PRODUCT MANAGEMENT

Maximizing Product,
Minimizing Costs
n many textbook scenarios, an engineer will study a process via a
A CASE STUDY
ON OPTIMIZING I designed experiment and use the results to optimize the product
response according to a loss function. Responses might include yield,
weld or seal strength, or perhaps, the diameter of a drilled hole.
MULTIPLE PRODUCT However, in real-world situations, the quality practitioner often has sev-
eral product responses to consider simultaneously. For example, the
RESPONSES WHILE practitioner might be interested in adjusting not only a products length,
CONTROLLING but also its weight to respective target values.
Often, this optimization must be performed under competing require-
OPERATING COSTS ments. For example, increasing factor A might move product length clos-
er to its target value, but it also might negatively impact the weight
response. Add to this already murky mix a management imposed
requirement to hold operating costs to a minimum, and suddenly the
textbook scenarios are out the window.
In this article, we present a case study adapted from an actual experi-
ment performed on a molding process in which several product charac-
teristics were optimized simultaneously, while the operating cost of the
machine was minimized. Data and some of the variable names have been
By Marina L. Lopez, changed to protect confidentiality.
.. The techniques used in the case study were fractional factorial design,
INSIC and TU V regression modeling and simultaneous optimization using Derringer
Rheinland Argentina and Suichs desirability function.1 Analysis was performed using Minitab
statistical software and the solver function in Excel.
S.A., and Mar y
Process Overview
McShane-Vaughn,
The plastic molding machine used in the experiment consist of a mold
Southern Polytechnic with 100 cavities. The mold cavities were filled with raw material powder
and then vibrated for a certain period of time. Next, the mold was closed,
State University and the heating and cooling cycle began according to the set soak times.
After the parts were cooled down, they were unloaded from the machine
and measured. The product characteristics of interest included length and
weight of the plastic part.

Experimental Design

We ran a fractional factorial experiment to study the effects of several

process factors on the two product responseslength and weight. The
responses and their target values are shown in Figure 1.
Five control factors were identified as potentially influencing the two
product responses. These factors and their experimental levels are
shown in Figure 2.
These factors, set at two levels each, were incorporated into a 25-1, res-
olution V design with four center points. The resolution of this design

