6S标准培训教材PPT课件

Slide Title,Body Text,Second Level,Third Level,Fourth Level,Fifth Level,6,Overview,Six Sigma:,- A Definition,- Applied to GE,- GE Quality Initiative,- Why This Approach?,- Origin of Six Sigma,- The “Breakthrough Strategy”,- Arriving at Sigma,Six Sigma Structure,Key Concepts & Tools,A Practical Example,An Overview.Not a lot of Details!,6,Overview,“,Six Sigma”,If we cant express what we know in the form of numbers,we really dont know much about it.,If we dont know much about it, we cant control it.,If we cant control it, we are at the mercy of chance.,Mikel,J. Harry,President & CEO,Six Sigma Academy, Inc.,A Rigorous Method for Measuring & Controlling Our Quality,“.,will bring GE to a whole new level of quality in a fraction of the,time it would have taken to climb the learning curve on our own.”,John F. Welch, Jr.,1995 GE Annual Report,6,Overview,What Does “Sigma” Mean?,Sigma is a Measure of the Consistency of a Process,It (,is Also the 18th Letter in the Greek Alphabet!,Why Does GE Need A Quality Initiative?,GE Raising The Bar,New Goal to be “Best in the World” vs. #1 or #2,Customers are Expecting More, we Must Deliver,“Ship-and-fix” Approach no Longer Tolerated in the Market,Aim to Speed Past Traditional Competitors in 5 Years,Goal Consistent with Reduced Total Costs,We Must Acknowledge Our Vulnerabilities,Poor Quality That Impacts Customers,Problems with NPI,Too High Internal Costs,6,Overview,We Need a Major Initiative to Move From,Where we Are to Where we Want to be,6,Overview,Why Does GE Need A Quality Initiative?,40%,35%,30%,25%,20%,10%,15%,5%,Cost of Failure (% of Sales),Defects per Million,3.4,233,6210,66,807,308,537,500,000,Sigma,6,5,4,3,2,1,Estimated Cost of Failure in US Industry is 15% of Sales; Taking,GE From a 3,to a 6,Company Will Save $10.5 Billion per Year!,Why “Six Sigma”?,Proven Successful in “Quality-Demanding” Industries e.g.,Motorola, Texas Instruments (many process steps in series),Proven Method to Reduce Costs,Highly Quantitative Method Science and Logic Instead of Gut Feel,Includes Manufacturing & Service (close to customer) and Provides Bridge to,Design for Quality,Concepts,Has Support and Commitment of Top Management,It Works!,6,Overview,Sigma,3,4,5,6,Spelling,Money,Time,1.5,Misspelled Words,per Page,in a Book,1,Misspelled Word,per 30 Pages,in a Book,1,Misspelled Word in,a,set of Encyclopedias,1,Misspelled Word in all,of the,Books in a Small,Library,$2.7,Million,Indebtedness,per $1 Billion in Assets,$570,Indebtedness,per $1 Billion in Assets,$63,000,Indebtedness,per $1 Billion in Assets,$2,Indebtedness,per $1 Billion in Assets,3 1/2,Months,per Century,2 1/2,Days,per Century,30,Minutes,per Century,6,Seconds,per Century,6,is Several Orders of Magnitude Better Than 3,!,Sigma: A Measure of Quality,6,Overview,Where Does “Six Sigma” Come From?,Mikel,J. Harry one of the Original Architects,Previously Headed Quality Function at ABB and Motorola,Now President/CEO of Six Sigma Academy in Phoenix, Arizona,Has Consulted for Texas Instruments, Allied Signal (and others),Currently Retained by GE to Teach the Implementation,Deployment and Application of Six Sigma Concepts & Tools,Learning from Those Who Have had Success,With 6,Will Accelerate its Implementation at GE,6,Overview,So.,What,is Six Sigma?,A Measurement System,A Problem-Solving Approach,A Disciplined Change Process,“,THE SIX SIGMA BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY”,M,easure,A,nalyze,I,mprove,C,ontrol,6,Overview,How,Do We Arrive at Sigma?,Measuring & Eliminating Defects is the “Core” of Six Sigma,Measurement System,Identify the,CTQs,Look