Metrics That Trigger Actionable Discussions: Prioritize Process Improvements Using Gauge R&R and SPC Capability
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Metrics That Trigger Actionable Discussions: Prioritize Process Improvements Using Gauge R&R and SPC Capability by Govindarajan (Govind) Ramu If a typical process engineering review meeting at your organization involves engineers staring at scores of presentation slides and feeling overwhelmed, you may want to consider the metrics you’re using. High-level metrics like throughput yield and scrap may seem like logical choices for regular product reviews, and they are useful at a business level; however, they tend not to trigger actionable improvement discussion. In contrast, the same powerful tools that engineers use in their everyday product development and process management applications can have enhanced benefits when put to work for broader decision making about improvements. Integrating tools like failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R), and statistical process control (SPC) provides a quality improvement framework that organizations can use to monitor process health, prioritize improvements, and assign resources to actions that warrant most attention. Figure 1 shows how FMEA, GR&R, and SPC can be analyzed in the context of relationships between critical to quality (CTQ) and critical to process (CTP) parameters, leading to creation of a “process health card.” In eight steps, you can build your own process health card and begin using it at your engineering review meetings. With your focus strongly on metrics of practical interest to product and process engineers—GR&R results, SPC stability status, and the potential risk to the organization of rejecting good parts or accepting bad parts (misclassification) which impacts the organization’s cost of poor quality—you should find it easier to engage in the actionable discussions that the meeting should foster. Step 1: Identify CTQs and CTPs It is not unusual for the different product lines in any business unit’s portfolio to have many quality characteristics in common and others that are entirely unique. Defining and documenting quality characteristics for each product line is a crucial activity that should be the responsibility of cross- functional teams. First, assemble a team consisting of product line management; account management; and research and development, quality and manufacturing engineering, and customer representation. Where customer representation is not practical, the quality department, marketing, sales, or account manage- ment should provide support on behalf of the customer. This team is assigned with critical to quality (CTQ) characteristics identification. For the same product line, assemble a second team for the purposes of critical to process parameter (CTP) identification related to the CTQs. Include manufacturing, quality, equipment, and production engineers, and invite R&D engineers where applicable. It is beneficial to maintain the team members of R&D, quality, and manufacturing engineering from the CTQ team in the CTP identification exercise. The team assigned with the task of identifying the critical to quality characteristics should use resources like voice of the customer tables, customer surveys, scorecards, market needs, engineer- ing specifications, and contracts to identify basic and perceived requirements and delighters for the product. The team should further brainstorm any new expectations for the product. (This exercise will yield critical to quality characteristics that are both qualitative and quantitative, but this article focuses on the quantitative.) DECEMBER 2007 I WWW.ASQ.ORG I 1 Metrics That Trigger Actionable Discussions Figure 1. An Integrated Model for Quality Improvement This eight-step model begins with CTQ and CTP identification and leads to the creation of a process health card. Integrating tools like FMEA, GR&R, and SPC provides a quality improvement framework for monitoring process health, prioritizing improvements, and assigning resources. Step Step Step 3 FMEAF 6 SPCS 5 GR&RGR& IndentifyIdtif equipmente Establish Data query/retrieve severity, (real time, where possible) occurrence detection scales By process date? Validate data Plan GR&R By lot sequence? sequence experiment By measure date? Indentify process steps to perform FMEA Control chart Measure GR&R Measure Analyze data capability Cp/Cpk Indentify failure (if stable) modes, causes, effects, current Identify controls, & risks special causes (if not stable) Cp, Cpk Ye s Continue monitoring acceptable? stability and OCAP database Identify critical process capability process variables Estimate process performance indexes to monitor, Step NNo assign RPN 7 Summarize the Cp, Cpk, Pp, Step Develop Ppk, GR&R%, Step 4 control plan false acceptance, Prioritize improvement efforts (CTQ, CTP) false reject 8 CTQ vs. CTP matrix CTQ Step 1 2 3 1 P CT 1 2 Date Alpha/ GRR/CL CTQ NeNeedeed Drivers CTQs CTPs Date CL Cp/ Cpk/ Beta Next due 132 3 GRR* GRR% EST. LCLUCL Stability** Pp Ppk Risk% date 1 CustomeCtr P CT CTQ1 01/07 37% 01/07 20 24 NO 0.8 0.6 8/20 07/07 Needs Customer 2 Drivers I want . 