Lps06 lquality

8/13/2018

LEAN QUALITY

GVC. ThS. Nguyễn Như Phong
; www.isem.edu.vn
Kỹ thuật Hệ thống Công nghiệp
ĐH BÁCH KHOA – ĐHQG TPHCM
(Tài liệu giảng dạy cho ISE)
2018

LEAN QUALITY










Lean quality
Lean quality framework
Complexity
Mistakes
Mistake Proofing
Variation
Six Sigma
Lean Six Sigma

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

1


8/13/2018

LEAN QUALITY


Perfection



The last of the 5 L principles
Goal covers



Quality
Delivery, flexibility, safety

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Lean quality


Toyota-L-temple 2 pillars



JIT
Jidoka –



11 April 2003

closely related 2 Q especially pokayoke
a mayor way of
 exposing waste &
 improving Q throung surfacing surfacing problems

Nguyễn Như Phong

2


8/13/2018

Lean quality


The 2 pillars mutually supportive


Improve Q  improve JIT performance



Improve JIT  improve Q







less disruption & smooth flow
Reduce batch size  faster detection & less rework
Pull sys – a Q tool
Layout influence Q  improved communication.

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Lean quality


Quality




One of 5 interrelated concepts

 Standard work, TPM, 5S, visibility.
Foundation stone 4 L stability

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

3


8/13/2018

Lean quality framework


Hinckley –


Perfection in Q approached in 3 ways


Reduction in complexity





in prod. & proc. design

Reduction of variation

Prevention & reduction of mistakes


Form part of Jidoka

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Lean quality framework


5 possible sources of problems 5 each approaches






Man,
Machine,
Material,
Methods,
MInformation

11 April 2003

Nguyeãn Nhö Phong

4

8/13/2018

Lean quality framework


Hinckley –


most effective order 2 tackle Q problems






Fist address the prod.,
then proc.,
finally related tools & equipment

within each category


First simplify,
Then mistake proof,



Finally 2 control variation





then convert adjustments 2 settings

Nguyeãn Nhö Phong

11 April 2003

COMPLEXITY


Complexity



both prod. & proc.
Prod. complexity





No. components
Difficulty of assembly

Proc. complexity




11 April 2003

No. operations
Difficulty of each operation

Nguyễn Như Phong

5


8/13/2018

Complexity


Hinckley – Boothroyd, Dewhurst


Prod. defect rate
 strongly related 2 assembly complexity

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Prod. Complexity


Methods
 QCC – Quality Control of Complexity
 DFSS – Design 4 Six Sigma
 GT – Group Technology
 DFx – Design 4 x

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

6


8/13/2018

Prod. Complexity


QCC
 Methods developed by Hinckley
 The frequency of mistakes increases




with increasing assembly complexity

QCC method





Constructing a tree diagram 4 assembling a prod.
Time required 2 complete the assembly estimated
Alternative designs evaluated based on time.

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Prod. Complexity


DFSS –



Design 4 Six Sigma
Defined set of steps – IDDOV








Identify –
Define
Develop

Optimize
Verify

Similar project organization

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

7


8/13/2018

Prod. Complexity




Identify – Define
 Clarify C & CNs
 Tools: Kano model, QFD
Develop
 Brainstorming & identification of alternatives &
evaluation
 Techniques:




TRIZ,
Pugh Analysis,
FMEA

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Prod. Complexity




Optimize
 Taguchi method 4 design & tolerance optimization
 DOE 4 parameter design
Verify
 How the prod. perform in the field
 Looking at the manu. proc. capability
 Conducting experiment on prototype & pilot tests
 Tools: PCA, SPC, Pokayoke

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

8


8/13/2018

Prod. Complexity


GT


Set of procedure




aimed at simplifying prod.s wo. compromising cust. choice

Identify similarities in function


to reduce prod. & proc. proliferation



First search a database 4 prod.s w. similar functions
Make selection from a predefined set



The dramatic impact



Various GT coding & classification sys









rather than unlimited choice
on part proliferation, inv, routing, quality
to assist both prod&proc designers

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Prod. Complexity


DFx





DFA - Design 4 Assembly
DFM - Design 4 Manufacture
Key set of techniques 4 lean processing simplicity

Impact time, cost, inv, quality

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

9


8/13/2018

Proc. Complexity



May independent from prod. complexity
Tools reduce proc. complexity








Part presentation
SOP
5S
Simplified material flows & layout
TPM

SMED
Visual control
Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

MISTAKES


The control-of-mistake toolbox





5S
SOP
Pokayoke
Self inspection





Operator performs an inspection
immediately after the manu step made

Successive inspection


11 April 2003

The next operator checks the previous step/steps
Nguyễn Như Phong

10


8/13/2018

Mistakes


Inspection




Sometime ridiculed - Error prone, waste time
Usually unsophisticated
Worthy of consideration







Immediate / short term feedback
High degree of reliability

Faster than SPC

Involve NVA time
Require good motivation & participation

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Mistake Proofing



Pokayoke
Shigeo Shingo





not invent
but developed & classified the concept

Martin Hinckley



significant contribution –
Make No Mistake!

