6-Sigma GDBK 2000

T O O L S
P R O J E C T G U I D E B O O K
TABLE TABLE OF OF CONTENTS
C ONTENTS
Table of Contents Page Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Correlation Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Project Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Improve Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Define Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Brainstorm Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Define Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Create “Should Be” Process Map . . . . .135
Identify Customer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Conduct FMEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
Identify CTQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Perform Cost/Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . .139
Map Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Pilot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Scope Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Validate Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
Measure Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Control Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Develop Data Collection Plan . . . . . . . . . .24 Mistake Proofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Perform Measurement Long-term MSA Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
System Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Control Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Conduct Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
P-Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150
Perform Graphical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .47
U-Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Pareto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
I-MR Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
Histogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Xbar-R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Boxplot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Reaction Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
Run Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Update S.O.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Conduct Baseline Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .69
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Analyze Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Converting Attribute to
Confirm Data Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Variable Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Attribute Data Tools (overview) . . . . . . . .82 Design of Experiments (overview) . . .174
Variable Data Tools (overview) . . . . . . . . .83 Testing for Normal Data . . . . . . . . . . .175
1 Proportion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Correcting Non-normal Data . . . . . . .180
2 Proportion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 Gage R&R for Variable Data . . . . . . . .181
Chi-Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
F-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 Table of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
ANOVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 References
1-Sample T-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 DMAIC Chart
2-Sample T-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 Hypothesis Testing Road Map
ANOVA for Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 Sigma Conversion Table
INTRODUCTION
I NTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION I NTRODUCTION
Guidebook Overview hypothetical in nature but have benefited from

work performed in conjunction with 6-Sigma
This Guidebook is intended to complement projects.
Consumer Driven 6-Sigma training. It is
designed to give the reader a view of the The Guidebook is to be an overview of the
6-Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, process as well as a quick reference regarding
Improve and Control) process as well as the frequently used tools. It does not include all
underlying components of each process step. available tools and concepts relating to
Consumer Driven 6-Sigma.
Automotive Examples
These examples are straightforward
To communicate 6-Sigma fundamentals this approaches to typical projects and can be used
Guidebook will use two examples from the as guides in the application of 6-Sigma tools
automotive industry. These examples are within real-world projects.
Define — Select Critical To Satisfaction

DEFINE
(CTS) characteristics and performance
1
MEASURE Measure — Create/validate
measurement system
ANALYZE Analyze — Identify sources of variation

from performance objectives
MODIFY
REDESIGN Redesign — Revise current measurement
DESIGN?
systems if incorrect
IMPROVE Improve — Discover process relationships

and establish new procedures
CONTROL Control — Implement process controls

INTRODUCTION
Consumer Driven 6-Sigma Why implement Consumer
Driven 6-Sigma?
The following paragraphs provide a brief
overview of basic 6-Sigma concepts and how Ford Motor Company is implementing
the 6-Sigma methodology is being applied Consumer Driven 6-Sigma to accelerate
within the Company. achievement of the Corporate goal of becoming
the World’s Leading Consumer Company of
Automotive Products and Services.
What is Consumer Driven 6-Sigma?
Consumer Driven 6-Sigma is a tool that What is a Sigma Level?
significantly improves customer satisfaction and
shareholder value by reducing variability in Sigma measures variation in a process or
every aspect of business. It is a focused product. The greater the Sigma level, the lower
approach to understanding customer wants and the level of variation in a product or process.
needs from their point of view, then making Lower levels of variation translate to higher
improvements in products and processes to levels of customer satisfaction. The following
meet those expectations. charts correlate Sigma to observable defects.
σ
2
Defects per
million
opportunities
2 308,537
σ % Non-Defective
3
4
66,807
6,210
} American
Companies
2
3
4
69.1%
93.32%
99.379%
5 99.9767%
}
Texas
5 233 Instruments 6 99.99966%
& Motorola
6 3.4 are here
PROJECT SELECTION
P ROJECT S ELECTION
PROJECT SELECTION
Project Selection Project Selection Checklist
Proper Project Selection is one of the most To maximize the success of a project, you
critical success factors influencing the outcome should be able to answer “yes” to the following
of Consumer Driven 6-Sigma projects. questions:
Selecting a project that is too large will cause • Recurring events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .❏
✓
valuable time to be lost during the Define • Narrow scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .❏
✓
Phase as Project Teams struggle to scope their • Available metrics, or measurements that
projects and develop “Problem Statements” can be developed quickly . . . . . . . . . . . . .❏ ✓
that can be addressed using 6-Sigma tools. • Control of the process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .❏ ✓
• Customer Satisfaction Improvement . . . . .❏ ✓
• Cost Reduction – $250K . . . . . . . . . . . . . .❏ ✓
3
PROJECT SELECTION
The 'Y' and 'X' Relationship Building on this concept, it can be said that
every “X” is correlated to a “Y” at some deeper
A fundamental formula used in 6-Sigma training level in the process. The diagram for this
is that “Y” is a function of “X.” cascading relationship is as follows:
Y = (ƒ) X
Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
In mathematical terminology, “Y” is the
dependent variable while “X” is the independent Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
variable. Expressed in another way, “Y” is an
output resulting from a number of inputs or Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
“Xs.”
This method of “drilling down” to the specific
The typical diagram used to communicate this issues is the fundamental technique for both
concept in Consumer Driven 6-Sigma training Project Selection and Project Scoping. Those
is as follows: trained in 6-Sigma techniques are often heard
describing issues in terms of the “Xs” and “Ys.”
Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
Example: Lemonade
The taste of a glass of lemonade 4
(the “Y”) is influenced by a number
of factors including:
• Type of lemon ingredient (an “X”)
• Amount of sugar added (an “X”)
Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
• Type of water used (an “X”)
• Amount of ice added (an “X”)
Extending the example, if the

Lemon Ingredient factor was to be
examined further, the “X” variables
might include:
• Fresh squeezed lemon
(a potential “X”)
Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
• Liquid concentrate (a potential “X”)
• Frozen concentrate
• Powdered lemon flavoring
Looking at “Fresh Squeezed