for,Defects,in,Products or,Services,“,Critical to Quality”,Characteristics or,the Customer,Requirements for a,Product or Service,Count,Defects,or failures to,meet,CTQ,requirements in,all process steps,Define,Defect,Opportunities,Any step in the,process where a,Defect,could occur,in a,CTQ,Arrive at,DPMO,Use the,SIGMA,TABLE,Convert,DPMO,to,Sigma,Defects Per Million,Opportunities,2,3,4,5,6,308,537,66,807,6,210,233,3.4,PPM,Defects per,Million of,Opportunity,Sigma,Level,6,Overview,Measurement System,2,3,4,5,6,308,537,66,807,6,210,233,3.4,PPM,SIGMA,LEVEL,DEFECTS per,MILLION,OPPORTUNITY,IRS Tax Advice,Best Companies,Airline Safety,Average Company,GE,Airline Baggage,Doctors Prescription,Restaurant Bills,Average Company in 3,to 4,Range,Some Sigma “Benchmarks”,6,Overview,Measurement System,A Graphic/Quantitative Perspective on Variation,Average Value,Many Data Sets Have a Normal or Bell Shape,Number of,People,Arriving,at CRD,Time,7:00,7:15,7:30,7:45,8:00,8:15,8:30,8:45,9:00,9:15,6,Overview,Problem Solving Approach,Center,Process,Reduce,Spread,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,X,Off-Target,Unpredictable,On-Target,6,Helps us Identify and Reduce,VARIATION,due to:,- Insufficient Process Capability,- Unstable Parts & Materials,- Inadequate Design Margin,Target,USL,LSL,Target,USL,LSL,Target,USL,LSL,Center,Process,Reduce,Spread,Off-Target,Unpredictable,On-Target,Defects,6,Overview,Problem Solving Approach,“,Lower Specification Limit”,“,Upper Specification Limit”,Less Variation Means,Fewer Defects,&,Higher Process Yields,6,Overview,Problem Solving Approach,Key Components of,“BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY”,M,easure,A,nalyze,I,mprove,C,ontrol,Identify,CTQ &,CTP (Critical to,Process),Variables,Do,Process,Mapping,Develop and,Validate Measurement,Systems,Benchmark and,Baseline,Processes,Calculate,Yield,and Sigma,Target,Opportunities,and Establish,Improvement Goals,Use of,Pareto Chart,& Fishbone Diagrams,Use,Design of,Experiments,Isolate the,“Vital Few”,from the,“Trivial Many”,Sources of Variation,Test for,Improvement,in Centering,Use of,Brainstorming,and,Action Workouts,Set up,Control,Mechanisms,Monitor,Process,Variation,Maintain,“In Control”,Processes,Use of,Control,Charts,and,Procedures,A Mix of Concepts and Tools,Will Also Integrate with NPI Process,6,Overview,Disciplined Change Process,A New Set of,QUALITY MEASURES,Customer Satisfaction,Cost of Poor Quality,Supplier Quality,Internal Performance,Design for Manufacturability,Will Apply to Manufacturing & Non-Manufacturing,Processes and be Tracked & Reported by Each Business,6,Overview,Structure,Quality Council,Members: Labs & Functions,“Pipeline” & BB Project Priorities,Training & Certification,Measurements & Rewards,Communications,Champions,Leadership: Overall Initiative,Project Funding,HR: Training & Rewards,Black Belts,Lead 6,Project Teams,“Measure/Analyze”,“Improve/Control”,Out with Businesses,Here at CRD,Master Black Belts,Teach 6,Mentor Black Belts,Monitor BB Projects,Work “Pipeline” Projects,A Resource Pool,Team Members,Learn/Use 6,Tools,Work on BB Projects,Part of The Job,Out with Businesses,6,Projects with the GE Businesses,Tabulation of GE Six Sigma Results,Benefit Target & Update,Current benefits level 10.865 MM,QPID loading :,Carryover from 1999 : 4.059,Completed Projects 2000 :3.313,Active Projects 2000 :,3.285,Total : 10.865 MM,Key Concepts & Tools,6,Overview,6,Overview,Changing Focus From Output to Process,Y,Dependent,Output,Effect,Symptom,Monitor,X,1,. . . X,N,Independent,Input-Process,Cause,Problem,Control,Identifying and Fixing Root Causes,Will Help us Obtain