gt
@gtMember since November 2, 2001
was active Not recently activeForum Replies Created
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 18, 2007 at 11:48 pm #165027
thank you.,,,,,,,,
0November 18, 2007 at 8:54 pm #165021November 18, 2007 at 8:51 pm #165020thank i would appreciate any you thought worthy
0October 11, 2007 at 2:43 pm #162981You have to select a representative sample of the process output. As far as number of operators aqnd parts, sometimes you have to deal with what you can get. there certainly a way to get parts from previous runs. i’ve conducted R&R in all possible combination (low volumes, high volumes, non destructive, destructive, 1 to 3 ops, 1 to 3 repetition, 5 to 10 parts ). You have to think of the impact on the business too. (cost to conduct the study, time to conduct the study,…) would you wait 6 months to get a proper sample when you can assume you ship bad parts to customer?
key metric: number of categories. and standard deviation of the study-measurement system
0June 25, 2007 at 7:50 pm #157906u can start with 2.5 times average deviation of the demand
0June 1, 2007 at 8:13 pm #156834this is what i got
One-way ANOVA: results versus pates
Source DF SS MS F P
pates 2 1.0127 0.5064 18.24 0.000
Error 12 0.3331 0.0278
Total 14 1 .34580May 22, 2007 at 8:03 pm #156407Takt time should be as constant as possible , if not you will cause variation/unstability in the process. stability is key to a succesful implemantation of pull system. how u can stabilize is by creating supermarkets in the process (wip or finished goods) depending on the service level you want to have, the buffer size will vary.) excellent tool that can help you to determine where to put the buffers/supermarket is the VSM.
good luck0May 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm #156367overproduction means you produce more than what you need! Obviously sales are doing a great job of selling what has not been planned. Now, what is the impact on other products lead time? i don’t know but it certainly create some noise in a production environnement which is something we would look at first in order to fill out demand in a timely fashion. good luck
0April 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm #154501April 6, 2007 at 7:31 pm #154500do you want to compare two samples?
0April 24, 2006 at 8:55 pm #136776poka yoke
0March 3, 2006 at 3:36 pm #134610ss eye pock. Easier to fill out in a COPIS mode!
0April 25, 2005 at 3:23 pm #118386Please I would be very interested
0February 17, 2005 at 4:02 pm #115025What stat Info are you looking for? Please explain furtheron for more help on this…
0January 4, 2005 at 2:13 pm #113087OEE??
0May 31, 2004 at 10:39 am #100976You are absolutely correct Six Sigma does not inherently foster business and product innovation, but rather encourages efficient and defect free processes.Six Sigma, per se, is a process improvement methodology. True, I believe that it demonstrates a true return on investment when the solutions generated at the I stage are much better than they would have been at the D stage of DMAIC, which is nearly always the case, but that is often as far as it goes.Design for Six Sigma is a much miss-used approach that should extend Six Sigma to support the successful introduction of new products and services, but often degenerates into statistical optimization at the micro level.My own take on DfSS is that it should be integrated into the corporate New Product Introduction program (NPI) which begins in the board room. Here, corporate executives armed with a deeper understanding of the business process structure and performance, as well as greater knowledge of the customers needs and requirements (from applying Six Sigma across the company), outline new ideas for future products / services that will better meet corporate strategy, satisfy (even excite) customers, and make more money. The NPI program takes these new ideas to market, maximizing their potential returns. DfSS fits within NPI to make the actual design part work for everyone, including the customer. DfSS does not give a company new products or services, it helps them design them better! When working with DfSS I often find that companies do not have an NPI to start with, hence no new ideas, and DfSS is often used as a try this tool. New products / services are often also often derived from technology push rather than business / customer need pull. Many new products / services are actually just iterative technical improvements on existing ideas and lack fundamental innovation.To add innovation to our ideas and products we can use TRIZ, which is the one and only true innovation tool and principle available, and has traditionally been used by large corporation R&D departments. TRIZ can be fitted into Six Sigma, but probably works best in DfSS. The enlightenment in TRIZ is that inventive problems solve inherent contradictions. Much of DfSS (and even Six Sigma) is used to design or work around contradictions (such as speed and quality) rather than using TRIZ tools to innovate and solve the contradiction. Powerful stuff!To add innovation to our business we need to add an NPI program right up to the board room, based firmly on output from company wide Six Sigma understanding of business and customer. This will (hopefully) generate a customer needs pull. TRIZ also has much to say about technical evolution and market placement / development, which the modern business executive would do well to understand.Many companies today are in dying markets, and companies drop into a consolidation mode, attempting to wring the last drop of efficiency out of the business. The end is both inevitable and painful. The only way to make real money is to innovate successfully and continuously. McDonalds is based on a (at the time) brilliant innovation (that the current company bought up not thought up) to the way food is prepared and served in a restaurant. Customer expectations and market placement have shifted over the decades, and a new innovation is required to restore profitability in this market sector.Traditionally innovation is associated with boffins who are not good at business; there is a history of one person thinking of a great idea and someone else making money from it. The base point of the article (if you have read it and my comments carefully) is that innovation is a cultural thing, and Six Sigma is also a cultural thing, but that the two dont mix. To be creative we need to be wild and whacky (type A), to be good at business (save/make money) we need to be careful and restrained (type B). This is true, and is an excellent TRIZ contradiction to be solved! Many great companies are large, with a group of wild creative people over there, and a bunch of restrained accountants somewhere else we separate the conflict by space/person. Many great Six Sigma projects are wild and creative in the I stage, and show dignified restraint in the DMA stages (but go off the rails at the C stage shifting culture mid stream is hard work!). We separate the conflict by time. The painful DfSS projects are those with a bunch of type A and type B on the same project, or even worse, the Bs in the boardroom (basic idea) and the As on the team (told to make it work).What we need are individuals at all key points in a company who can exhibit both A thinking and B thinking according to time and need. We cannot make money just by innovating, and we cannot make money just by having efficient processes. We need both.Six Sigma is no longer enough. In the short term add TRIZ both the tools and the principles. In the longer term work at company culture to blend innovation and corporate governance into the same teams and ultimately the same people – the Black Belts for example – and then move these people up to the senior positions.
