Juran

1
Jurans Quality Planning and Analysis for
Enterprise Quality INTRODUCTION The Road Map
to Enterprise Quality
2
Breakthrough ThinkingVARIOUS NEEDS
RadicalChange
IncrementalChange
Carry-overModules
Best-in-Class
Fix as Fail Self-Inspection

• Quality Improvement
• Lean Manufacturing
• Process flow revisions

• "As-is"
• Minor modifications
• 5S
• Root Causes are not always identified

• Check
• Inspect
• Quality Control
• Revise

• Customer Focused
• Re-Design
• Creative thinking
• Innovation
• Six Sigma
• Benchmarking
• New technology

3
Using the Road Map Maximizes the Probability of
Success and Avoids the Flavor of the Month
Syndrome
Phase 5

• Integrate, Audit,
• Measure, Assess,
• Review, Inspect,
• Focus

Phase 4
Sustain

• Expand Training
• across the organization
• Transition Training
• from Juran to
• Client

Phase 3
Expand

• Initial Training
• Pilot Projects

Phase 2
Launch

• Up Front Planning
• Establish
• Infrastructure
• Executive
• Onboard

Prepare
Phase 1
Yes to Deployment
Decide
Organization/Partner
Time
4
Phase One (Decide) Starts With The QuestionsDo
We How Do We Pursue The Transformation?

1. Learn about the transformation methodology
2. Assess your organization status to identify
   strategies and the goals
3. Integrate and align quality goals into business
   plan
4. Determine if how the transformation initiative
   will be integrated with other methodologies and
   initiatives already in the organization
5. Identify desired scope of change (e.g., spectrum
   of deployment- business unit, company-wide?)
6. Discuss other initiatives and their impact on
   resources
7. Determine preliminary scope, goals and business
   case for deploying the change system and make
   decision to deploy
8. Select an external partner to help deploy the
   changes needed and keep you on track

Sustain
Expand
Launch
Prepare
Decide
5
Conduct A Comprehensive Organizational Review
6
Phase Two (Prepare) Builds On The Reviews And
Sets Up The Organization For Success

• Establish infrastructure
• Identify the Change Initiative Leader
• Form the Executive Council
• Form other Steering Committee(s)
• Establish the initiative Goals
• Assure they are aligned to company goals
• Finalize business case
• Conduct HR planning
• Address finance issues
• Develop and begin implementation of the
  communications plan
• Internal
• External
• Identify and select pilot projects for training
  and beyond
• Begin Developing a Balanced Business Scorecard
• Establish appropriate metrics and initiative
  tracking
• Finalize Deployment Plan

Sustain
Expand
Launch
Prepare
Decide
7
Phase Three - Launch

• Action Item
• Train onboard remainder of management team
• Champions
• Other managers
• Conduct pilot training and projects
• Support and monitor projects
• Juran
• Champions
• Executives
• Measure and review progress
• Review lessons learned
• Make decision Go/No Go?

• How Partners Can Help
• Executive and Champion training, mentoring and
  coaching
• Employee training, mentoring and coaching
• Project support
• Establishment of key metrics
• Analysis of progress
• Input into decision process

Sustain
Expand
Launch
Prepare
Decide
8
Phase Four - Expand

• Action Item
• Modify original deployment plan based upon
  lessons learned and current thinking
• Expand (per revised deployment plan)
• Other organizational units
• Other geographics
• More experts
• More projects
• Additional training (Design for Six Sigma, Master
  Black Belt, etc.)
• Other
• Communicate success of pilots and ongoing
  projects
• Maintain robust project and selection process
• Establish objectives for Executives and Employees
• Measure, review and inspect
• Transition training from Juran to Client MBB

• How Partners Can Help
• Executive and Champion training, mentoring and
  coaching
• Employee training, mentoring and coaching
• Transition planning and implementation
• Train-the-Trainers
• Licensed materials