18 I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I W W W . A S Q . O R G
 Maximizing Product, Minimizing Costs

allowed for all main effects and Figure 1. Response Variables

two-factor interactions to be esti- And Target Values
mated independently.
Response variable Target and specification range
Based on prior studies, it was
Length Target: 0.400; tolerance: +/ 0.05 inch
likely that raw material density and Weight Target: 0.900; tolerance: +/ 0.08g
the vibration factors (time, pres-
sure and amplitude) would inter-
act with each other. Three-factor Figure 2. Experimental Control Factors
interactions were considered to be
Experimental control factors Low level Current operating conditions High level
negligible based on past experi- A = Vibration time 40 seconds 60 seconds 80 seconds
mental results. B = Vibration pressure 30 psi 45 psi 60 psi
The settings for the center C = Vibration amplitude 75% 85% 95%
points corresponded to the cur- D = Raw material density 0.35g/ml 0.40g/ml 0.45g/ml
rent operating conditions of the E = Quantity of raw material 2.5 scoops 3.5 scoops 4.5 scoops
process and are denoted as rows of
zeroes in the design table in Figure
3. The addition of center points in the design no significant curvature was detected via the center
increased our total degrees of freedom to estimate points for either of the responses. The estimated
mean square error, giving us the ability to estimate regression models for the two responses, using the
pure error via the replication of the center points, hierarchical modeling convention, are summarized
and allowing us to test whether some type of quad- in Figure 4 (p. 20).
ratic effect exists.
Two center point runs were performed in the Length Model
beginning of the experiment and two at the end,
allowing us to detect any adverse changes in the The length esponse is especially influenced by the
machine during the course of the experiment. vibration parameters since it is dependent on how
One replicate of the fractional factorial experiment well the cavity is filled. The interaction between vibra-
was performed with the run order randomized. For tion amplitude and raw material density was signifi-
each run, product was taken from two prespecified cant at the alpha = 0.05 level, as were the vibration
cavities and measured for length
and weight. These two sets of
readings per run were not true Figure 3. Experimental Design and Data
replicates, but rather repeated
Standard Run Length Length Weight Weight
measurements. A B C D E
order order cavity 1 cavity 2 cavity 1 cavity 2
We used a blocking variable 1 16 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0.326 0.284 0.994 1.022
cavityto account for the vari- 2 7 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.390 0.410 1.080 1.107
ability between cavities in each 3 12 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0.336 0.352 0.619 0.647
run and incorporated the block 4 15 1 1 -1 -1 1 0.456 0.440 0.905 0.918
into our analysis. The design 5 13 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 0.280 0.251 0.674 0.705
matrix, run order and raw data 6 11 1 -1 1 -1 1 0.355 0.347 0.999 1.045
7 14 -1 1 1 -1 1 0.311 0.297 0.569 0.572
are shown in Figure 3.
8 6 1 1 1 -1 -1 0.386 0.361 0.645 0.662
9 8 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 0.268 0.306 0.468 0.474
Analysis Results 10 9 1 -1 -1 1 1 0.357 0.378 0.796 0.741
11 3 -1 1 -1 1 1 0.330 0.325 0.912 0.913
Two separate regression mod- 12 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 0.401 0.389 1.060 1.016
elsone for each responsewere 13 10 -1 -1 1 1 1 0.348 0.377 0.754 0.734
fit to the experimental data. We 14 2 1 -1 1 1 -1 0.453 0.445 0.895 0.879
15 5 -1 1 1 1 -1 0.386 0.419 0.991 1.040
verified the assumptions of inde-
16 4 1 1 1 1 1 0.478 0.470 1.278 1.304
pendent, identically distributed 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.340 0.361 0.833 0.839
N(0,2) errors using the appropri- 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.386 0.373 0.900 0.901
ate tests and graphing techniques 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.399 0.345 0.890 0.818
for each fitted model. In addition, 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.334 0.346 0.866 0.878

S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I 19
Maximizing Product, Minimizing Costs

time, pressure and amplitude main effects. From the
constant term, the average expected length using the
current factor settings equalled 0.366 inches.
The vibration amplitude x material density interac-
tion coefficient showed that when these two factors
are set at higher-than-current or lower-than-current
levels, expected length will increase. In addition,
increasing the main effects of vibration time and
pressure increases expected length. The final analysis
of variance table and fitted model are shown in
Figure 5.
Weight Model
From the constant term, the average expected
weight achieved at the current operating conditions
was equal to 0.8568 grams. The interactions vibration
pressure x density and vibe amplitude x density were
both significant at the alpha = 0.05 level. When both
factors in each of these interactions were set to lower-
than-current or higher-than-current settings, expect-
ed weight increased. In addition, as the main effects
of vibration time and quantity increased, expected
weight increased. The final analysis results are shown
in Figure 6.