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

11


8/13/2018

Mistake Proofing


MP device







simple, often inexpensive
prevent defect from being made
undertake 100% automatic inspection
stop /give warning when a defects discovered
not a control device
sense abnormalities & take action


when an abnormality identified

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Mistake Proofing


Shingo



Mistakes – inevitable
Defects –




result when a mistake reaches a cust.

Pokayoke –


11 April 2003

prevent mistakes becoming defects

Nguyễn Như Phong

12

8/13/2018

Mistake Proofing


Shingo




QC –
3 MPD types
Failsafe classification

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Mistake Proofing


QC – hierarchy of effectiveness
 Judgement inspection – inspector
 Informative inspection – SPC
 Source inspection – Pokayoke

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

13


8/13/2018

Mistake Proofing


3 MPD types


Contact



Fixed value







Make contact / physical shape - inhibit mistakes
Make it clear when parts missing / not used

Motion step


Automatically ensure correct no. steps taken

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Mistake Proofing


Failsafe classification
 5 areas




Process control model




Man, machine, material, method, info
input, process, output, feedback, result

All candidates 4 MP

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

14

8/13/2018

Mistake Proofing


Grout 

Areas for pokayoke considered








Worker vigilance required
Likely mis-positioning
Difficult SPC
Ext failure costs dramatically exceed IFCs
Mixed model & JIT production

Potential valuable process variance info lost
 inhibiting improvement

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Mistake Proofing


Hinckley - 5 mistake categories

Defective material,
2.
Information,
3.
Mis-adjustment,
4.
Omission,
5.
Selection errors
 Mistake proofing solutions & the most suitable
1.

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

15


8/13/2018

Mistake Proofing


Hinckley - 5 most useful MPDs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Guide pins,
Limit switch,
MP jigs,
Counter,
Checklist

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

VARIATION


Principle approach 4 variation reduction –



Foundation tools 4 variation limitation:











SS

TPM,
5S,
standard work,
CO reduction.

Tools 4 variation control:



SPC,
precontrol

11 April 2003

Nguyeãn Nhö Phong

16


8/13/2018

Variation




Low hanging fruit
 Before starting out on sophisticated SS program
 made reasonable progress w. 5S, visibility, SW, TPM.
SPC
 Good technique 4 variation monitoring & control
 Monitoring proc. not prod.
 Good & capable proc.  good prod.
 Not reliable 4 monitoring / controlling


at levels of 5/6 sigma, .1%

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

SIX SIGMA


SS




Derive from the spread of the normal distribution
SS performance – close 2 perfection
Structured problem solving methodology




11 April 2003

Reducing the no. defects
Reducing prod & proc variation

Nguyễn Như Phong

17


8/13/2018

Six Sigma


Starting point





Specific methodology: DMAIC





Belief in cross-function process
SIPOC model: Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer
Define – Measure – Analysis – Improve – Control
Similar to the Deming/Shewhart PDCA cycle

SS progresses on a PBP basis & process oriented



Fairly narrow proj
Cust requirement at an early stage

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Six Sigma


SS features


Bias toward data







Measuring proc variation
trying 2 narrow & shift the variation within the CR

Strong financial bias

Strongly based on statistics

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

18


8/13/2018

Six Sigma


GE SS key principles









Critical 2 Q

Defect
Process capability
Variation
Stable operation
DFSS

Driven by qualified people





Green belts
Black belts
Master black belts
Champions

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

My SS Case Studies in www.isem.edu.vn
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng q trình sản xuất cơng ty Scancom
VN. 2009. Nguyễn Thanh Xuân, Đoàn Đức Nghĩa. K2005,
K2004. Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng q trình sản xuất cơng ty
SeaBest. 2010. Nguyễn Tài Xuân, Trần Bảo Khánh.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng q trình sản xuất cơng ty may NBC.
2014. Đỗ Thành Trung. K2009.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng q trình sản xuất cơng ty Philips VN.
2014. Huỳnh Thanh Phong, Lưu Minh Tuấn. K2009.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng quá trình sản xuất công ty 3D Long
Hậu. 2015. Trần Thanh Phong. K2010.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình bằm gỗ tràm cơng ty CP Thúy Sơn.
2016. Nguyễn Văn Phú. K2010.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty Scancia Pacific. 2016. Dương Minh Toàn. K2012.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty Điện Quang. 2016. Nguyễn
Xuân Cư. K2012.

