iSixSigma

DC

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #184064

    DC
    Participant

    Gary,Thanks, but my containment action is to dip the pins in masking and bake it before running the boards. The splashes never stick with the masking, so if I’m going to pursue EVOP, then I can’t insulate the customer.Your comments regarding understanding the physics of soldering are spot on, and I agree with Chad. This, however, has been no small undertaking. Meanwhile, I’ll look at using the binary regression approach as well as time between failures, as long as I can continue to find ways to get the biggest bang for my buck with these DOE’s so that I don’t cost the company a bunch of money to prove this improvement.Thanks Gary.

    0
    #184063

    DC
    Participant

    Nice Chad, now just make a copy of this in word and you can post it every week when someone asks this question. Did you really type all that…do your fingers feel redundant?I’m personally starting to think that if you can’t even take the time to look for threads that answer these questions before posting it, then you probably don’t have the research skills nor the initiative to be successful with six sigma.okay, I’m just jaded and cranky tonight, but honestly, how many times has this subject been discussed on here?!?!

    0
    #184056

    DC
    Participant

    Eric, While I see the merit in your thinking, I have but one recurring thought. In a mentor role, I think this approach would work great with BB’s candidates, but question the validity of your premise regarding GB candidates. BB candidates tend to be more self-motivated to handle the challenges and many failures it will take to tackle the LeanSS learning curves, then again, they are hand-picked because they have shown interest and sustained initiative (already challenges your argument). However, the real challenge comes with GB’s where I often feel like I’m force-feeding the material, constantly reminding of tollgates, and holding hands more than should be required.Perhaps this is just natural selection at work.In any case, I used to be more optimistic, along the lines of what your article states, but I believe the reality to be different. I don’t know that I agree your approach will instill intrinsic motivation. However, those who show interest and promise should definitely be offered this path…..just my two cents.

    0
    #184055

    DC
    Participant

    Velcro works best, but doesn’t hold up well in extreme weather conditions. I would suggest a combination of duct tape and crazy glue to reinforce the velcro, possibly even investigate multiple methods and products to increase adherence. I would be sure to approach any experiments one factor at a time — what the heck, us taxpayers will cover the tab.:>)

    0
    #184051

    DC
    Participant

    Gary, While I admittedly have a limited knowledge of EVOP, let me throw this out there. I have a containment process that eliminates these defects even though it negatively impacts cycle time and manufacturing costs. In using EVOP, wouldn’t I be opening up myself to possible customer defects and internally impacted DPMO metrics just to run this experiment. These splashes require a microscope to see, so you are suggesting that I weigh the cost of non-comformance against the cost of containment to decide which approach to use, and then use both outputs to verify my optimization? Is that correct?

    0
    #184049

    DC
    Participant

    Chad, Great insight. I actually agree with you in your take, but one of my pre-treatments was baking to remove all moisture from the pwb. Of course, I’m then sending the board into a vapor, and as far as I can ascertain, these “mini-explosions” are typical in this process. You point is very well taken, however, I am thus far confined to the inputs I have, and have taken the step to order pre-fluxed preforms in order to eliminate the variation that comes with manually applying a catalyst. To push for a process that involves using something other than preforms may be requiring the manufacturing processes to change so much that the costs incurred might exceed even that of having these outsourced. And then, there’s no guarantee that the supplier will be any better than me and my SS tools!! Ha, just a little self-indulgence if you don’t mind, lol.

    0
    #184048

    DC
    Participant

    Okay, let the true debate begin!I have three options, although I admit that I’m a little frustrated with myself for not thinking of time between failures as an option for continuous output data.Here’s what I would like to see debated, keeping in mind that each failure is a defect that is scrap.What is the best way to handle this situation? By the way, I’m not excluding one for another, and multiple approaches can be tried, although for the sake of argument, you must choose one of the following options and defend your choice.My options are as follows, so which one will provide the best data for process improvement with the least amount of cost to the company?1. EVOP (Keep in mind that I still have failures that induce scrap, so it’s not like I have a six sigma process with a window of acceptable output)2. Use mean time between failures as the continuous data to continue experimenting as I have been. (keep in mind the challenge of overcoming variation in my results due to production requirements, machine maintenance, etc., which I would normally block)3. Binary Logistic Regression (keep in mind that my output might not always binary, but count)I’m actually very interested in hearing your defenses for the options you view as most effective, just as much as I am interested in resolving my problem.