Figure 4. Estimated Coefficients Operating Cost Model

For Length and Weight Models
It has been well established that companies incur
Estimated coefficients costs by producing parts that do not meet the speci-
coded scale
fied target.2 In this case, the manufacturing situation
Factors Length Weight
Constant 0.3660 0.8568
also required considering yet another cost: that of the
A = Vibe time 0.0413 0.1013 machine settings used to achieve the target parts.
B = Vibe pressure 0.0176 0.0214 Over time, the vibration cycle of the molding
C = Vibe amplitude 0.0068 0.0023 process was taking its toll on the machine. Excessive
D = Material density 0.0171 0.0341 vibration amplitude and time affected the seal of the
E = Quantity 0.0467 machine lid and shortened the life of the machine.
BD = Vibe pressure x density interaction 0.1519 This machine wear created unusable, scrap parts and
CD = Vibe amp x density Interaction 0.0321 0.0911
required frequent replacement of the hinges, latch
Root mean square error 0.0172 0.0240
and bolts. As a result, scrap and maintenance costs
because of vibration were quite high.
Figure 5. Length Model Analysis Upper management required that
the molding process optimization
Factorial fit: length model estimation had to set part measurements to tar-
Source DF SS MSE F P get; however, the optimization also
Cavity block 1 0.000048 0.0000484 0.16 0.688 had to reduce the maintenance and
Main effects 4 0.075163 0.0187907 63.75 0.000
scrap costs associated with the vibra-
Two-way interactions 1 0.033025 0.0330245 112.04 0.000
Curvature 1 0.000194 0.0001936 0.66 0.424
tion fatigue. Since the vibration fac-
Residual error 32 0.009432 0.0002948 tors significantly affected the two
Lack of fit 26 0.005715 0.0002198 0.35 0.970 responses and the maintenance cost,
Pure error 6 0.003718 0.0006196 a trade-off due to competing
Total 39 0.117862 requirements was likely.
A deterministic cost equation was
Estimated effects and coefficients for length (coded units) developed by engineering and
Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P accounting teams to capture the
Constant 0.366000 0.003035 120.59 0.000 effects of the vibration on the
Cavity -0.001100 0.002715 -0.41 0.688
machine wear and scrap through
A 0.082500 0.041250 0.003035 13.59 0.000
B 0.035125 0.017563 0.003035 5.79 0.000
vibration amplitude percentage and
C 0.013500 0.006750 0.003035 2.22 0.033 vibration time. The cost of an
D 0.034250 0.017125 0.003035 5.64 0.000 increase in the amplitude and time
C*D 0.064250 0.032125 0.003035 10.58 0.000 settings was quantified as
Ct Pt -0.005500 0.006787 -0.81 0.424
S = 0.0171687 R-Sq = 92.00% R-Sq(adj) = 90.25% C VIB = k 1 A t 2 ,
MSE = Mean square error SS = Sum of squares

20 I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I W W W . A S Q . O R G
 Maximizing Product, Minimizing Costs

in which A wass the amplitude setup in Figure 6. Weight Model Analysis

percent, t was the vibration time in sec-
onds, and k1 was a cost constant with Factorial fit: weight model estimation
units ($/sec2). Analysis of variance for weight (coded units)
Thus, we needed to optimize three Source DF SS MSE F P
responses simultaneously: the length and Cavity block 1 0.00019 0.000189 0.28 0.603
weight statistical models using nominal- Main effects 5 0.45026 0.090052 131.41 0.000
is-best, and the deterministic cost using Two-way interactions 2 1.00444 0.502220 732.86 0.000
smaller-the-better. Curvature 1 0.00050 0.000497 0.73 0.401
Residual error 30 0.02056 0.000685
Choosing Factor Levels Lack of fit 24 0.01369 0.000570 0.50 0.896
Pure error 6 0.00687 0.001145
Total 39 1.47595
To solve the multiple response prob-
lem, we chose the simultaneous opti- Estimated effects and coefficients for weight (coded units)
mization technique developed by
Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P
Derringer and Suich.3 This procedure Constant 0.856813 0.004628 185.15 0.000
made use of desirability functions by Cavity 0.002175 0.004139 0.53 0.603
transforming each of the m response vari- A 0.202625 0.101312 0.004628 21.89 0.000
ables, denoted as yi with i = 1,, m, into B 0.042750 0.021375 0.004628 4.62 0.000
an individual desirability function di that C 0.004625 0.002313 0.004628 0.50 0.621
varies over the range, 0 < di < 1. D 0.068250 0.034125 0.004628 7.37 0.000
E 0.093375 0.046688 0.004628 10.09 0.000
The function di will equal 1 if the
B*D 0.303875 0.151938 0.004628 32.83 0.000
response yi is at its target value, and di will C*D 0.182250 0.091125 0.004628 19.69 0.000
equal 0 if the response is outside the Ct Pt 0.008812 0.010348 0.85 0.401
acceptable range. Then, levels of the
experimental factors are chosen to maxi- S = 0.0261779 R-Sq = 98.61% R-Sq(adj) = 98.19%
mize the overall desirability D for m MSE = Mean square error SS = Sum of squares
responses using:
the desirability curve. Setting s = t will make the
D = (d1 . d2 . d3 dm)1/m desirability function symmetric around the target T.
As shown in Figure 7, for the case s = t = 1, the
The individual desirability function for each desirability function was triangular, with the target
response was structured according to its optimization value at the apex. Here, the desirability falls at a con-
target. For our example, the length and weight stant rate as the response moves away from the target.
responses each had a target value within a specifica- For s < 1, t < 1, the desirability decreased more slow-
tion range, calling for a nominal-is-best optimization ly as the response moved away from the target value.
approach. For the nominal-is-best type of objective,
the estimated desirability function for each response
is written as: Figure 7. Nominal-is-Best Desirability
0 if y i (x ) < L i Function for Choices of s and t
s
y i (x ) L i
Ti L i if L i y i (x ) < Ti Desirability function shapes
di (y i ) = t 1
U i y i (x )
U i Ti if Ti y i (x ) < Ui
s = t = 1/2
0.8
0 if y i (x )> =Ui
in which i = 1, 2 m, Li is the lower specification 0.6 s = t =1
limit for the ith response, Ti was the target value for
the ith response and Ui was the upper specification 0.4
limit for the ith response.
For estimated responses outside the specification 0.2
s=t=2
limits, the desirability is zero. The exponents s and t
0
were chosen by the analyst to control the shape of L T U

