fig. 6-4

TM 16


Fig. 6-8

TM 17


Fig. 6-11

TM 18


Fig. 7-1

TM 19


Fig. 9-1

TM 20


Fig. 9-2

TM 21


Fig. 11-4

TM 22


Fig. 11-6

TM 23


Fig. 11-7

TM 24


Fig. 12-1

TM 25


Fig. 12-2

TM 26


History of Manufacturing

Craft

Mass

Lean

• Made to customer spec.• Single-piece mfg.• Variable quality• Little inventory• High cost• High Quality • Interchangeable parts

• Division of labor (Taylor system)• Assembly lines (Henry Ford)• Low variety (Ford)• Parts per hour• Focus on costs – less quality

• High variety• Small batches• PPM quality• Engaged workforce• Higher quality lower costs

1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Fig. 13-1

TM 27


To

Product/process focus

Co-location, collaboration

Constant, visible communication

Multi-skilling, teamwork, balance

Product lines as businesses

1-piece flow or ‘Flow of value’

Lean Characteristics

From

Functional alignment/focus

Functional ‘silos’

Weak communications

Specialization

Overhead allocation

Slow, batch, inventory

Fig. 13-2

TM 28


Takt Time Calculation Example:Over 10 Days

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10

Demand30

40

50

60

10

30

40

20

60

40

380

Time available in period (840 min.)

Average demand (38)= 22.1 minutes

Based on 2 shifts of 7 hours

Determine Pace

Per Day:

Fig. 13-3

TM 29


Fig. 13-4a

TM 30


Fig. 13-4b

TM 31


Fig. 13-5

TM 32


Fig. 13-6

TM 33


Fig. 13-7

TM 34


Fig. 13-10

average time between release an

cou

nt

dis

cs p

er

we

ek

87654321

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

S 13.1169R-Sq 30.7%R-Sq(adj) 28.2%

Regression95% CI95% PI

Fitted Line Plotcount discs per week = 50.57 - 5.229 average time between release an

TM 35


Fig. 13-11

Error Reduction Project Document Error Baseline

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

5858 324 85

Cross Outs Observations Discrepancies

Nu

mb

er o

f D

ocu

men

t E

rro

rs

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

SSF Mfg Documentation Errors 6267 Sum

% of Total Document Errors:

Cross Outs: 93%

Observations: 6%Discrepancies: 1%

TM 36


Fig. 13-12

Combined Origin or "Miss"

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

SME RedlineCreation

Tech Writing Parallel DocApproval

Doc OwnerReview

WordProcessing

Tech EditorReview

Tech Editing QACM SequentialApproval

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Errors, n=482 Sum

Document Development

TM 37


Fig. 13-13

Pareto of Customer Needs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pie

ces

of P

aper

Con

flict

ing

Inst

ruct

ions

Tot

al D

ata

Ent

ries

Com

mu

nica

tion

Rea

dab

ility

Tic

ket F

low

Tec

hnic

al c

onte

nt

Ver

ifier

Ste

ps

Tic

ket S

ize

Mul

tiple

Ver

sion

sR

equi

red

Doc

umen

ts

Atta

chm

ent

sC

ross

ref

eren

ces

Cal

cula

tions

Cam

paig

n S

tart

-Up

Labe

lmak

erS

pace

to r

ecor

d

Nov

aman

age

Sta

ffing

Fre

qu

ency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

cen

t

TM 38


Fig. 13-13a

p R p R p RComplexity Score 0.000 0.673 0.000 0.859 0.018 0.338Total data entries 0.000 0.632 0.000 0.829 0.093 0.242Total pages 0.000 0.618 0.000 0.925 0.006 0.385SOP/SR refs 0.000 0.617 0.000 0.748 0.001 0.457Operator Steps 0.000 0.611 0.000 0.868 0.010 0.366FNs to refer 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.773 0.018 0.336Total SOPs/SRs 0.000 0.584 0.000 0.699 0.005 0.399Other G-code 0.000 0.575 0.000 0.713 0.007 0.380Verifier steps 0.000 0.491 0.000 0.877 0.016 0.343Labeling steps 0.000 0.442 0.000 0.838 0.021 0.328Calculations 0.000 0.395 0.019 0.466 0.134 0.217Attachments 0.032 0.249 0.000 0.738 0.210 0.182Ver/Op 0.470 -0.085 0.748 -0.068 0.832 0.031

Combined Fermentation Recovery

TM 39


Fig. 13-14

Discrepancies per 100 TicketsJan 2003 to Nov 2004 with change in Process

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

# D

iscr

epan

cies

Errors/100 tickets

UCL = 18.11

UCL = 4.81

LCL = 2.41

Mean = 3.61

Process Change: Reduced variation and mean

Mean = 9.87

LCL = 1.64

TM 40


Fig. 13-15

Master Ticket Errors Per Month

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun Jul

Au

g

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun Jul

Au

g

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun Jul

2003 2004

Average: 49 master ticket errors

Average: 10 master ticket errors

TM 41


Fig. 14-1

TM 42


Fig. 15-2a

TM 43


Fig. 15-2b

TM 44


Fig. 15-2c

TM 45


Fig. 15-2d

TM 46


Fig. 15-2e

TM 47


Fig. 15-3

TM 50


Validate Measurement SystemAttribute Data Analysis – MSA 1

Sample # ExpertTry 1 Try 2 Try 1 Try 2 Try 1 Try 2

1 Blister Blister Blister Blister Blister Blister Blister2 Good Light Ed. Good Good Good Good Good3 Drip Drip Drip Dirt Dirt Drip Drip4 Dirt Contam Dirt Dirt Dirt Dirt Dirt5 Contam Contam Contam Good Good Over Run Over Run6 Blister Blister Blister Blister Blister Dirt Blister7 Good Good Good Good Good Good Good8 Dirt Light Ed. Contam Good Good Dirt Dirt9 Good Good Drip Dirt Good Drip Drip

10 Good Orange P. Good Good Good Good Good11 Dirt Dirt Good Dirt Dirt Dirt Dirt12 Good Contam Light Ed. Good Good Over Run Over Run13 Good Light Ed. Light Ed. Good Good Light Ed. Over Run14 Contam Contam Contam Good Good Good Good15 Drip Drip Light Ed. Dirt Good Drip Drip16 Light Ed. Light Ed. Light Ed. Good Good Good Good17 Dirt Contam Contam Good Dirt Dirt Dirt18 Dirt Contam Contam Dirt Dirt Dirt Dirt19 Blister Blister Good Good Blister Blister Blister20 Good Good Good Good Good Orange P. Orange P.

Operator 2 Operator 3Operator 1

Fig. 15-8

TM 1 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Readily Accessible Fast Retrieval Able to...

Documents

Transcript of TM 1 ©The McGraw/Hill Companies, Inc.,2006McGraw/Hill Readily Accessible Fast Retrieval Able to...