Sustain
Expand
Launch
Prepare
Decide
9
There are four dimensions for successful
integration of the intended Change into the life
of an organization.
Reviews Audits
Goals
People
KeyBusinessProcesses
10
Phase Five - Sustain

1. Conduct audits and take action as appropriate
2. Continue to assess culture and act on gaps
3. Measure, review and inspect
4. Stay focused on the customer and the bottom line
5. The most critical cross-functional processes are
   managed best by permanent cross-functional
   business process management teams led by a formal
   process owner.
6. Strategic goals for the organization must include
   measurable, stretch goals related to such areas
   as customer loyalty, product performance,
   competitive performance, costs of poor quality,
   and internal quality culture.
7. Upper managers must personally review and audit
   progress toward quality goals.
8. All employees must be trained to know what is
   expected of them, know how they are doing with
   respect to those expectations, and have the
   skills, tools, and authority to regulate their
   work to meet the expectations.

Sustain
Expand
Launch
Prepare
Decide
11
Fig. 1-1
12
Fig. 1-3
13
Fig. 1-4
14
Fig. 2-1
15
Fig. 2-2
16
Fig. 2-3
17
Fig. 2-6
18
Fig. 3-3
19
Fig. 3-5
20
Fig. 3-6
21
Fig. 3-8
22
Fig. 3-9
23
Fig. 3-10
24
Pareto Diagram Total Finish Defects
Fig. 3-p111
FOCUS
CONCLUSION Dirt in Finish, Blisters, and
Contamination are
most frequently occurring finish
defects on all frames.
25
Cause-Effect Diagram for Dirt
Fig. 3-p112
26
Cause-Effect Diagram for Blisters/Contamination
Fig. 3-p113
27
Test of Theory X3
Fig. 3-p116
Theory Variation in gram weight for film build
affects the occurrences of blisters. Ho Median
Blister ratio _at_ Gram Wt. level 1 is to Median
Blister Ratio _at_ gram wt. 2
Analysis
Normality Test Ho data is normal Ha data is
not normal Results P values .000 Reject null,
data is not normal. Test for Equal
Variance Ho ?2 ?2 Ha ?2 gt ?2 Results P
.018 reject the null, variances are not
equal. Compare Medians Mann Whitney Ho
medians are equal Ha Medians are not
equal Results P .003 Reject the Null, Medians
are not equal. Conclusion Gram Weight level
does effect blister ratios.
Mann-Whitney Test and CI Blister Ratio_h,
Blister Ratio_l Blister N 6 Median
3.750 Blister N 133 Median
1.100 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is
2.400 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is
(0.903,3.901) W 704.0 Test of ETA1 ETA2 vs
ETA1 not ETA2 is significant at 0.0033 The test
is significant at 0.0032 (adjusted for ties)
28
Test of Theory X6
Fig. 3-p116
Theory Blisters occur more frequently right
after solvent flush than during normal run. Ho
The occurrence of blisters is independent of
solvent flush.
Analysis
Chi-Square Test Before Flush, After
Flush Expected counts are printed below observed
counts Before F After Fl Total
1 14021 931 1495
14015.23 936.77 2 252 23
275 257.77 17.23 Total
14273 954 15227 Chi-Sq 0.002 0.036
0.129 1.933 2.100 DF 1,
P-Value 0.147
Conclusion Fail to reject Ho, Blister occurrence
is independent of production before solvent
flush vs right after solvent flush.
29

• Improvement Strategy

Fig. 3-p117

• Blisters D.O.E.
• 24 Factorial, Half Fractional, 8 Runs
• Develop method to Apply Forced Air through
  Flash Tunnel