Friday, April 11, 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

19

8/13/2018

My SS Case Studies in www.isem.edu.vn
9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty May Nhà Bè. 2016. Hồng
Minh Cơng. K2012.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty CAN Sport. 2017. Phạm
Quang Anh Tuấn. K2012.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty Hoàng Nam. 2017. Ngụy
Viết Tiến. K2012.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty Trương Nguyễn. 2017.
Nguyễn Hồng Sơn. K2012.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến quy trình sản xuất cty gỗ Minh Dương. 2017. Lưu
Văn Nghĩa. K2011.
Ứng dụng Six Sigma cải tiến chất lượng quy trình sản xuất cty Lai Cung Én
Phúc Sang. 2018. Trần Minh Trí. K2011.

Friday, April 11, 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

LEAN & SIX SIGMA



Lean & Six Sigma: compete / emerge ?
Lean





Often tend 2 ignore variation
Less strong at detailed problem solving

Six Sigma



Not much about complexity / mistakes
Downplay the role of foundation lean techniques

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

20

8/13/2018

Lean & Six Sigma


Strong Deming connection


2 main themes
 Removal of waste  Lean
 Reduction of variation  SS

11 April 2003

Nguyeãn Nhö Phong

Lean & Six Sigma


to powerful & widely used approaches clashed & merged







Lean Sigma
Fit Sigma

SS plus
Power Lean
LSS
Quick Sigma

11 April 2003

Nguyeãn Nhö Phong

21


8/13/2018

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma



Fashionable integration
Dean & Smith, 2000:
“LeanSigma ustilizes SS & lean principles 2 reduce
both defects & lead time w. the speed of kaizen”.

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma


Lean Sigma projects


added






lean principles,
VS mapping,
kaizen methodology

produce result


11 April 2003

2-3 times faster than normal SS projects

Nguyễn Như Phong

22


8/13/2018

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma


Mike Wader (2000) – Lean Sigma programs


Lean used 2 remove waste & NVA activities
SS used to control the variation



Combining tools & data sets



Avoid the battle 4 funding bw. L& SS programs







within the value adding portion of the process.
to produce a comprehensive improvement program

Nguyễn Như Phong

11 April 2003

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma


Drickhamer (2002)


How the adoption of Lean techniques



prior to the application of SS projects
can provide real benefit.



11 April 2003

removing the elitist strain from SS
tackling the low hanging fruit w. Lean.

Nguyễn Như Phong

23


8/13/2018

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma
Area

Lean

Six Sigma

Objectives

Reduce waste,
Improve value

Reduce variation,
Shift variation inside CR

Framework

5 principles

DMAIC

Focus

Value Stream

Project / process

Improvement

Many small improvement.
Everywhere simultaneously

A small no. large proj.
One at a time

Typical goals

Cost, Quality,
Delivery, Lead time

Sigma level.
Money saving

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Integrating Lean & Six Sigma
Area

Lean

Six Sigma

People involved

Team led by Lean expert

BB supported by GB

Time horizon

Long term, Continuous

Short term. PBP

Tools

Often simple.
Complex 2 integrate

Complex statistical

Typical early
steps

Map the VS

Collect data on proc.
Variation

Impact

Large, system-wide

Individual proj.
Large saving

Prob. Root
causes

Via 5 Why

Via DOE

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

24


8/13/2018

Conclusions from LSS cases






Build on a firm foundation
 5S
 SW
Take waste out first
 especially low hanging waste
SS add a powerful dimension in traditional Lean areas
 especially 4 more complex issues

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

Conclusions from LSS cases


The rigor of SS training



likely 2 benefit many Lean improvement intitiatives
simply giving team members




added skill in data interpretation & analysis

Lean has much 2 say 2 SS during SS projects



VS analysis & deployment
Waste identification, SMED, pull, cell design, …

11 April 2003

Nguyễn Như Phong

25