S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I 21
Maximizing Product, Minimizing Costs

WE HAVE SHOWN THAT MULTIPLE PRODUCT RESPONSES CAN BE

OPTIMIZED IN A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD MANNER USING THE

DESIRABILITY FUNCTION METHOD.

Finally, for s > 1, t > 1, there was a more severe desir- $90 corresponds to the cost at current operating con-
ability penalty as the response moved from the target ditions. The resulting desirability functions for
value. length, weight and cost, respectively, are shown in the
If the target for the response was a minimum value following formulas:
(smaller-the-better objective), as in the case of the
cost function, the desirability function was calculated 0 if y 1 (x ) < 0.350
y 1 (x ) 0.350
as: 0.05 if 0.350 y 1 (x ) < 0.400
d1 (y 1 ) = 0.450 y 1 (x )
1 if y i (x ) < Ti
0.05 if 0.400 y 1 (x ) < 0.450
s
U i y i (x )
di (y i ) = U i Ti if Ti y i (x ) < Ui 0 if y 1 (x ) 0.450
0 if y i (x ) > =Ui
0 if y 2 (x ) < 0.820
y 2 (x ) 0.900
in which T represented a value small enough to be 0.08 if 0.820 y 2 (x ) < 0.900
acceptable for the response, and U was a value above d2 (y 2 ) = 0.980 y 2 (x )
0.08 if 0.900 y 2 (x ) < 0.980
which the response was considered unacceptable.
After choosing s and t to determine shape, and put- 0 if y 2 (x ) 0.980
ting in the appropriate values for T, L and U, the
combination of input factor levels that maximizes the
1 if y 3 (x ) < 0
overall desirability function D = (d1 . d2 . d3 dm)1/m 90
could then be found. More information and exam- d3 (y3 ) = y 3 (x )
90 if 0 y 3 (x ) < 90
ples on the desirability function technique is avail- 0 if y3 (x ) 90
able in Response Surface Methodology.4
For this analysis, the exponents s and t were each
set equal to one. Lower, target and upper values for Overall Desirability Results
the length and weight desirability functions corre-
spond to the lower specification, spec nominal and We used the solver function in Excel to find a com-
upper specification values, respectively. bination of factor levels that produced a large value
For the cost desirability function, the target value for desirability D. Because the objective function, D,
was set to a stretch goal of $0, and the upper limit of was nonconvex, solutions to the optimization were
dependent on the starting values of the xs.
Figure 8. Comparison of Response Results After performing several trials with various
For Current and New Settings starting points, we found a combination of xs
that brought both weight and length close to
Current New New settings, New settings,
Factor
settings settings ignoring cost 1 ignoring cost 2
target at a small cost.
Vibration time 60 40 49 80 This value for D was achieved at the factor
Vibration pressure 45 50.5 46.5 32 settings of vibration time = 40 seconds, vibra-
Vibration amplitude 85 95 0.95 0.95 tion pressure = 50.5 pounds per square inch
Material density 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40 (psi), vibration amplitude = 95%, material
Quantity 3.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 density = 0.41g/ml and quantity = 2.5 scoops.
Response
Using these settings, average expected length
Length 0.3660 0.3872 0.4000 0.4000
equalled 0.387 inches (target 0.400), average
Weight 0.8568 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000
Cost $90 $45 $67 $179 expected weight equalled its target of 0.90
grams, and the scrap and maintenance cost