Lemons” might include examining:
• Where the lemons were grown
(an “X”)
• How the lemons were transported Y = X1 X2 X3 X4
(an “X”)
• Age when squeezed (an “X”)
• How lemons were squeezed
(an “X”)
PROJECT SELECTION
Narrowing Issues Down to a level outcomes (big “Ys”) down to specific
Project Level actionable issues (Project Level “Xs”).
This Y/X diagram illustrates how the Project
Selection process is used to narrow high-
Y = X1 X2 X3 Y = The top line issue is what can be done to improve satisfaction, which can be broken down into subgroups:
X1 = Consumers, X2 = Dealers, X3 = Internal Customers
Y = X1 X2 Y = The decision is made to address Dealer Satisfaction, which is comprised of satisfaction with:
X1 = Processes, X2 = Product
High Level Outcomes
Y = X1 X2 Y = Focus is placed on satisfaction with processes, which include:

X1 = Inventory, X2 = Business Management
Y = X1 X2 Y = Inventory satisfaction includes satisfaction with:

X1 = Ordering, X2 = Delivery
Y = X1 X2 Y = Attention is directed to inventory delivery, which includes:

X1 = Vehicle Delivery, X2 = Parts Delivery
5
Y = X1 X2 Y = Two issues influence satisfaction with vehicle delivery:

Project Level
X1 = Condition, X2 = Timing
N o t e : D e l i v e r y C o n d i t i o n s a n d D e l i v e r y Ti m i n g w i l l b e u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s G u i d e b o o k a s
e x a m p l e p r o j e c ts t o e x p l a i n 6 - S i g m a t o o l s a n d t e c h n i q u e s .
PROJECT SELECTION
Applying the Project becomes difficult to pinpoint what data to
collect and how to make use of it.
Selection Checklist
To ensure that projects are appropriately
Project Selection is most often performed at the selected, the Champion can apply the Project
Project Champion level, and it is critical that Selection Checklist appearing on Page 3.
Black Belts and Project Teams have specific
issues to address. The following shows how the example projects
used in this Guidebook compare to the Project
Without clear direction, projects frequently stall Selection criteria.
in the Define and Measure Phases as it
Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”
■ Recurring events? Yes, vehicles delivered ■ Customer Satisfaction? Yes,

each day. recommendation will improve product
■ Narrow scope? Yes, vehicle condition at deliveries, leading to improved consumer
dealer delivery. and dealer satisfaction.
■ Cost Reduction (optional)? Yes,
■ Sufficient good data? Yes, claims records
improvement will lower number of claims. 6
track damage.
■ Control of process? Yes, Project Team is
empowered to make improvements.
PROJECT SELECTION
NOTE: These examples of the Project Selection the more precisely targeted the issue, the
process annotated on the previous pages greater the efficiency the Project Team can
reflect a minimum level of detail. In general, have as it begins the Define Phase.
Delivery Timing — Example “B”
■ Recurring events? Yes, vehicles delivered ■ Control of process? Yes, Project Team is
each day. empowered to make improvements.
■ Narrow scope? Yes, the vehicle delivery ■ Customer Satisfaction? Yes,
process. improvement will shorten waiting periods.

■ Sufficient good data? Yes, release and ■ Cost Reduction (optional)? Yes, quicker
receipt records. turnover of vehicles.
7
DEFINE PHASE D EFINE P HASE
Define Identify Identify Map Scope

Problem Customer CTQs Process Project
DEFINE PHASE D EFINE P HASE
Overview Key Concepts

The purpose of the Define Phase is to • Voice of Customer
further refine the 6-Sigma Project Team’s • Project Scoping
understanding of the problem to be addressed. • Cause & Effect prioritization
In addition, the Project Team will use the Define
Phase to get organized, determine roles and • Project Planning
responsibilities, establish goals and milestones,
NOTE: Because subsequent 6-Sigma process
and review process steps.
steps build upon work completed during the
Define Phase, Project Team Members should
Outcomes ensure that the customer and CTQs have been
accurately identified. Likewise, the Project
At the completion of the Define Phase, the Team should ensure that the current process
Project Team will have: has been accurately mapped, the project has
• Defined the problem with a problem statement been narrowly scoped and a descriptive
problem statement has been written before
• Specifically identified the process or proceeding to the Measure Phase.
product’s customer
• Defined CTQs (Critical to Quality
Characteristics) from the customer’s viewpoint
8 • Scoped the project
• Produced a refined problem statement
DEFINE PHASE D E F I N E P H A S E | Define Problem
Define
Problem
Define Problem • Does not include assumptions regarding

possible causes or solutions
Upon completion of this step, the team should • Identifies key metrics
have a problem statement that:
• Describes the problem based on
available data
Problem Statement
Dealers are dissatisfied with the condition of vehicles when they are delivered to the dealership.

Problem Statement
Dealers are dissatisfied with the amount of time it takes from when a vehicle is ordered until it 9
arrives at the dealership.
DEFINE PHASED E F I N E P H A S E | Identify Customer
Identify
Customer
Identify Customer NOTE: During the Identify Customer step, the

Project Team attempts to target a specific set of
In this step, the Project Team will determine customers. Correcting the problem for this set
who is directly impacted by the problem and of customers generates the largest benefit, and
what costs can be associated with that impact. the improvement can usually be expanded to
larger groups of customers.
Identify Customer
To identify a customer for this 6-Sigma project, the Project Team reviews a random sample of
exception claims submitted by dealerships over a period of six months for repairs made to
vehicles delivered in a condition unacceptable for sale.
Based on this review, the Project Team identifies 5 large-volume dealerships in the Southwest
Region that have submitted a larger number of claims when compared to dealerships overall.
Targeting this smaller subset of dealerships increases the chances of success, as the scope of
the project is manageable and improvements will have a noticeable impact.
10
Cost of Poor Quality

The Project Team identifies potential costs associated with the problem, including:
• Cost to repair the exception
• Cost of processing the claim
• Cost of lost customer confidence
– Customer Satisfaction with vehicle availabilty
– Customer Satisfaction with repair
DEFINE PHASE Identify Customer

Identify Customer
The Delivery Timing Project Team will compare existing “order and build” data against
dealership delivery records to determine which dealerships are experiencing the longest average
delivery times.
Based on this high-level data review, the Project Team prioritizes the largest area of
opportunity as in-transit times associated with vehicles being shipped to dealerships in the
Los Angeles Region.
Cost of Poor Quality