the Desired Output,f (X),Y =,Process Capability,6,Overview,Sustained Capability,of the,Process,(long term),USL,T,Time 1,Time 2,Time 3,Time 4,Inherent Capability,of the,Process,(short term),LSL,T,arget,Over Time, a “Typical” Process Will Shift and Drift by Approximately 1.5,6,Overview,“,Short Term Centered” versus “Long Term Shifted”,Six Sigma Centered,LSL,USL,T,Process,Capability,SHORT,TERM,.001,ppm,.001,ppm,+6,LONG,TERM,LSL,USL,T,3.4,ppm,Six Sigma Shifted 1.5,Process,Capability,Higher Defect Yield in Long Term Process Capability than Short Term Process Capability,-6,4.5,1.5,6,Overview,Tying it All Together,shift,C,D,A,B,0.5,1.0,1.5,2.0,2.5,1 2 3 4 5 6,C,O,N,T,R,O,L,POOR,GOOD,TECHNOLOGY,POOR,GOOD,A,B,C,D,Good Control/,Poor Technology,Poor Control/Poor,Technology,Poor Control/,Good Technology,WORLD CLASS!,short term,Problem Could be Control, Technology or Both,6,Overview,Short Term Capability,Short Term Capability Ratio,(,Cp),Cp,=,LSL,-,6,USL,Example,USL,LSL,3.0,=,=,-3.0,6,3.0,-,( - 3.0,Cp,=,Cp =,1,LSL,USL,2.5,0.5,3.0,Process Mean,T,Target,A 3,Process,The Potential Performance of a Process, if it Were on Target,6,Overview,Long Term Capability,(,Cpk,),Cp,Cpk,=,Long Term Capability Ratio,Example,Cp =,1,(,previous chart),Target,=,-0.5,=,0,Cpk,1 -,(-0.5,-,0,3,=,Cpk,=,0.83,-,Off-Target Penalty,Target -,3,The Potential Performance of a Process, Corrected for an Off-Target Mean,LSL,USL,2.5,0.5,3.0,Process Mean,T,Target,A 3,Process,6,Overview,Z,- Scale of Measure,Z,=,A Unit of Measure Equivalent,to the Number of,Standard,Deviations,that a Value is Away,from the,Target Value,-3.0,-0.5,3.0,Z -,Values,USL,LSL,2.5,0.5,3.0,=,Process Mean,Z,T,Target,0,A 3,Process,The Definitions of Yield,Final Test,Process,(,Process 4),Pass,Process 3,Process 1,Process 2,100,(,Units Tested),65,70,82,91,Yield 1,Yield 2,Yield 3,Loss 1,Loss 3,Rejects,Loss 2,9,9,12,5,First Time Yield (,Yft,),=,Units Passed,Units Tested,=,65,70,=,0.93,Rolled,Thruput,Yield (,Yrt,),=,(,Yield 1),(,Yield 2),(,Yield 3) . . . .,=,91,82,65,70,(,(,(,(,),),),),=,0.65,100,91,70,82,Normalized Yield (,Ynm,),=,=,1/,n,(,Yrt,),(0.65),1/4,=,0.89,(,n: Total Number of Processes ),6,Overview,Yield Exclusive,of Rework,Probability of,Zero Defects,Average Yield,of All Processes,6,Overview,The Impact of Complexity,The Impact of Complexity,Rolled,Rolled,Yield,Yield,Number of Operations,Number of Operations,1.00,1.00,0.90,0.90,0.80,0.80,0.70,0.70,0.60,0.60,0.50,0.50,0.40,0.40,0.30,0.30,0.20,0.20,0.10,0.10,0.00,0.00,1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 1,000,000,1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 1,000,000,Process Mean Centered on Each Operation,Process Mean Centered on Each Operation,1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 1,000,000,1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 1,000,000,Rolled,Rolled,Yield,Yield,Number of Operations,Number of Operations,1.00,1.00,0.90,0.90,0.80,0.80,0.70,0.70,0.60,0.60,0.50,0.50,0.40,0.40,0.30,0.30,0.20,0.20,0.10,0.10,0.00,0.00,As the Number of Operations Increases, a High,Rolled Yield Requires a High,for Each Operation,5,4,3,6,6,5,4,3,Process Mean Shifted 1.5,at Each Operation,6,Overview,Baselining,& Benchmarking an Existing Process,p (x),Defects,Benchmark,Baseline,Entitlement,Benchmark,.A World-Class Performance,Entitlement,.Achievable Performance Given,the Investments Already Made,Baseline,.The Current Level of Performance,Baselining,=,Current Process,/,Benchmarking,=,Ultimate Goal,Some Basic 6,-Related Tools,6,Overview,Scatter Diagram,Over Slept,Car Would,Not Start,Weather,Family,Problems,Other,Pareto,Diagram,Frequency,of,Occurence,Reasons