0February 18, 2003 at 2:41 am #83054I can only say that if Six Sigma and layoffs are thought of in the same notion, then the exec who is sponsoring it is killing the effort before it gets started. Unlike re-engineering, Six Sigma efforts – in transactional environments in particular – are highly dependant on workgroup interaction and the data a workgroup can gather. If employees feel insecure, the effort can encounter extreme political system resistance which can undermine the entire Six Sigma initiative. It would be in the best interest of the exec addresses this issue at the outset of deploying Six Sigma, otherewise the dog may be dead before he crosses the street.
0February 18, 2003 at 1:27 am #83050Pyzdek’s Six Sigma Handbook is the best one on the Market – in my humble opinion….
0May 23, 2002 at 6:10 pm #75703we have 50 models of A. 25 models of B
B is a component of A
we want to reduce number of different combinations! In other words, reduce the number of B
rgds0May 13, 2002 at 6:04 pm #75404For the green belts, QI macros (excel plug in )can do the job.
rgds0January 10, 2002 at 2:08 pm #71130You should get out of the way of that site.rgds
0December 7, 2001 at 3:40 pm #70431Not really, i want to know what to do in minitab with the parameters previously said
burn test
1 operator
minitab version 13.2
I’m aware of all the assumptions and so forth but with the parameters that i have, it looks like minitab doesn’t support this!
error message : you need more than one operator
thx0December 6, 2001 at 3:44 pm #70417coaching
training
strategic support
developping material
these are the functions in our facility
0November 29, 2001 at 4:20 pm #70256if they follow the methodology and are able to demonstrate at least one tool per phase, we consider it (should) SS project.
For the capital expenditure, for us that’s a recuirrent cost of a project
rgds0November 13, 2001 at 6:56 pm #6994599% good is 2.53 sigma long term, 3.83 short term
to help you:
use in excel:
norminv(.99,0,1)
wich is the std function we should use for normal distributed data. The .99 correspond to the yield, the other values come from the central limit theorem. To determine the z value or sigma of a certain process we have to use the z table wich comes from the normalization of the data to a normal distribution with a mean of zero and a std dev of 1
rgds0November 2, 2001 at 8:56 pm #69696That is a very challenging issue. You are facing resistance!!
There is 4 kinds of resistance:
psychological: human beeing hate to be change
ideological resistance: they beleive it will violate the fundamentals that have made the organization what it is
powerdriven resistance: afraid their powers will extinguish over time, they will lose selcontrol
cognitive resistance: it ain’t broken, why fix it?
It is part of the BB and MBB training in our organization: kinds of resistances and what to do. We link some actions to face it. Unfortunatly, the books on Six Sigma don’t treat a lot of the human aspect and this is probably the most challenging things in a project.
And also, very important, the initiative should flow from top to down. Otherwise, you may lose your time and hurt yourself.
rgds0November 2, 2001 at 8:56 pm #57916That is a very challenging issue. You are facing resistance!!
There is 4 kinds of resistance:
psychological: human beeing hate to be change
ideological resistance: they beleive it will violate the fundamentals that have made the organization what it is
powerdriven resistance: afraid their powers will extinguish over time, they will lose selcontrol
cognitive resistance: it ain’t broken, why fix it?
It is part of the BB and MBB training in our organization: kinds of resistances and what to do. We link some actions to face it. Unfortunatly, the books on Six Sigma don’t treat a lot of the human aspect and this is probably the most challenging things in a project.