The Project Team identifies potential costs associated with the problem, including:
• Costs associated with longer inventory turnover
• Costs of managing consumer waiting periods
• Costs of lost sales
11
DEFINE PHASE D E F I N E P H A S E | Identify CTQs
Identify
CTQs
Identify CTQs • Accurately describe the Critical-To-Quality

characteristic
Once a customer is identified, the Project Team • Specifically annotate what is considered
will need to determine what is important to that meeting the customer expectation
customer from the customer’s point of view.
In 6-Sigma terminology this process is referred • Are written to ensure consistent interpretation
to as identifying the Critical-To-Quality and measurement by multiple people
characteristics (CTQs).
Methods
Identification of CTQs ascertains how the
particular characteristics appear when meeting Commonly used methods of identifying CTQs
customer expectations. For example: include, but are not limited to:
• Focus Groups
• What is “good condition”?
• Surveys
– No preparation required, wash and
deliver only? • Interviews
– Without need for mechanical or body repair?
Outputs
• What is “on time”?
– On time measured in days? • CTQs
12 – On time measured in weeks? • Operational Definitions
– Starting when, stopping when? • Parameters for Measuring
After CTQs are identified, the Project Team

must develop Operational Definitions for each
CTQ. Effective Operational Definitions:
DEFINE PHASE Identify CTQs
To determine CTQs, the Project Team interviews the dealership Inventory Manager and pre-
delivery personnel.
CTQ
New vehicles are delivered to the dealership free of mechanical and cosmetic defects.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
New vehicles arriving at the dealership will exhibit no condition that requires the expenditure
of materials and/or labor hours exceeding what is indicated as part of the standard
pre-delivery process for that model. This includes mechanical repairs and adjustments as
well as cosmetic preparation in excess of washing required to render the vehicle acceptable for
retail consumer sale.
13
To determine CTQs, the Project Team issues a survey to General Managers and Sales
Managers for dealerships in the Los Angeles Region.
CTQ
Vehicles will arrive at the dealership within 35 days of date of order.
Vehicles ordered to fulfill consumer requests, or as part of standard stock replenishment, will
be received into dealership inventory on or earlier than the 35th day subsequent to the date
registered as part of online order submission. All days, except those recognized as holidays in
the union contract, will be included in the count.
DEFINE PHASE D E F I N E P H A S E | Map Process
Map
Process
Map Process • Way to identify process inputs and outputs

• Technique to identify areas of rework
The Project Team creates a “high-level” visual
representation of the process steps leading up • Way to identify bottlenecks, breakdowns and
to fulfillment of the identified CTQ. This “as is” non-value-added steps
Process Map will be useful throughout the • Benchmark against which future
process as a: improvements can be compared with the
• Method for segmenting complex processes original process
into manageable portions
High-Level Process Map
14
DEFINE PHASE
Map Process

High-Level Process Map
15
DEFINE PHASE D E F I N E P H A S E | Scope Project
Scope
Project
Scope Project Refined Problem Statement

During this step, Project Team Members will: A refined problem statement is a highly defined
description of the problem. Beginning with the
• Further specify project issues
general problem statement, and applying what
• Develop a refined problem statement has been learned through further scoping,
• Brainstorm suspected sources of variation Project Teams write a refined problem
statement that:
• Describes the problem in narrow terms
Specifying Project Issues
• Indicates a level where the team will begin
Similar to the process used in Project its work
Selection, Team Members must strive to reduce • Identifies the extent of the problem and how it
the scope of their project to a level that is measured
ensures:
• The problem is within the team’s area of Tools for Scoping
control
• Data can be collected to show both the Effective tools to scope projects include:
current and improved states • Cause -and-Effect Diagram (fishbone)
• Improvements can be made within the • Cause - and-Effect Matrix
16 project’s four-month time frame • FMEA (see SSA Navigator for details)
• Y/X Diagram
DEFINE PHASE Scope Project
Scope Project
The Project Team extends the Y/X chart used during project selection to further define their
6-Sigma project.
•
VEHICLES
Y = X1 X2
Co Ti
nd m
iti in
on g
CONDITION
Y = X1 X2
M Co
ec sm
ha
etni
ic ca
l
COSMETIC
Y = X1 X2
In Ex
te te 17
rio rio
r r
To brainstorm possible causes of variation, the Project Team develops a

Cause-and-Effect Diagram using Minitab.
After opening a new workbook in Minitab, the Project Team will:
1. Input possible sources of damage in label fields
2. Input possible causes of damage related to each source
18
1. Click on “Stat” from the Minitab navigation toolbar

2. Click on “Quality Tools”
3. Click on “Cause-and-Effect”
19
1. Input the Minitab spreadsheet columns that contain information of possible causes of damage,
one column per branch
2. Input label information about where the causes of damage might be located
3. Input the effect that results from the causes
4. Input a title for the chart
5. Click on checkbox options as desired
6. Click on OK
20
The resulting Cause-and-Effect Diagram offers a visual representation of potential sources and
causes of Exterior Vehicle Damage. Information contained in this chart is very useful in
developing a Data Collection Plan (Measure Phase) and can often be helpful in writing the
problem statement.
NOTE: Based on information gathered during the Define Phase, the Project Team can now refine
the Problem Statement.
Refined Problem Statement

Exception claims submitted by the five, previously indentified large-volume dealerships from the
Southwest Region relating to exterior damage sustained during the delivery process either:
• At the Plant
• En route to the Holding Yard
• At the Holding Yard or
• En route to the dealership
Scope Project
The Project Team extends the Y/X chart used during Project Selection to further define their
6-Sigma project.
•
VEHICLES
Y = X X
C 1 T 2
on im
di in
tio g
n
TIMING
Y = X X
C 1 T 2
ar ru
s ck
s
TRUCKS
Y = X1 X2
Pi SU
ck
up V 21
SUV
Y = EX1 X2 X3
xc Exp Exp
ur ed lo
si
on itio rer
n
EXPLORER
Y = X1 X
L 2
St ou
. Lo is
ui vi
s lle
Refined Problem Statement

Delivery times for Explorers assembled at the Louisville Assembly Plant and shipped to
Los Angeles Region dealerships are “on average” in excess of 35 days.
Summary • Performance described in terms of CTQs

• The existing process mapped at a high level
Upon completing the Define Phase, the Project
Team should have: • Identified potential sources of variation
• The specific problem properly scoped
22
MEASURE PHASE
Develop
M EASURE P HASE
Perform
Conduct Perform Conduct
Data Measurement
Data Graphical Baseline
Collection System
Collection Analysis Analysis
Plan Analysis
MEASURE PHASE M EASURE P HASE
Overview • Sufficient sample of data for analysis