for Being Late for Work,Arrival,Time,at Work,Time Alarm Went Off,Materials,People,The Histogram,Control Charts,-,6,Overview,Some Basic 6,-Related Tools,The Fishbone Diagram,Measurements,Methods,Technology,Statement,Cause & Effect,Being,Late,for,Work,Plot of Daily Arrival Time,9:15,7:00,7:15,7:30,7:45,8:00,8:15,8:30,8:45,9:00,Average Value,Number,of,People,Arriving,at CRD,Time,6,Overview,LCL,UCL,Range Chart,R,Out of Control Condition,LCL,X,UCL,X Bar Chart,Some Basic 6,-Related Tools,LCL,= Lower Control Limit,UCL,= Upper Control Limit,X,= Mean,R,=,Average Range,Monitors Changes in Average or Variation Over Time,Design of Experiments,6,Overview,SCREENING,OPTIMIZATION,CHARACTERIZATION,For Experiments,Involving a,Large,Number of Factors,Useful in,Isolating,the,“Vital Few “ from,the,“Trivial Many”,For Experiments,Involving a Relatively,Small Number of Factors,Useful When Studying,Relatively,Uncomplicated,Effects & Interactions,For Experiments,Involving,Only 2,or 3 Factors,Useful When Studying,Highly Complicated,Effects & Relationships,DOE is More Effective Than Testing One Factor at a Time,6,Overview,Using the “One Factor at a Time” Approach,Reduce Commute to Work,to 15 Minutes (without,working an abnormal,work schedule),The Goal,The Variables,Time of Departure from,Home & Route Taken,to Work,The Approach,Try 3 Potential Routes at Current,Departure Time (7:45), Select,the Best & Vary the Departure,Time ,til,we get to 15 Minutes,Time of Departure,3,2,1,7:15,7:30,7:45,8:00,8:15,Route,Combination,Selected,The Result,Use Route 2 and,Leave at 7:15 to Reach Goal,6,Overview,Using “Design of Experiments” (DOE),Time of Departure,DOE (i) Better Accounts for Interactive Variables Missed by “One Factor at a Time”, and (ii) Efficiently Searches for “Sweet Spot” in Parameter Space,The Variables,Time of Departure from,Home & Route Taken,to Work,The Approach,Vary time of Departure and,Route Simultaneously, in a,Systematic Fashion,The Result,A Better Combination Allowing 15 More Minutes of Sleep!,Actual Commuting Time Averages,(minutes),3,2,1,7:15,7:30,7:45,8:00,8:15,Route,17 20 23 21 19,15 18 20 19 16,12 15 21 20 18,Original,Conclusion,Best,Combination,“Sweet Spot”,Reduce Commute to Work,to 15 Minutes (without,working an abnormal,work schedule),The Goal,A Practical Example,(The “Cookbook”),6,Overview,6,.,and Baking Bread,YEAST,FLOUR,Using a 12 Step Process,6,Overview,The,“,BETTER BREAD”,Company,Step 1.Selecting “Critical to Quality”,(,CTQs,or Y),What is Important to the Customer?,Rise,Texture,Smell,Freshness,Taste,Y,= Taste!,6,Overview,Measure,Step 2.Defining Performance Standards for,CTQs,or Y,6,Overview,How Could We Measure Taste (Y)?,Panel of Tasters,Rating System,of 1 to 10,Target: Average,Rating at 8,Desired: No,Individual Ratings,(“defects”) Below 7,Y,= 1 2 3 4 5 6,7 8 9 10,Target,Defects,Worst,Best,But.Is this the Right System?,Measure,6,Overview,Step 3.Validating the Measurement System for,Y,How Could We Approach This?,Blindfolded Panel Rates,Several Loaf Samples,Put “Repeat” Pieces,from Same Loaf in,Different Samples,Consistent Ratings* on,Pieces from Same,Loaf = “Repeatability”,Consistent Ratings* on,Samples Across the,Panel = “Reproducibility”,“,Repeatability” &“Reproducibility” Suggest Valid Measurement Approach,Panel,Member,Loaf 1,Loaf 2,Loaf 3,A,5,8,9,B,4,9,1,C,4,9,2,D,8,9,8,E,4,8,2,F,5,9,1,G,8,9,2,*,Within,One Taste Unit,Measure,6,Overview,Step 4.Establish Product Capability for,Y (Taste),This is a 3,Process!,7,Defects (,ratings below,7),24,Ratings (,from our panel,),=,.292,292,000,Defects