MSE 617 Seminar in Quality Assurance & Management

Team F includes:

Dhruv, Rijul

Habibi, Shayaan

Kalantari, Mahram

Ravinder Singh

Al-Doukhi, Murtadha

Professor:

LUIS ECHEVERRIA

California State University - Northridge

*The Manufacturing unit consists of four teams A, B, C and F

*Our main concentration is to detect a defect trend from our

data related to workstation F

*Our manufacturing flow consists of:

Machine Shop (Internal Supplier)

Plant out of State (Internal Supplier)

Paint Shop (Internal Supplier)

External Suppliers

F4 F3 F2 F1 A1

C6 C5

TEAM F

Machine

Shop (MS)

Plant out of

shape (OR)

Paint shop

(PS)

External

Suppliers (V)

Data Selection

Data sorting

Analysis based on Pareto charts

Corrective action plan

Assumptions:

1. The data under consideration is not subject to change.

2. The cost of execution corrective action plan doesn’t influence our

conclusion.

3. Type N/A in the charge back column pertains to the defects in the same

workstation.

Breakdown of data into four major workstations F1, F2, F3, F4

Total Number of Defects in Team F Workstation (internal)

Workstati

on

Total

defects

% %

cumulative

F1 1078 71% 71%

F2 416 27% 98%

F3 10 1% 99%

F4 21 1% 100%

Total 1525 100%

1078

416

10 21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

F1 F2 F3 F4

TOTAL DEFECTS

% CUMULATIVE

Total number of defects in F due to external charge backs

Workstation Defects Charged

back

(external)

Total

F1 1078 1 1079

F2 416 12 428

F3 10 7 17

F4 21 0 21

Total 1525 20 1545

The total numbers of defects due to external charge backs are

negligible

Maximum defects were found at the workstation F1 with charge

back N/A (internal defects)

Hence, our entire concentration would be to work on

workstation F1 and plan corrective action to reduce the defects.

Months

Work Station

F1

Workstation

F2

Workstation

F3

Workstation

F4 Total F

JAN 314 212 4 4 534

FEB 370 122 3 4 499

MARCH 394 82 3 13 492

TOTAL 1078 416 10 21 1525

314

370 394

212

122

82

4 3 3 4 4 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

JAN FEB MARCH

Work Station F1

Workstation F2

Workstation F3

Workstation F4

Workstation F1 is

a major

contributor of

defects in March

2003.

Our further

analysis will

include the

breakdown of data

to reduce

maximum defects

in March 2003.

CHARGE

BACK

JAN FEB MARCH Total %

cumulat

ive

F1(N/A) 69 54 106 229 21.24

F2 35 75 86 196 39.42

PS 29 97 28 154 53.71

V 66 8 63 137 66.42

A1 37 24 12 73 73.19

C1 7 36 10 53 78.11

B1 18 16 15 49 82.65

C6 9 9 24 42 86.55

A2 20 2 13 35 89.80

DS 0 11 15 26 92.21

MS 3 20 2 25 94.53

C2 14 3 3 20 96.38

T 1 7 1 9 97.22

F3 0 1 6 7 97.87

B2 1 0 5 6 98.42

C3 2 3 1 6 98.98

A3 2 2 1 5 99.44

B3 1 1 1 3 99.72

C4 0 0 1 1 99.81

PD 0 0 1 1 99.91

F4 0 1 0 1 100.00

TOTAL 314 370 394 1078

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

F1(…

F2

PS V

A1

C1

B1

C6

A2

DS

MS

C2 T F3

B2

C3

A3

B3

C4

PD F4

JAN

FEB

MARCH

Monthly charge back analysis by F

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total

% cumulative

Overall charge back – F1

Workstation F1 has the maximum of internal defects N/A that were identified within the team.

Based on the result, we breakdown the charge backs for the month of March.

106

86

28

63

12 10

15

24

13 15

2 3 1 6 5

1 1 1 1 1 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Charge back - March

MARCH

The internal defects are

again higher for the month

of March.

Therefore, we concentrate

extensively on defects

found in F1 which further

strengthens our decision

towards accurate corrective

action plan.

DEFECT CODE JAN FEB MARCH DEFECTS %

cumulative

B 98 86 116 300 27.80

E 66 87 61 214 47.64

H 19 30 64 113 58.11

K 10 47 56 113 68.58

C 11 65 22 98 77.66

D 21 23 29 73 84.43

R 60 0 0 60 89.99

X 6 1 23 30 92.77

J 8 5 11 24 95.00

F 2 19 2 23 97.13

M 8 7 5 20 98.98

A 5 0 6 11 100.00

TOTAL 314 370 395 1079

300

214

113 113 98

73 60

29 24 23 20 11

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

B E H K C D R X J F M A

DEFECTS

Overall family of defects – F1

The family of defect B is causing the maximum number of defects viz. 300 in

workstation F1.

We further breakdown the family of defect code B to find out which family

code is a major contributor overall as well as in the month of March.

Defect Code Jan Feb March Total %

Cumulative

B05 22 18 65 105 35%

B02 17 30 27 74 60%

B01 23 0 14 37 72%

B08 2 23 1 26 81%

B10 9 8 4 21 88%

B04 12 0 0 12 92%

B06 3 5 1 9 95%

B07 5 2 2 9 98%

B03 5 0 2 7 100%

Total 98 86 116 300

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

B05 B02 B01 B08 B10 B04 B06 B07 B03

March

Jan

Feb

105

74

37

26 21

12 9 9 7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

B05 B02 B01 B08 B10 B04 B06 B07 B03

Total

% Cumulative

B05 family defect code is

responsible to cause the

maximum defects overall.