• Set of preliminary analysis results that
The purpose of the Measure Phase is to provides project direction
establish techniques for collecting data about
current performance that highlights project • Baseline measurement of current
opportunities and provides a structure for performance
monitoring subsequent improvements.
Key Concepts
Outcomes • Sound data collection plan
• Identification of Key Process Input Variables
Upon completing the Measure Phase, Project
(KPIV)
Teams will have a:
• Variation displayed using Pareto Charts,
• Plan for collecting data that specifies the data
Histograms and Run Charts
type and collection technique
• Baseline measures of process capability and
• Validated measurement system that ensures
process Sigma level
accuracy and consistency
23
MEASURE PHASE
M EASURE P HASE | Develop Data Collection Plan
Develop
Data
Collection
Plan
Develop Data Key Concept

Collection Plan Collecting an appropriate amount of the
right data.
A well-prepared Data Collection Plan is the
most important step of the Measure Phase, Too much data can add complexity to the data
as it helps ensure successful analysis of the review and analysis. Too little data may force
problem. Data Collection Plans should answer the team to engage in an unnecessary
the following set of questions: secondary data collection effort. Likewise,
• What data will be collected (including correctly specifying what data is to be collected
data type) (enough to get a complete picture of the
– Attribute data — qualitative (Yes/No, process) will help the team avoid unnecessarily
Pass/Fail, Damage/No Damage) requires repeating initial collection activities.
minimum sample size of 50-100 per NOTE: It is critical that the Project Team
subgroup spends the appropriate amount of time
– Variable data — quantitative (Time, developing the Data Collection Plan. Investing
Dimensions, Percentage) requires a time in developing the plan can help avoid
minimum sample size of 30 per collection errors that may result in data
subgroup corruption or the collection of data that is not
• Why the data is needed relevant to the project. Conversely, even the
most well-developed plan may require revisions 24
• Where data will be collected as the Project Team becomes enlightened
• How the data will be collected regarding process details.
• Who will collect the data
MEASURE PHASE Develop Data Collection Plan
In developing the Data Collection Plan, the • What model of vehicle? (check box
Project Team: for vehicle models)
1. Reviews and confirms validity of the Refined • Where was the damage located?
Problem Statement and CTQ Operational (schematic)
Definition. • When was damage noted? (match
process map)
Problem Statement
• Vehicle Identification Number? (VIN)
Los Angeles Region dealerships’ dissatisfaction
with delivery times exceeding 35 days in • Receiving dealership
connection with Explorer vehicles shipped from the • Why data is needed
Louisville Assembly Plant. (See page 21.)
– To determine whether any trends,
consistencies or correlations exist
Vehicles ordered to fulfill consumer requests, or • How data will be collected
as part of standard stock replenishment, will be – A data collection form will accompany
received into dealership inventory on or earlier 50-100 vehicles destined for any of the
than the day subsequent to the date registered
as part of online order submission. All days,
five large-volume dealerships in the
25 except those recognized as holidays in the union Southwest
contract, will be included in the count. • Where data will be collected
– Data will be collected at each of the
2. Generates responses to the Data Collection three inspection points indicated on
Plan questions: the Process Map (Holding Yard
receiving inspection, Holding Yard
• What data will be collected (including type)
dispatching inspection, dealership
– Attribute Data indicating: receiving inspection)
• Was damage found? (yes/no) • Who will collect data
• What type of damage was found? – Inspectors as indicated on the
(check boxes for type) Process Map
26
3. Produce a data collection tool and develop inclusion of data collection forms with
a process for using it to gather information. transportation paperwork of vehicles being
shipped to the targeted dealerships (5) in the
NOTE: The Project Team establishes a Southwest Region.
process based on Dealer Codes that ensures
In developing the Data Collection Plan, the Project Team:

1. Reviews and confirms validity of the Refined Problem Statement and
CTQ Operational Definition.
Revise Problem Statement
Los Angeles Region dealerships’ dissatisfaction with delivery times exceeding
35 days in connection with Explorer vehicles shipped from the Louisville
Assembly Plant.
Vehicles ordered to fulfill consumer requests, or as part of standard stock
replenishment, will be received into dealership inventory on or earlier than the
35th day subsequent to the date registered as part of online order submission.
All days, except those recognized as holidays in the union contract, will be
included in the count.
2. Generates responses to the Data Collection Plan questions:
27 • What data will be collected (including type)

– Variable Data indicating:
• Date and time information at the beginning of each leg of the delivery process
• What Explorer model (check box for vehicle models)
• Which dealership received the vehicle
• Which carrier handled each leg of the delivery trip
• Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)
• Process exceptions
• Why data is needed
– To determine whether any trends, consistencies or correlations exist
• How data will be collected
– A delivery timecard will accompany each Explorer released from the Louisville plant with
a Los Angeles Region destination. Timecards will accompany Los Angeles-bound
vehicles produced during a two-week period, with 30 samples being taken at random
from the overall set of data.
• Where data will be collected
– Timecards will accompany the vehicles with time and date data collected each time the
vehicle begins a major process step.
• Who will collect data
– Time and date data will be collected by the owner of that process step, including
Plant Personnel, Mixing Center Personnel, Rail Carrier Personnel and Haulaway
Carrier Personnel.
28
3. Produce a data collection tool and develop a NOTE: The Project Team establishes a
process for using it to gather information. process based on Dealer Codes that ensures
inclusion of data collection forms with
transportation paperwork of vehicles being
shipped to the Los Angeles Region.
Summary • If data is currently available

– Whether available data will provide enough
In developing the Data Collection Plan, the
information to determine the root causes of
Project Team should consider:
the problem
• What the team wants to know about
– What data collection tools will be
the process
used if current data does not provide
• The likely causes of variation in the enough information
process (Xs)
• Where errors in data collection might occur
• Whether there are cycles in the process and and how errors can be avoided or corrected
how long data must be collected to obtain a
true picture of the process NOTE: The Project Team should make certain
• Who will collect the data that ample consideration has been given to the
various factors (Xs) that might be causing
• How the measurement system will be tested variation in the process. It is very important
• Whether operational definitions are that, where applicable, data be subgrouped to
detailed enough determine variation between the subgroups.
• How data will be displayed once collected For example if the Xs were typos observed in a
document, the project team might subgroup the
data as follows: person-to-person,
office-to-office, shift-to-shift, week-to-week, etc.
29
MEASURE PHASE
MEASURE PHASE | Perform Measurement System Analysis
Perform
Measurement
System
Analysis
Perform Measurement Operational Definitions

