5 – 1 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Quality And Performance 5

5 – 2 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Total Quality Management Figure 5.1 – TQM Wheel Customer satisfaction

5 – 3 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. The Deming Wheel Plan Do Study Act Figure 5.2 – Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle

5 – 4 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Six Sigma: average and variance X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Process average OK; too much variation Process variability OK; process off target Process on target with low variability Reduce spread Center process X X X X X X X X X Figure 5.3 – Six-Sigma Approach Focuses on Reducing Spread and Centering the Process

5 – 5 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Six Sigma Improvement Model Control Improve Analyze Measure Define Figure 5.4 – Six Sigma Improvement Model

5 – 6 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Sample and Process Distributions Distribution of sample means 25Time Mean Process distribution Figure 5.6 –Relationship Between the Distribution of Sample Means and the Process Distribution

5 – 7 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Assignable Causes (a) Location Time Average Figure 5.7 –Effects of Assignable Causes on the Process Distribution for the Lab Analysis Process

5 – 8 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Assignable Causes (b) Spread Time Average Figure 5.7 –Effects of Assignable Causes on the Process Distribution for the Lab Analysis Process

5 – 9 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Assignable Causes (c) Shape Time Average Figure 5.7 –Effects of Assignable Causes on the Process Distribution for the Lab Analysis Process

5 – 10 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Control Charts Samples Assignable causes likely Figure 5.8 –How Control Limits Relate to the Sampling Distribution: Observations from Three Samples UCL Nominal LCL

5 – 11 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Nominal UCL LCL Variations Sample number Control Charts Figure 5.9 –Control Chart Examples (a) Normal – No action

5 – 12 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Nominal UCL LCL Variations Sample number Control Charts Figure 5.9 –Control Chart Examples (b) Run – Take action

5 – 13 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Nominal UCL LCL Variations Sample number Control Charts Figure 5.9 –Control Chart Examples (c) Sudden change – Monitor

5 – 14 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Nominal UCL LCL Variations Sample number Control Charts Figure 5.9 –Control Chart Examples (d) Exceeds control limits – Take action

5 – 15 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Control Chart Factors TABLE 5.1|FACTORS FOR CALCULATING THREE-SIGMA LIMITS FOR |THE x -CHART AND R -CHART Size of Sample ( n ) Factor for UCL and LCL for x -Chart ( A 2 ) Factor for LCL for R -Chart ( D 3 ) Factor for UCL for R -Chart ( D 4 )

5 – 16 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Process Capability Minutes Upper specification Lower specification Nominal value (a) Process is capable Process distribution Figure 5.14 –The Relationship Between a Process Distribution and Upper and Lower Specifications

5 – 17 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Process Capability Minutes Upper specification Lower specification Nominal value (b) Process is not capable Figure 5.14 –The Relationship Between a Process Distribution and Upper and Lower Specifications Process distribution

5 – 18 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Process Capability Figure 5.15 – Effects of Reducing Variability on Process Capability Lower specification Mean Upper specification Nominal value Six sigma Four sigma Two sigma Two-sigma quality: 4.56% defects (45,600 defects/million) Three-sigma quality: 0.26% defects (2,600 defects/million) Four-sigma: % defects (63 defects/million) Six-sigma : % defects (0.002 defects/million)

5 – 19 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. Quality Engineering Loss (dollars) LowerNominalUpper specificationvaluespecification Figure 5.16 – Taguchi’s Quality Loss Function

5 – 20 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall. The Baldrige Award The seven categories of the award are 1.Leadership (120 points) 2.Strategic Planning(85 points) 3.Customer and Market Focus (85 points) 4.Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management (90 points) 5.Workforce Focus (85 points) 6.Process Management (85 points) 7.Results (450 points)

5 – 21 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.