It is also the highest in the

month of March.

UNIT

S/N

JAN FEB MARCH TOTAL

DEFECT

S

%

Cumulativ

e

165 0 42 133 175 16.23

277 0 56 103 159 30.98

272 65 49 0 114 41.56

275 27 60 27 114 52.13

166 0 22 88 110 62.34

274 15 80 0 95 71.15

164 28 61 0 89 79.41

162 83 0 0 83 87.11

163 55 0 0 55 92.21

276 41 0 0 41 96.01

167 0 0 22 22 98.05

278 0 0 13 13 99.26

168 0 0 7 7 99.91

279 0 0 1 1 100.00

TOTAL 314 370 394 1078

133

103

0

27

88

0 0 0 0 0

22

13 7

1

42

56 49

60

22

80

61

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

65

27

0

15

28

83

55

41

0 0 0 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

165 277 272 275 166 274 164 162 163 276 167 278 168 279

MARCH

FEB

JAN

175 159

114 114 110 95 89 83

55 41

22 13 7 1

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

165 277 272 275 166 274 164 162 163 276 167 278 168 279

TOTAL DEFECTS

% Cumulative

Unit number 165 not only has

maximum number of defects

overall but also during the 3

month period (Jan 2003-March

2003) with the highest in March

2003.

Working towards Job number F1-07 will

help us reduce the maximum number of

defects

134

119

104

86 84 78

55

45 44 43 40 36

30 27 25 22 19 12 10 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 4 3 2 2 1 1

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160F1-0

7

F1-1

0

F1-1

9

F1-1

3

F1-1

8

F1-1

4

F1-2

0

F1-1

2

F1-1

1

F1-0

1

F1-0

9

F1-0

8

F1-0

5

F2-0

2

F1-0

6

F2-0

1

F1-0

3

F1-1

7

F1-0

2

F2-1

3

F2-1

7

F1-0

4

F2-0

9

F2-1

6

F1-1

5

F1-1

6

F2-0

4

F2-0

7

F2-0

5

F2-1

0

F2-1

9

F4-0

2

TOTAL DEFECTS

% Cumulative

Overall analysis of Job number – F1

Group Jan Feb March Total defects %

cumulative

Operations 243 324 312 879 81.54

External supplier 66 8 63 137 94.25

Engineering 1 18 16 35 97.50

Internal supplier 4 20 3 27 100.00

Total 314 370 394 1078

Operations Group is the highest

potential root cause of total number

of defects in the workstation F1

during the period of Jan 2003 –

March 2003.

879

137

35 27

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

OPERATIONS EXTERNALSUPPLIER

ENGINEERING INTERNALSUPPLIER

TOTALDEFECTS

%cumulative

243

66

1 4

324

8 18 20

312

63

16 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

OPERATIONS EXTERNALSUPPLIER

ENGINEERING INTERNALSUPPLIER

JAN

FEB

MARCH

Total Defects: Team F constitutes of 1525 defects out of which 1078 are contributed

by workstation F1.

Charge backs: Internal charge backs N/A maximum for workstation F1

Monthly Defects: Maximum numbers of defects caused in Jan 2003. However, F1

contributes 80% of defects (394/492) in March 2003 as compared to 59% of defects

(314/534) in Jan 2003. Therefore, team decided to concentrate on March 2003 data.

Family defect code: B was found to cause maximum number of overall defects.

Further breaking down the defect code B resulted in family defect code B05 to cause

the maximum number of defects overall as well as in March 2003.

Unit S/N: 165 accounted to maximum number of defects when the data was broken

down even more.

Job no.: F1-07 causing maximum defects.

Group: Operations group is the one that is causing the maximum defects. Hence

improvement is needed on that group.

Therefore, Focusing on workstation F1 especially for the month of March 2003 with

charge backs N/A (internal defects), family defect code B05, Unit S/N 165, Job No.

F1-07 and group of Operations, Team F would be able to reduce the maximum

number of defects.

The corrective action plan will be done using the

Plan-Do-Check-Act problem solving technique.

A thorough inspection team should be at place to

keep internal defects in F1 at the minimal.

It is very important for team F since it is the last

team in the manufacturing flow and the final output

of production maybe input to customers in the

form of finished goods.

Placing a very strong quality team (quality

engineers, inspectors, etc.) to strengthen the quality

process to achieve ‘zero defects’.

Pilot test the model to identify any technical issues

and make changes as necessary in order to reduce

defects generating from family code B05.

Hold brainstorming sessions and organize team

meetings with all the members that were responsible for

Job no. F1-07 as maximum defects had occurred while

performing the job.

Analyze and refine current tools and processes and

ensure that equipments are up to date with proper

calibration thereby reducing machine wear and

maintenance issues.

Employee training and seminars to be provided to

refresh quality control standards and deliver high quality

products.

An improved quality plan in place which includes any

process, procedure or system changes requirement and

any monitors or controls necessary to prevent

recurrence of the problem.

Once the above corrective actions are implemented to

improve the efficiency of team F, we would

continuously monitor the process to make sure there is

continuous improvement according to the PDCA cycle.

Continuous Improvement

Workstation F1 needs the most improvement due to high

number of defects.

The suggested corrective action plan will improve each area

assessed in workstation F1.

As per our recommendation, the next or alternate

corrective action would be to concentrate on maximum

defects occurring from other workstations too (especially

F2) to improve overall efficiency and quality performance

of team F.

With potential utilization of all the statistical tools and

problem solving techniques we believe that the ideal quality

aim of ‘zero defects’ can be achieved.