And also, very important, the initiative should flow from top to down. Otherwise, you may lose your time and hurt yourself.
rgds0October 31, 2001 at 9:07 pm #69633the idea is to work with an assumption. As each part are destructed, we cannot conduct a second test. So when comes time to choose the parts, pick consecutive parts for one readings. i:e: 3 parts will represent the same part if you take 3 operators (that’s the assumption. we assume no change between these consecutives parts). Take 10 different (3 parts) sample and use minitab to study the R&R. In minitab, destructive testing is handled under nested gage R&R.
rgds0October 26, 2001 at 9:59 pm #69531Rules of thumb:
1% of the population should be BB
number of projects / BB / year =4
average savings per projects: 75k
rgds0October 25, 2001 at 1:03 pm #69489October 8, 2001 at 4:00 am #69141October 4, 2001 at 4:00 am #69095In my world to become a MBB. We have to accomplish 3 items of the following list:
1-completed 1 project and coach 4 agents projects
2 -completed 2 projects and coach 3 agents projects
3 -played a significant role in developping/delivering the training material
4-coach champions in all phases
5 -performed a leadership role in the developpement plan of the business
GT, MBB0September 28, 2001 at 4:00 am #68969Six Sigma:SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services
Gower ISBN 0-566-08374-4
Describes Six Sigma, specifically from a service/transactional approach, and includes case study examples from my own experience as an MBB at GE Capital in Europe. Covers business core process mapping, customer focus and analysis, practical implementation and other issues that are often a challenge for services companies undertaking Six Sigma.
I think that it is a great book, but then as the author I am naturally biased!
Geoff Tennant
0September 13, 2001 at 4:00 am #68679Welcome in the world of Six Sigma
You probably already have the easiest tool on earth to calculate process Sigma. Microsoft excel!!!
Also
1- z=((USL or LSL)-mean)/std deviation, the lowest will give you the process sigma
2- Another way, for the Dpmo long term to sigma short term conversion . Use this:
a=#defects
b=#units
c=# opportunities per unit
DPMO=(a/(b*c))*1000000:
Process Sigma short term:
=1.5-NORMSINV(DPMO/1000000)=
ex:defcts =25 units: 50 op=2 per unit
dpmo=(25/(50*2))*1000000= 250000 dpmo
=1.5-NORMSINV(250000/1000000)=2.17 Sigma
rgds
0July 19, 2001 at 4:00 am #67617you’re absolutely right (do some mathematics and that’s it!!!)I’ve seen a lot of companies doin that. It’s not right to do so cause the things we have to identify must be related to the CTS and not all the opportunities are related to what the customers really want. So…..
0June 29, 2001 at 4:00 am #67388With an answer like that, keep your name anonymous. Processes exist everywhere and lean is applicable everywhere. It is based on waste eliminating
0June 29, 2001 at 4:00 am #67387the initial question was: finding the $$$$. now what???
the only recommendation i can give you is to ask the customer of the process what does he want? you gonna have you’re spec limit and will be able to determine the process capability based on the number of parts that are coming out of the process. The rest of it, once you get the capability, is a piece of cake.
ciao0June 29, 2001 at 4:00 am #67380I fully agree with Guy, the efficiency is not really the sigma level of the process. How to find savings:
-the jumpo in sigma level means that you have defects that are no longer part of your process. What was the cost of reworking these defects?
-based on what the customer wants, if you are able to ship sooner the product, that represent a lot of money. if you work on a Profit and lost base, you should look at the increase in sales. If you work on a cash flow base its the value of the inventory that will decrease over time($$$$$).
-if you don’t lay off employee but are able to do the same job with less people (wich in my mind it is a way to better implement six sigma: don’t lay off employee means a strong committment from top management) these are process savings (probably soft costs as you mentionned).
-Look at the wip (work in process) . If you’re able to decrease the lead time you must see wip level melt like ice melts to the sun!!!! These are hard savings.
– you may want to look at the downtime cause by several causes (machinery per example) this is a maintenance cost reduction.
-think of all the supply that are needed to complete the task.
– and so forth
good luck
as you can see, there is a lot of savings behind an improvement of a cell efficiency0June 28, 2001 at 4:00 am #67367The lean brought us tools we can use in different phases of six sigma. i.e. poka yoke in the … phase, one piece flow in the …phase….These are tools we can use to reduce the leadtime and the defects in a process. Six sigma is a philosophy in wich we can use tools that will fit in the proper phase.
0June 28, 2001 at 4:00 am #67358It’s only a question of willingness and empowerment from the top management not a question of size!!!
0June 28, 2001 at 4:00 am #67345As a Master black belt, i strongly believe that six sigma is there to stay. We started the initiative in 97. Today we’re looking forward to train ,developp and give the tools to our suppliers so we can meet the customers expectations.
0June 28, 2001 at 4:00 am #67344Yes, in minitab we should use the nested option. In minitab, we can only conduct a test with more than one operator. What if (as we are a small business and there is only one operator conducting the tests)there is only one operator?
0June 22, 2001 at 4:00 am #67202Oops – should be 1,000,000 DPMO
0 -
AuthorPosts