3 CTQ2 01/07 8% 01/07 1.30 1.80 YES 0.9 0.88 3/8 07/07 VOC Product Product CTQs Step CTQ3 01/07 25% 01/07 15 18 NO 1.2 1.15 1/2 07/07 need CTP 0.03/ CTP1 01/07 7% 01/07 200 208 YES 1.3 1.25 07/07 Business CTQ CTP 2 0.07 Drivers CTQ CTP Business CTP2 01/07 12% 01/07 1.5 1.7 YES 1.00 0.92 4/11 07/07 Needs CTQ Process CTP Primary Needs CTP3 01/07 25% 01/07 1.7 2.0 NO 0.95 0.82 6/17 07/07 CTP Relationship CTQ Secondary Needs Significant Moderate Weak CTQ Te rtiary Needs General Specific Hard to measure Easy to measure Screening DOE Engineering Judgement 80 70 put 60 through 16 128 50 pieces od go 26 85 + 40 Process stage Relative Benchmark 30 Implementation Heat New process 19 21 + 20 3 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 3 34 35 3 3 3 39 40 41 4 43 4 45 4 47 4 49 50 5 52 * * 1 11 12 13 14 1 16 Cage * * – 17 25 – Week * Data omitted for special cause – Osculation + DECEMBER 2007 I WWW.ASQ.ORG I 2 Metrics That Trigger Actionable Discussions Next, the team assigned with Figure 2. Need-CTP Tree Diagram CTP identification starts a brain- storming discussion. The inputs Need DriversCTQs CTPs come from a combination of historical product knowledge, Customer experience with the product, Needs Customer quality tools like cause-and-effect Drivers I want . diagrams, and statistical meth- VOC ods like correlation and design of experiments. The output should Product CTQs be a set of CTPs for each CTQ. The need-CTP tree diagram in need CTP Figure 2 offers a helpful way to Business CTQ CTP Drivers represent this process visually. See CTQ CTP slide 9 of the accompanying pre- Business Needs sentation for a specific example. CTQ CTP Primary Needs Step 2: Create a CTQ-CTP CTP Relationship Matrix CTQ Secondary Needs CTQ Existing products under regular Tertiary Needs review should already have CTQs and CTPs identified, and rela- General Specific tionships between them should be understood. If you have not Hard to measure Easy to measure formally documented them, hold must recognize the appropriate failure modes and severity levels a brainstorming meeting to develop a relationship matrix. within their own industries and consider technology maturity levels, Figure 3 illustrates the concept of the relationship matrix; occurrence rates, and detection mechanisms in place. a detailed example appears in slide 11 of the accompanying To conduct the process FMEA: presentation. As you and your team identify a relationship between a • Identify the critical process flow of the product line CTQ and a CTP, collectively agree on the degree of that and hold a team brainstorming session to identify all relationship, classifying it as significant (triangle), moderate probable failure modes, causes, and interim and end (circle), or weak (square). Inputs come from a combination effects. of historical product knowledge, engineering judgment, • Document current controls as you would in standard experience with the product, quality tools like cause and FMEA practice. effect diagrams, and statistical methods like correlation and • Further develop the FMEA to include the severity, 1 design of experiments. occurrence, and detection ratings from your custom- For new products, you should be able to create the rela- ized scales. tionship matrix as you brainstorm and document CTQs and CTPs for the first time. Make sure CTQ identification involves • Calculate risk priority numbers (RPNs) by multiplying strong customer representation, and CTP identification relies the severity, occurrence, and detection ratings. on stronger engineering representation. • Prioritize risks based on RPN values. Although you will want to use severity, occurrence, and Step 3: Conduct a Process FMEA detection scales that have been developed for your industry, you should resist the temptation to customize further for Creating customized severity, occurrence, and detection scales for the nature of your business or industry can make a difference Figure 3. CTQ-CTP Relationship Matrix 2 for the overall effectiveness of your process health card. A common CTQ tendency among quality practitioners in every industry is trying 1 2 3 For practical reasons, let us consider the to use the severity, occurrence, and detection scales provided by 1 coefficient of determination . the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). One size does Strong: ≥0.8 CTP not fit all. The scale description and occurrence rate works for the 2 Moderate: 0.6-0.79 automotive industry and its ancillaries. It may not work well for Weak: 0.3-0.59 3 wafer fabrication or biomedical industries. Quality professionals Ignore less than 0.29. DECEMBER 2007 I WWW.ASQ.ORG I 3 Metrics That Trigger Actionable Discussions different product lines within that industry.