22 I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I W W W . A S Q . O R G
 Maximizing Product, Minimizing Costs

due to vibration was cut in half, from $90 to $45.
It is interesting to note that if we had ignored the
cost dimension of the problem, an optimization of
the length and weight functions would have achieved
target values for both length and weight, but would
have resulted in increased scrap and maintenance
costs.
For example, we found various sets of factor com-
binations that achieved the length and weight targets,
with associated costs ranging from $67 to $179. A
comparison of optimal settings with the current oper-
ating conditions is shown in Figure 8.
tion. By ignoring these costs, product targets might
be met, but operating expenses might increase.
REFERENCES
1. George Derringer and Ronald Suich, Simultaneous Optimization of
Several Response Variables, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 12, No. 4,
1980, pp. 214-219.
2. D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, sixth edition, John
Wiley & Sons, 2005.
3. Derringer and Suich, Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response
Variables, see reference 1.
4. R.H. Myers and D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology, John
Wiley & Sons, 1995, pp. 244-260.

Eye on Costs

We have shown that multiple product responses

can be optimized in a fairly straightforward manner
using the desirability function method. In addition,
we showed how operating costs associated with factor
level settings can be incorporated into the optimiza-
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS ARTICLE? Please share
your comments and thoughts with the editor by e-mailing
godfrey@asq.org.

Upcoming Six Sigma Titles

Benbow, Donald W. and T.M. Kubiak, The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook, second
edition, ASQ Quality Press, 2008. (Scheduled release date: April 2008)
Harry, Mikel., ed., A Reference Guide for Practitioners and Students of Six Sigma and Lean
Six Sigma, Wiley-Interscience, 2008. (Scheduled release date: July 2008)
Jain, Mukesh, Delivering Successful Projects with TSP and Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to
Implementing Team Software Process, Auerbach, 2008 (Scheduled release date: July 2008)
Martin, James William, Lean Six Sigma for the Office, Auerbach, 2008. (Scheduled release
date: November 2008)
Munro, Roderick A., Matthew J. Maio, Mohamed B. Nawaz, Govindarajan Ramu and Daniel
J. Zrymiak, The Certified Six Sigma Green Belt Handbook, ASQ Quality Press, 2008.
Pandian, Ravindranath, Six Sigma Statistics for Software Engineers, Auerbach, 2008.
(Scheduled release date: October 2008)
Price, Mark, Peter Banfield, Mike George Jr. and Allen Zeman, Lean Six Sigma for Federal
Services, McGraw-Hill, 2008 (Scheduled release date: July 2008)
Ramsey, Philip and Marie A. Gaudard, Six Sigma Companion Guide Experimental Design for
Practitioners, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 2008. (Scheduled release date: February 2008)
Yang, Kai and Matthew Hu, Design for Six Sigma for Engineers (Series on Quality, Reliability
and Engineering Statistics), World Scientific Publishing Co., 2008 (Scheduled release date:
June 2008)
Compiled using data from Amazon.com, ASQ Quality Press and BN.com.

S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E I F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I 23