Does any black belt meet this situation? The problem is the process

[jackylpt]

Hi there,

I read some articles about the six sigma project. All of them said they achieved the goal which they set before.

My question is is there any black belt meet this situation?
1. After analyses, you find the problem is the process, I means the problem is your old machine and equipment. It is proved you can not get improvement if you do not exchange to modern equipment. But the your economic condition can not allow company buy new one. Does this means this project is failure?
2. When doing analyses step of six sigma project, or DFSS, you have to do trials to optimize process. I wonder those trials will affect our regular work if we have only one assembly line or machine, such as produce the defect and delay the regualr work or even get complaint.

Is there any black blet meet those situations and how to deal with it?

thanks

Michael

[Denis]

If the machine or process which is old , or just not capable - well the aim of the improvement task should be to optimise the present machines performance to make an improvement.

Without the capital expenditure the only method of continual improvement will lead to the optimisation of the machine. This would be the output of the improvement task.

Perhaps a stepped plan for further investment would also demonstrate possible cost effective improvements.

Initial trials may need to be implemented and the disposition of the product should be reviewed pending the results. Look at it this way, its an investment which may need to be written, include it in your project objectives and get everyone's agreement that the trials are simply that.
you will need to decide on the disposition in house, that way you are controlling the product conformity.

[CristiánC]

Hi Michael!

Let me add my 5 cents to your questions.


1.- My recomendation usually is "do not end with only one action to solve the problem". If the recomended action plan, after all the analysis is just "change the old equipment and buy a new one", then management will have a problem.
Try to set up several possible actions, listed in decreasing order of "expected" effectiveness, for example:

Buy a new one -> problem eliminated (100% effectiveness expected).
Buy new core components -> substantial reduction.
Buy spare parts -> small improvements.
etc.

In my opinion, by doing this, you will give to your manager more elements to decide what to do and in what sequence. By viewing in this way, the project deadline must be extended, considering that the expected investments will be be considered in budget for the next quarter/year/etc. This is better than to assume a "project failure".

Last but not least: If no new equipment is possible in short/medium term, then your current equipment is the best you have, so it will be wise to go back to the measure/analysis phase and try to find another way!


2.- Yes. The facts that you pointed, are natural consequences of the design of experiments. Every project has a cost. Cycling time and ppm defectives may be affected during the experiment. Good management and supervision can handle this. On the other side, remember that each experiment is giving you knowledge of the process being studied. Reach an equilibrium between them.

Hope this helps!

[Craig H.]

Michael:

I am not a black belt, but may I suggest that you might be able to get around the economic limits by showing that a new machine can pay for itself by being more efficient? Do you have costs for scrap, for example, or other operating expenses that could/would be reduced with new equipment? If so, there might still be a case if you can show that the equipment will pay for itself within, say, a year. Maybe your accountants can help?

Now, the caveat. If you do choose to do this, please make sure your numbers are rock solid. For instance, are there operating expenses that will be higher for the new equipment? The worst thing, well almost the worst thing, that could happen is being seen as selling what turns out to be a bad, expensive, decision.

Just a thought.

[Jim Howe]

Well, I am NOT a black belt either and neither is our maintenance man who argues about machione replacement vs. repairs all the time. Do we continue to pump money into and old machine or is there a line in the sand that will cause management to make some capital investment? Where does SS enter this equation? These decisions have been made for many, many years without SS. In most industries top management allocates a certain amount of $$ for repair and another amount for replace and they have been doing it for a long time without SS. My point is simply to keep it in perspective.

[jackylpt]

guys, thank you so much for your kind suggestion and opinions.

[db]

I would not say it is a failure. If you look at the DMAIC structure, you will find in many cases your Analysis stage may result in situations where the process will stop. The failure would be if you attempted to move to Improve, when nothing could be improved. However, keep the data, and the analysis. It might come in handy for a couple of reasons.

1) You might be able to find some ways to externally affect the process that would mitigate much of the process shortcomings.
2) It could come in handy as part of a later ROI analysis support new equipment.