30
Blisters Before vs After Improvements
Fig. 3-p117
Is the occurrence of blisters after improvements
significantly better (lower) than blisters before
improvements? Ho Blister occurrence is
independent of improvements made.
Analysis
Chi-Square Test Blisters Before, After
Improvements Expected counts are printed below
observed counts Before After
Total Bad 16133 348 16481
14302.61 2178.39 Good 225176 36405
261581 2.27E05 34574.61 Total
241309 36753 278062 Chi-Sq 234.245
1.5E03 14.759 96.901 1883.883 DF
1, P-Value 0.000
P is lt.05, Reject Ho.
Conclusion Occurrence of blisters is not
independent of improvements made (after is lower)
31
Contamination Before vs After Improvements
p118
Is the occurrence of contamination after
improvements significantly better (lower) than
contamination before improvements? Ho
Contamination occurrence is independent of
improvements made.
Chi-Square Test Contamination Before,
After Expected counts are printed below observed
counts Before After Total
Bad 6695 1219 7914
6189.36 1724.64 Good 398862 111788
510650 3.99E05 1.11E05 Total
405557 113007 518564 Chi-Sq 41.309
148.248 0.640 2.298 192.494 DF
1, P-Value 0.000
Analysis
P is lt.05, Reject Ho.
Conclusion Occurrence of contamination is not
independent of improvements made (after is lower).
32

• Project Results
• (Baseline vs. Target vs. Achieved)

Fig. 3-p118
ACHEIVED COPQ Saved more than target
savings First Run Yield 92.5 Capability
PPK .48 DPMO 75368 Sigma Level
2.9 (Finish Defects)
BASE LINE COPQ 2X per Yr. First Run
Yield 85 Capability PPK
.35 DPMO 146247 Sigma Level 2.6 (Finish
Defects)
TARGET COPQ X per Yr. First Run
Yield 90 Capability PPK .44 DPMO
91293 Sigma Level 2.8 (Finish Defects)
33
Fig. 4-3
34
Fig. 4-4
35
Fig. 4-6
36
ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN
Fig. 4-7
Identify Product/ServiceFunctions and Processes
DevelopAlternative Design
AssessDesign Alternatives
SelectOptimum Alternative
Product/Process Design Concept Idea
CTQ
1
Critical-to-Quality (CTQ) Requirements
2
3
Develop Functional/Process Requirements
Finalize Requirements
Assess Capability of Design
Develop Best-fit Design
DetailedProduct/ ServiceDesign Phase
GO
DesignReview
Product/DetailedService DesignRequirements
NO GO
Redesign
37
ANALYZE/HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN
Fig. 4-8
Optimum Design
Product/Process Concept
Functions/ Processes
Generate/Evaluate
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
CapabilityAnalysis
Optimum Alternative
38
HOW DESIGN MATRICES ARE USED IN THE THE
HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN PROCESS
Fig. 4-9
Identifyproduct/service or process to
bedesigned/redesigned (customer requirements)
Functional analysis
CTQs(HOWS)
Functions identified and orderof functions
established
Customer Requirements(WHATS)
Design Reqments(HOWS)
FunctionalReqments (HOWS)
Function
CTQs(WHATS)
Functional Requirements(WHATS)
Develop design alternatives,choose the optimum
alternative, choose best fit, andallocate
functional requirements
Function
Critical-to-ProcessVariables (HOWS)
Develop detaileddesign requirements
Design Requirements(WHATS)
39
SPREADSHEETS IN HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN
Fig. 4-10
Customer Needs
CTQs
Customer Satisfaction Features
40
Fig. 4-11
Process/Step/Output Process CTQ/Design Requirements LSL USL Mean Std. Dev. Short or Long-Term DPMO Times Applied DPU Short-Term Sigma (ZST)
Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company Local/Long Distance Telephone Company
Service Availability 1 0.0003 4.9
Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility Electric Utility
Service Availability 1 0.0001 5.2
Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau Credit Service Bureau
Credit Checks Cycle Time 45 min. 15 min. 10 min. 1 0.0014 4.5
Correct Information Provided 60,000 8 0.48 3.1
Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service Appraisal Service
Collateral Check Cycle Time 480 min. 460 min. 30 min. 1 0.25 2.2
Correct Collateral Assessment 80,000 6 0.48 2.9
Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service Express Mail Service
Delivery Service Cycle Time 24 hrs. 18 hrs. 2 hrs. 3 0.0014 4.5
Correct Delivery 1,000 3 0.003 4.6
Total Opportunities 2.4
Function DPU 1.22
Function DPMO 50,675
Function ZST 3,1
DESIGN SCORECARD EXAMPLE
41
MODEL
Fig. 4-12
Documentation
Transition Plan
Pilot build and test
Scale-up
Detailed design
ImplementationPlan
Results OK?
Yes
Prototyping
Project closure for the design team may occur
at various points in the Verify step Post-Pilot
TestingAfter the design has been validated via
pilot testing. Limited ImplementationAfter a
full scale, but limited implementation of the
product/process/service (i.e., one state, country
or market region). Full ImplementationComplete
implementation of the product/process/service
across all markets. Project closure for the
design team may occur at various points in the
Verify step Post-Pilot TestingAfter the design
has been validated via pilot testing. Limited
ImplementationAfter a full scale, but limited
implementation of the product/process/service
(i.e., one state, country or market region). Full
ImplementationComplete implementation of the
product/process/service across all
markets. Project closure for the design team
may occur at various points in the Verify
step Post-Pilot TestingAfter the design has
been validated via pilot testing.
Control andverificationplan
No
Transition to ProcessManagement
CTQ
Results OK?
Yes
No
42
Fig. 4-13