System Analysis One method of validating the Measurement
System is based on Operational Definitions
constructed by the Project Team to ensure that
Overview all measurement takers completely understand
The purpose of performing a Measurement what is expected during the data collection
System Analysis is to ensure the information phase.
collected is a true representation of what is After participation in the development of
occurring in the process. Operational Definitions, measurement takers
It is important to remember that Total Variation will understand how to:
is the sum of Process Variation and • Decide what information is required and why
Measurement System Variation. Therefore, • Use the data collection form
minimizing measurement variation ensures that
only process variation is reflected by the data. • Determine what is and what is not a defect
(if appropriate)
• Annotate unusual situations that may skew
Outcomes the data
Upon concluding a Measurement System Following development of Operational
Analysis, the Project Team should have a high Definitions, Project Team Members will have 30
level of confidence that collected data will validated that the:
correctly depict variation in the process. • Data Collection Plan can produce the
required data
Key Concepts • Data Collection Tool is effective and easy
to use
• Operational Definitions
• Measurement takers understand data
• Gage R&R collection expectations
MEASURE PHASE Perform Measurement System Analysis
Gage R&R a sum of Repeatability variation and

Reproducibility variation. A typical Gage
Gage R&R is the most common measurement R&R study will include:
system analysis tool used for both Attribute and • 1 to 3 measurement takers
Variable data. Gage R&R analyzes a • 10 process outputs (units/samples)
measurement tool’s effectiveness.
• 2 or 3 measurements of each unit/sample by
Repeatability: The differences in repeated each measurement taker
measurements on the same item by the same • Samples chosen to represent typical output of
person at the same location. the process
Reproducibility: A measurement made by NOTE: Additional information on conducting a
different people at different locations. Gage R&R can be found in SSA Navigator,
Black Belt training materials, and the Appendix
Results of a Gage R&R will indicate of this document.
overall Measurement System variation as

31
The Project Team conducts a Measurement System Analysis to validate their
Data Collection Plan. To conduct the scenario, individuals involved in vehicle inspection are
invited to a meeting held at a centralized location within the Southwest Region. The Project
Team invites the following:
• Holding Yard Inspectors — 2 Inbound and 2 Outbound (4)
• Dealership Pre-Delivery Inspectors — 2 per dealership (10)
The Project Team also arranges to borrow 6 vehicles from dealership inventory for use
during the scenario.
SCENARIO
Participants are told about the project as described by the Refined Problem Statement. They are then asked to inspect the
vehicles and note their opinions on a blank sheet of paper. Following the initial inspection, results are discussed in a group
setting.
Participants are then provided further details about Project Team objectives in the context of the Refined Problem Statement
and CTQ Operational Definition. Participants are asked to inspect the vehicles a second time using the Data Collection Tool.
Results are discussed and compared to the initial findings. The session concludes with participants offering feedback on the
data collection process.
As a result of participant feedback, Operational Definitions for each defect condition are listed on back of the Data Collection
Tool. In addition, the Data Collection Tool has been revised to be a postage-paid self-mailer.
MEASURE PHASE
Perform Measurement System Analysis
32
Project Teams can use a worksheet similar to this when conducting Gage R&R Studies.
The Gage is acceptable only if all measurements agree. If measurements do not agree,
the measurement system must be improved or replaced.
MEASURE PHASE Perform Measurement System Analysis
Project Team Members use a “Walking the Process” methodology to construct Operational
Definitions and perform the Measurement System Analysis.
Prior to beginning the process, Project Team Members will educate measurement takers on
use of the Data Collection Tool and the format to use when logging time and date information.
Measurement takers will also receive instruction on how to annotate process exceptions.
Measurement takers receiving instruction include:
• Assembly Plant final inspection personnel (data collection initiators)
• Drivers who load vehicles on railcars
• Drivers who unload vehicles at Mix Center
• Haulaway Carrier drivers who transport vehicles from Mix Center to dealerships
• Dealership inventory management personnel who receive the vehicles
NOTE: The starting date for the order will be established using data from the vehicle
ordering system.
Project Team Members will follow the delivery process beginning with the Assembly
33 Plant inspector, continuing through transfer to railhead, the Mix Center and finishing with
vehicle receipt at the dealership. “Walking the Process” will be repeated until Project Team
Members are confident that data compiled during the collection period accurately reflects the
existing process.
MEASURE PHASEPerform Measurement System Analysis
Summary • What confidence level can be attached to the

measurements collected
At the conclusion of the Measurement System
• Whether or not measurement increments are
Analysis, the Project Team should know:
small enough to show variation
• Whether the measurement system is
• Sources of measurement error
“capable” of gathering data that accurately
reflect variation in the process • Whether the measurement system will be
stable over time
• Whether there is measurement error, how big
it is and a method of accounting for it
34
MEASURE PHASE
M EASURE P HASE | Conduct Data Collection
Conduct
Data
Collection
Overview The Project Team should collect data

as follows:
Collection of project data is one of the most
• A minimum of 50 to 100 data samples per
important steps in the Consumer Driven 6-
subgroup for attribute data
Sigma process. Successful data collection is
the result of a well-defined Data Collection – Yes/No
Plan, and the importance of time spent – Pass/Fail
planning becomes evident when the team – Damage/No Damage
reviews collected data.
• A minimum of 30 data samples per subgroup
for variable data
– Time
– Dimensions
– Percentage
35
MEASURE PHASE Conduct Data Collection
36
Based on the strategy established in the Data Collection Plan, the Project Team compiles the
following data:
1. Vehicle/Model
2. Number of vehicles delivered to the target dealerships without damage
3. Number of vehicles with observable exterior damage delivered to the target dealerships
4. Total number of vehicles delivered
5. Type of damage
6. Who first detected the damage (to help determine where in the process damage occurred)
7. Location of damage on the vehicle
37
To facilitate graphical analysis, the Project Team subgroups vehicle data by Brand category:
1. Vehicle data subgrouped by brand category
NOTE: The Project Team will conduct Graphical Analysis on the data collected. Results of
this analysis will help prioritize improvement opportunities and provide the Project Team
further direction.
38
Based on the established Data Collection Plan, the Project Team investigating Delivery Timing
compiles the following data:
1. Data compiled from the Data Collection Tool provides:
– Vehicle information
– Time and date information for each checkpoint
39
To make the data useful for conducting Graphical Analysis, the Project Team will need to
convert date and time information to numerical values. Minitab offers an easy utility to make
the conversion.
1. After pasting data into Minitab, click on “Manip” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click on “Change Data Type” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “Date/Time to Numeric”
40
1. Input the column of data to be converted