    0
    #184013

    DC
    Participant

    Chad, a failure in this case is a solder splash. This is a vapor phase process. The previous DOE’s have been targeted at flux type, flux application, recipe optimization and pre-process treatments. The solder type itself cannot change (Sn37Pb63). These splashes are evident on gold pins which are being soldered through the pwb. Unfortunately, the solder joint itself is left with no defect (ie. blowholes, pinholes, dewetting, etc.) I believe the actual defect is being created while the reflow is occuring, and since there are no other residual effects, all I have to measure is the splashes. Last note, they cannot be reworked, so they are scrapped when the defect occurs. I’m mentioning this because this eliminates options I have of doing large DOE’s over long periods of time…too much cost.In any case, I feel I’m knocking on the door to success, but I’ve got this last barrier to break. Ugh.Hope the info wasn’t too technical, and I’m confident in my factors and approach (not that I don’t value your opinion), so I guess my real question is how to optimize using a DOE when I have count data with a hard lower limit and increasing results to that limit as I improve the process. Ironically, I think I may have accidentally made a prophetic statement when explaining my results to some of leadership today….something like “the danger of Lean Six Sigma champion training is that it often creates the expectation that these tools and this approach will, in theory, solve all the problems. When in reality, six sigma tools, like Lean tools, will have their greatest impact in improving and optimizing the processes” For this process, my success is only defined as zero failures: No splashes, so maybe I’m just making excuses for myself, lol.Sorry to ramble.

    0
    #94243

    DC
    Participant

    Dear Eds,
    I am currently going through GB training at my company.  I have a max. of 18 months to complete two 6 Sigma projects demonstrating my abilities to use the tools, save my company 100K, and pass a comprehensive exam.  Hope this helps.
    DC

    0
    #88417

    DC
    Participant

    I agree with Stan.  Even those with P.h.d’s in statisitcs should not claim they are Six Sigma Black Belts.  Any legitimate certifications require not only a firm knowledge of the statistics and project managment skills involved, but also the completion of a certain number of large projects using the Six Sigma methodology (and a large number of the tools).
    If you are not trying to teach Six Sigma to a company, I don’t believe it would be very beneficial.  It may cause more headaches than it’s worth if the company knows anything about Six Sigma.  They would probably ask you who certified you…What were your certification requirements…How long have you had your certification, etc. 

    0
    #87030

    DC
    Participant

    I sense a bit of bitterness.  I would imagine that stems from some sense of insecurity.  This is usually the result of some sort of inadequacy for which you are trying to compensate.  (possibly little personal success in Six Sigma?)  This is given greater credence from the fact that you hide behind names that give no hint of who you truly are?
    I noticed the sprinkling of Latin in your posting.  We could have this discussion in Spanish or Portuguese instead of English (if you’d like).  In response to your question of whether the savings were mine or part of a larger Six Sigma group…they were mine.  The larger group obtained savings of just over 8 million (including my savings).
    If you are truly interested in learning more about these savings, I would be more than happy to e-mail details to you.  Maybe you can leverage the project(s) and help to satisfy that sense of inadequacy.  If I am off the mark perhaps you can enlighten us with a few accomplishments of your own…

    0
    #84971

    DC
    Participant

    I have had companies as well as headhunters ask about certification.  I think it should be in addition to rather than instead of certification by your own company. 
    This is only because it is a standard body of knowledge from which everyone can benchmark.  There are many companies out there that are certifying Black Belts that probably really shouldn’t be qualified.

    0
    #84288

    DC
    Participant

    I agree with the others in that you have a solution looking for a problem. Justifying training is a business issue, but not a six sigma problem per se.Metrics for training?Recommend researching Kirkpatric who basicly recommended four levels of evaluating training
    1) Reaction – Satisfaction ratings on feedback sheets using the Lykert scales.2) Learning – Quantified as the improvement between pre-test and post-test results.3) Behavior – Assessed through observation made of the individuals once they return to their job.4) Results – Comparing the effect training had on specific metrics before and after training (ie. increased production, lower repair rates, fewer customer complaints, etc.)Robinson & Robinson later added a fifth level5) ROTI (Return on Training Investment) – Value added by the investment in training. (e.g. Mickey D’s investing in 40 hours of indoctrination of brown pattie flipping, sandwhich construction, and making special sauce special, as compared to straigt greasy spoon make it any ol’ way Mom ‘n Pop’s OJT) Micky’s thinks it pays in the long run … that quantified return is the return on training investment.

    0
    #74788

    DC
    Participant

    This is a popular excel file!  Could I get a copy?
    [email protected]
     
    Thanks!

    0
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)