• SIPOC (High Level Process Map)

Current Process (AS/400 MRP AutoEDMS)

• Product Engineering

• Data- Component drawing- Models
• - Subassembly structures

Print out

• Plant QA Manager
• Customer Care Support
• Engineering

Retrieval
Question
Locate DRW
View Drawing
Retrieval Process is the focus of our DFSS
solution
Question
43

• Pareto of Customer Prioritization

Fig. 4-14
Critical Customers
44
Quality Function Deployment
Fig. 4-15
45
Fig. 4-16

• The Vital Few CTQs

Critical CTQs
46
Baseline CTQ Capability AnalysisDrawing Access
Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim Lookup)
Fig. 4-18
Normality Test
Alpha 0.05 Ho Data is Normal Ha Data is not
Normal P-value lt0.005, therefore reject Ho. Data
is Not Normal. Conclusion Use 1 sample
Wilcoxon for data statistical analysis
Conclusion Baseline capability based on 500000
DPMO is 1.4 sigma
47
Baseline CTQ Capability Analysis Drawing
Access Spec (combined data from Dim and Non- Dim
Lookup)
Fig. 4-19
Customer Expectations are 1.70 minutes or faster
to access and print a drawing, from CTQ Survey.
Is the current system running at the customers
expectations? This is the Primary CTQ on our
design scorecard. See Appendix A for survey data
analysis.

• Ho Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes
• Ha Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes
• Alpha 0.05

Ho Sample median is equal to 1.70 minutes Ha
Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes Alpha
0.05
P value .000 lt 0.05 Therefore reject Ho Ha
Sample median is greater than 1.70 minutes
P value .000 lt 0.05 Therefore reject Ho Ha
Sample median is not equal to 1.70 minutes
Conclusion The current system is not meeting
customer expectations
48
Design Scorecard
Fig. 4-20
49
QFD Flow Down
Fig. 4-21

CTQs were derived and ranked from surveys
Functions developed by addressing complaints made
by customers using the current system.
50
Fig. 4-22
Function / Feature Diagram Easy to Interpret
(Format)
3D Representation of Cabinet
Multiple Line Weights on Drawing
3D Cabinet
Dialog Boxes
Viewer Customizable
Web Based Access
Link to Component DRW
Easy to Interpret (Format)
Dialog Boxes
Link to Component DRW
Web Based Access
Web Based Access
Link to Component DRW
Attribute Information On Drawing
Retrieve Specs by Part Number
Functions
Features