2. Input the column in which the converted data should be stored
3. Click on “OK”
41
1. Label the new column appropriately to indicate data source

NOTE: The Project Team has converted the remaining columns of date/time data to numerical
equivalents and stored the data in columns C9 through C13.
42
1. To determine where delays occur in the process, the Project Team needs to consider the
interval of time between checkpoints. These intervals of time will be referred to as legs and
are calculated by subtracting the preceding checkpoint value from the one that follows.
For example: C9 – C8. The new value will be stored in a column labeled LEG 1.
43
1. Click on “Calc” from the Minitab navigation toolbar

2. Click on “Calculator” from the pull-down menu
44
1. Input the column label where new values will be stored

2. Input the column label for data reflecting a subsequent checkpoint
3. Click on the minus key
4. Input the column label for data reflecting the previous checkpoint
5. Click on “OK”
45
1. The resulting value represents the number of days between when a vehicle order is submitted
into the order system and when the vehicle passes inspection and leaves the assembly plant.
46
1. Time intervals represented by legs are as follows:

– LEG 1: Time spent in assembly process
– LEG 2: Time spent waiting in assembly plant lot
– LEG 3: Time spent in transit via rail from plant to Mix Center
– LEG 4: Time spent in Mix Center lot
– LEG 5: Time spent in transit from Mix Center to dealership
MEASURE PHASE
M EASURE P HASE | Perform Graphical Analysis
Perform
Graphical
Analysis
Overview collected data. Lines or (whiskers) extend

from either end of the rectangle to
Project Teams perform a graphical analysis on represent the general extent of the
data collected during the previous step to gain remaining data
direction regarding areas of potential – Measures the differences in distribution
improvement opportunities. Common tools between samples, and offers a graphical
used to perform graphical analysis include: summary of the values
– Helps identify extreme values and
Common Tools usual distributions
• PARETO • RUN CHART
– Commonly used tool – Used in the analysis
for analyzing of variable data
attribute data
– Allows the Project
– Pareto is a descending bar graph Team to study
– Based on the Pareto principle that 80% of observed performance data
defects are generated by 20% of over time to discern trends or patterns in
the causes the process
– Prioritizes which problem causes to – Used to determine whether a process is
47 address first (e.g., tallest bar) in control
• HISTOGRAM – The “brush” function can be used to
identify outliers
– Commonly used tool for
analyzing variable data
– Histogram is a Other Tools
frequency bar graph
• SCATTER PLOT
– Shows the frequency with which data falls
into specific categories Outcomes
– Histogram allows for quick analysis of
data normality, process centering, spread At the conclusion of Graphical Analysis, the
and shape Project Team will have:
• Focused on particular improvement
• BOXPLOT opportunities for further investigation
– Used in the analysis of • Determined secondary targets for future study
variable data
– Boxplot is a rectangular • Identified (potential) further data collection
box representing the requirements
middle 50% of the
MEASURE PHASE Perform Graphical Analysis
Pareto
48
Pareto Chart Analysis

This example is based on attribute data; therefore, the Project Team will use Pareto Charts to
help direct them to potential areas of improvement. The Project Team begins by determining
which of the “brand” subgroups are experiencing the greatest amount of observable exterior
damage upon arrival at the dealership:
1. Input data into a Minitab Spreadsheet
3. Click on “Quality Tools” from the pull-down menu
4. Click on “Pareto Chart” from the secondary pull-down menu
Pareto
49
Pareto Chart Analysis - continued

1. Click on the “Chart defects table” in the Pareto Chart dialog box
2. Enter the column containing subgroup labels (in this case C2 Brand) in the “Labels in” field
3. Enter the column containing count data (in this case C4 Damage) in the “Frequencies in” field
4. Click “OK”
Pareto
50

1. The resulting chart shows the largest number of vehicles delivered to dealerships with
observable exterior damage belonging to the Ford Car brand.
NEXT STEPS
The Project team will need to take a closer look at the Ford Car brand to see if observable
damage is occurring on one particular model more than other models. The Project Team will
produce a second Pareto Chart to analyze the Ford Car brand data.
Pareto
51
1. A Pareto Chart of Ford Car brand vehicles shows that the largest amount of damage is
occurring on Taurus vehicles.
2. The Project Team decides to check the Mercury brand data to see if a similar amount of
damage is occurring on the Sable. The data verifies the Team’s intuition.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the outcome of the Graphical Analysis, the Vehicle Condition at Delivery Project Team
will focus on damage occurring to Taurus and Sable vehicles delivered to five large-volume
Southwest Region dealerships.
In later steps, the team will try to determine:
• If one type of damage is occurring more frequently than another
• If damage is occurring during a specific step of the vehicle delivery process
Histogram
52
Histogram Analysis
The Project Team begins by calculating the total of each “LEG” of the delivery process using the
Minitab “Calculator” function (reference page 43 for details on accessing the calculator function).
1. Input the column label where the “total” values will be stored
2. Input column labels reflecting the values to be added (e.g., LEGs of the delivery process)
Note: Click on the “plus” key between each column label. Also, a sum of these columns can
be derived using the “Sum” function (see Minitab materials for further details)
3. Click “OK”
Histogram
53
Histogram Analysis - continued

To produce a Histogram of “TOTAL A” data:
1. Click on “Graph” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click on “Histogram” from the pull-down menu
Histogram
54

1. Input the column label for “Total A” data in “Graph variables” field of the dialog box
2. Click “OK”
Histogram
55

1. The resulting Histogram shows vehicle delivery data has a bi-modal (non-normal) distribution.
Because this Histogram indicates non-normal data, the Project Team will likely continue their
analysis by investigating how each process LEG impacts the overall results. To look at how the
LEGs compare to one another, the Project Team will construct a Boxplot of the data.
Boxplot
56
Boxplot Analysis
To perform a Boxplot analysis using Minitab:
1. Click “Graph” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click “Boxplot” from the pull-down menu
Boxplot
57
Boxplot Analysis - continued