per,1,ooo,ooo,Loaves,OR,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,#,of,Ratings,Rating,6,4,3,2,1,1,4,3,Defects 7,Target = 8,Analyze,How Do We Approach This?,Bake Several Loaves,Under “Normal”,Conditions,Have Taster Panel,Again Do the Rating,Average Rating is 7.4,But Variation is,too Great for a 6,Process,3,x 10 + 4 x 9 + 6 x 8 + 4 x 7 + 3 x 6 + 2 x 5 + 1 x 4 + 1 x 3,1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 3,6,Overview,Step 5.Define Improvement Objectives for,Y (Taste),How do we Define Improvement?,Benchmark the,Competition,Focus on Defects,( i.e. taste rating 7),Determine What,is an “Acceptable,Sigma Level”,Set Improvement,Objectives,Accordingly,Maybe a 5,Process Will Suffice!,1,000,000 -,100,000 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,10,000 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,1,000 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,100 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,10 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,1 -,2 3 4 5 6 7,“,BETTER BREAD”,Baking Process,Best,Competitor,Range for,Improvement,Defects,Per Million,Sigma Scale,Freihofer,W,O,N,D,E,R,Pepperidge Farm,Sunbeam,Analyze,6,Overview,Step 6.Identify Sources of Variation in,Y (Taste),How do we Determine the Potential Sources of Variation (Xs)?,Have the Chefs Brainstorm,Some Likely Ones Might be:,- Amount of Salt Used,- Brand of Flour,- Baking Time,- Baking Temperature,- Brand of Yeast,YEAST,FLOUR,Multiple Sources: Chefs, Suppliers, Controls,Analyze,6,Overview,Step 7.Screen Potential Causes of Variation,(Xs),How do we Screen for Causes of Variation (Xs)?,Design an Experiment,Use Different Sources,of Potential Variation,Have Panel Rate,the Bread Used in,the Experiment,Results Lead to the,“Vital Few” Causes,YEAST,FLOUR,Source,Conclusion,Negligible,Major Cause,Negligible,Major Cause,Negligible,Focus on The “Vital Few”,Improve,6,Overview,Step 8.Discover Variable Relationships Between “Vital Few”,(Xs) and Y,How do we Find the Relationship Between the “Vital Few” (Xs) and Taste (Y)?,Conduct a More Detailed Experiment,Focus: Oven Temperature from 325,to 375 and 3 Brands of Flour,RUN# TEMP BRAND,1 325 A,2 325 B,3 325 C,4 350 A,5 350 B,6 350 C,7 375 A,8 375 B,9 375 C,FLOUR,FLOUR,FLOUR,Brand A,Brand B,Brand C,Improve,Results:,350 & Brand A,is Best Combination of Temperature & Flour,Note: Time is a Factor,Only if Temperature,Changes Significantly,6,Overview,Step 9.Establish Tolerances on “Vital Few”,(Xs),How do we Ensure Oven Temperature is Controlled?,Data Suggests 350 ( 5 ),is best Temperature to,Reduce Taste Variation,Brand A,Flour to be,Used Except in Case,of Emergency,“,BETTER BREAD”,to Search for Better,Alternative Supplier,of Flour Just in Case,FLOUR,Brand A,But.Is Our Measurement System Correct?,Improve,6,Overview,Step 10.Validate the Measurement System for,Xs,How Could We Approach This?,Need to Verify the,Accuracy of Our,Temperature Gauges,Need for “Benchmark”,Instrumentation for,Comparison,Rent Some Other,“High End” Gauges,Compare the Results,Verify that our Instruments are Accurate,Control,6,Overview,Step 11.Determine Ability to Control Vital Few,Xs,How Could We Approach This?,Check A Number,of Ovens,Monitor Temperatures,Over Time,Focus on the,Process Capability,Look for Degree of,Variation,Variation OK But.Average is High (and the algorithm should be checked),30,345,#,of,Ovens,Temperature,346,357,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,25,20,15,10,5,Control,6,Overview,Step 12.Implement Process Control System on,Xs,What do we do Going Forward?,Check Ovens Daily,for Temperature Levels,Audit Usage Frequency,of Alternative Flour,Supplier (e.g