1. Input column labels for the data to be analyzed (LEG1, LEG2 …) in the fields available
beneath the “Y”
2. Use the scroll-down bar to access additional fields
3. Click on “Edit Attributes”
Boxplot
58

Clicking the “Edit Attributes” button reveals a dialog box that allows users to adjust the
appearance of the resulting Boxplot.
1. Adjust boxplot attributes to preference
2. Click “OK”
Boxplot
59

1. Click “OK”
Boxplot
60

The resulting Boxplot reveals a large degree of variation in LEG2 of the vehicle delivery
process. To take a closer look at LEG2, the Project Team will construct a Run Chart of the
LEG2 data sample.
Run Chart
61
Run Chart Analysis

To construct a Run Chart of the LEG2 data sample:
1. Click on “Stat” from the Minitab navigation toobar
3. Click on “Run Chart” from the secondary pull-down menu
Run Chart
62
Run Chart Analysis - continued

1. Input the column label for the data to be charted
2. Input a subgroup size of “1” (data is for single vehicles and has not been arranged in
subgroups)
3. Allow plotting for “means” (default position)
4. Click “OK”
Run Chart
63
Run Chart Analysis - continued

1. The resulting Run Chart for LEG2 shows a process that is not in control (distance and number
of plot points not near the red median line).
To determine if any trends exist, the Project Team will use the “Brush” function to highlight data
points that are significantly higher than the median (outlier points).
Run Chart
64
Run Chart Analysis – Brush Function

1. Click on the “Brush” icon from the Minitab navigation toolbar (or click on “Brush” from the
“Editor” pull-down menu)
Run Chart
65
Run Chart Analysis – Brush Function - continued

1. Use the “pointing hand” cursor to draw a box around the data points to be investigated.
NOTE: When using the “Brush” function, an additional “pop-up” box will appear to reveal the row
labels associated with the highlighted data.
Run Chart
66

1. Highlighted data points change color
2. Row labels corresponding to highlighted data appear in the “Row” pop-up box
67

1. In addition to row labels appearing in the pop-up box, bullets are placed next to corresponding
data rows in the “Worksheet” window.
2. The Project Team notices that there seems to be some connection between longer LEG2
times and Sport Trac models. The team will “walk the process” to determine if there are any
“quick hits” that might correct delays relating to Sport Trac models.
“Quick Hits” Improvement

The Project Team works with the Assembly Plant to determine why Sport Trac models appear to
be experiencing longer than average delays prior to loading on railcars for transfer to the Mixing
Center. Following interviews and direct observation, the Project Team determines the following:
1. Delayed Sport Trac units are often orders that include the Cargo Cage option.
2. Cargo Cage part availability issues mean that some Sport Trac units leave the plant without
the specified Cargo Cage installed.
3. Production demands take priority with regard to Cargo Cage part shipments.
4. Rework for Cargo Cage installation happens on Friday afternoons for units awaiting
railcar loading.
Short-Term Corrective Measures

The Project Team and Assembly Plant work to revise two conditions of the “as is” process:
1. Rework on Sport Trac units waiting for railcar loading must occur within 12 hours of the arrival
of supplier parts at the Assembly Plant.
2. Sport Trac units waiting for railcar loading will have equal priority regarding supplier part
shipments.
Long-Term Corrective Measures

The Assembly Plant will work with the Cargo Cage supplier to accurately meet production needs.
After short-term corrective measures have been put in place, the Project Team will collect a new
data sample.
68
MEASURE PHASE
M EASURE P HASE | Conduct Baseline Analysis
Conduct
Baseline
Analysis
Overview Variable Data
The purpose of the Baseline Capability Analysis In handling variable data, Baseline Capability
is to characterize the current process in relation analysis involves the calculation:
to customer requirements (CTQs). The goal of • Cp — an index of capability potential
Baseline Capability is to determine: that indicates the amount of variation in
• If the current process, given its natural the process
variation, is capable of meeting • Cpk — an index that compares the natural
customer requirements tolerance of a process against its specification
• The percentage of defect within the limits to reveal if there is a problem with
current process specification centering.
As with other tools, Baseline Capability analysis Baseline capability of variable data also
is handled differently depending on whether the includes calculation of Pp and Ppk indices that
data is attribute or variable. reveal problems with variation and centering
over the long term.
Attribute Data Sigma value is calculated by multiplying

Cpk by 3.
To conduct Baseline Capability analysis using
attribute data, the team must calculate DPMO
69
(Defects Per Million Opportunities) to determine
the percentage yield of the process as well as
the current process Sigma level.
MEASURE PHASE Conduct Baseline Analysis
70
From the Graphical Analysis, the Project Team concludes that the biggest opportunity for
improvement exists in the Taurus/Sable vehicle line. Therefore, the Project Team needs to
conduct a Baseline Capability Analysis on data relating to those models.
1. To begin, the Project Team isolates Taurus/Sable data in a new Minitab Worksheet.
2. The Project Team adds a column to indicate the number of defect opportunities available per
unit (each Taurus/Sable delivered). Because the Project Team is addressing whether the
vehicles arrived in good condition versus damaged (Attribute data) the number of opportunities
equals 1 (e.g., the vehicle was either damaged or good).
71
1. Click on “Six Sigma” from the Minitab navigation toolbar

2. Click on “Product Report” from the pull-down menu
72
1. Input the label for the column containing data on the number of vehicles damaged
(in this example, C4).
2. Input the label for the column containing data on the total number of vehicles delivered
3. Input the label for the column containing data number of opportunities for defect per unit
4. Click “OK”
73
1. The results show individual Sigma values by model as well as a overall Sigma value of
2.36 for both Taurus and Sable models. In addition to the numeric calculations, this Minitab
function also presents the data in three graphical views as seen on the following page.
74
1. Graphical views
75
To conduct a Baseline Capability Analysis on Delivery Timing (Variable Data), the Project Team
takes a look at data expressing the total number of delivery days (Total B).
Note: Totals (Total B) taken from data collected after the “Quick Win” process improvement was
made to Explorer Sport Trac models featuring the cargo cage option.
1. Click “Six Sigma” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click “Progress Report” from the pull-down menu
76
1. Input the column label representing the total data (C19 = TOTAL B)
2. Input subgroup size (in this example, the subgroup size is 1)
3. Input “Spec” limits (in this example, there is only an upper Spec limit of 35 days)
4. Click “OK”
77
Results provide two graphic summaries of the Capability Analysis. The first is an Executive
Summary showing:
• Process Centering relative to Spec limits
• Sigma Values
• Defects per million opportunities
78
The second report is an in-depth look at Process Capability.

ANALYZE PHASE A NALYZE P HASE
Attribute Confirm Variable Analysis of Analysis of Correlation

Chi-Square 2 Proportion 1 Proportion Data Variation Means Regression
Data Type Data
1- 2- ANOVA
F-Test ANOVA Sample Sample for
T-Test T-Test Means
ANALYZE PHASE A N A LY Z E P H A S E
Overview Key Concepts

As an outcome of the Measure Phase,
the Project Team should be narrowing its Attribute versus Variable data
focus on a distinct groups of project issues and • Attribute — data reflecting one of two
opportunities. The Analyze Phase allows conditions such as:
the Project Team to further target
improvement opportunities by taking a – Yes/No
closer look at the data. – Defect/No Defect
– Accurate/Inaccurate
NOTE: The Measure, Analyze, and Improve
Phases frequently work hand in hand to target • Variable — data reflecting a range of
a particular improvement opportunity. conditions such as:
– Processing Time
For example, the Analyze Phase might simply
serve to confirm opportunities identified by – Items Processed
Graphical Analysis. Conversely, the Analyze – Number of Defects
Phase might uncover a gap in the data
collection plan that requires the Project Team to Hypothesis Testing
collect additional information.
• Statistical Analysis used in 6-Sigma to validate
79 differences between data groups
ANALYZE PHASE
Outcomes • What are the root causes contributing to the
improvement opportunity?
Upon completion of the Analyze Phase, Project • How was the data analyzed to identify
Team Members should be able to answer: sources of variation?
• What was the approach to analyzing • Did analysis result in any changes to the
the data? problem statement or scope?
• What was the improvement opportunity?
80
ANALYZE PHASEChi-Square 2 Proportion
Confirm Data Type
1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
F-Test ANOVA Sample Sample For
T-Test T-Test Means
Confirm Data Type The pages that follow offer details on these
analysis tools as well as an overview of
To begin the Analyze Phase, the Project Team Minitab operations required to apply these
needs to confirm the type of data that has been tools to project data. Tools include:
collected, either Attribute or Variable. Based on
the data type, the Project Team will use one of
two sets of analysis tools.
81
ANALYZE PHASE Attribute Data Tools
Attribute Data Tools Chi-Square
• Attribute — data reflecting one of two conditions such as:

– Yes/No
– Defect/No Defect
– Accurate/Inaccurate
(requires sample size of 50-100 per subgroup)
1 Proportion
• Tests for independence between data
samples (shows no relationship)
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is statistical
independence between the two data
samples (no relationship exists).
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null
hypothesis
• Tests a data sample against a test proportion, • P-Value less than .05 = reject null hypothesis
target or defined standard
• Determines if there is statistically
significant difference 82
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no significant
difference between the sample data and
the target
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept
null hypothesis
• P-Value less than .05 = reject null hypothesis
2 Proportions
• Tests two data samples against one another

• Determines if there is statistically significant
difference between the two data samples
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no
significant difference between the two data
samples (A=B)
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept
null hypothesis
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools
Analysis of Variance — tests for level • Bartlett’s requires normal data, Levene’s does
of variation within a data sample not require normal data
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = all data samples have
• Variable — data reflecting a range of conditions such as: the same degree of variance
– Processing Time
– Items Processed • P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null
– Number of Defects hypothesis
(requires a minimum sample size of 30 per subgroup)
• P-Value less than .05 = reject the null
hypothesis
F-Test Analysis of Means — tests and
compares the means of data samples
1-Sample T-Test
83 • Tests and compares two data sets for

variance
• Assumes a random sample of normal data
(see “Testing for Normal Data” in Appendix) • Tests the data sample against a test
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = both data samples proportion, target or defined standard
have the same degree of variance • Determines if there is statistically
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null significant difference
hypothesis • Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no significant
• P-Value less than .05 = reject the null difference between the sample data and
hypothesis the target
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept null
ANOVA (Analysis of Variation) hypothesis
Homogeneity of Variance
• Tests and compares three or more data

samples for variance
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools
2-Sample T-Test Correlation Regression
• Tests and compares the means of two

data samples
• Assumes a random sample of normal data • Tests and compares data samples for
(see “Testing for Normal Data” in Appendix) correlation
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = both data samples • Requires normal data
have the same means • R-Squared > .80 correlation may be
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null significant
hypothesis • R-Squared > .50 and < .80 weak to moderate
• P-Value less than .05 = reject the correlation (use sound judgment)
null hypothesis • R-Squared < .50 correlation may not be 84
significant
ANOVA for Means
• Tests and compares the means of three or

more data samples
• Assumes normal data samples of
equal variance
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = all data samples have
the same means
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null
hypothesis
• P-Value less than .05 = reject the
null hypothesis
ANALYZE PHASE Chi-Square 2 Proportion
Attribute Data Tools
1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
1 Proportion
• Tests a data sample against a test proportion, target or
defined standard
• Determines if there is statistically significant difference
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no significant difference between the
sample data and the target
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept null hypothesis
85
Graphical Analysis from the Measure Phase To perform a 1 Proportion test:

has focused the Project Team on the condition 1. Click on “Stat” from the Minitab navigation
of Taurus/Sable models vehicles upon arrival toolbar
at five large volume dealerships in the
Southwest Region. To see if Taurus/Sable 2. Click on “Basic Statistics” from the pull-down
damage recorded by these dealerships is the menu
same as the national average of 3% for in- 3. Click on “1 Proportion” from the secondary
transit damage, the Team will test their data pull-down menu
using a 1 Proportion test.
1 Proportion
86
1. Select “Summarized data” by clicking the NOTE: The Project Team is testing their data
adjacent checkbox sample against a national average (3%) for
2. Input the total number of Taurus/Sable observable defects; therefore, defects are
vehicles delivered (155) in the field adjacent input as successes. Conversely, the equation
to “Number of trials” (In this example, total could be turned around to test against an
number of vehicles is the “Number of trials”) average percentage of “Good” units (97%).
(In this scenario, “Number of successes” would
3. Input the number of defects observed in the be 125.)
total number of vehicles delivered (30) in
the field adjacent to “Number of successes” 4. Click on “Options”
1 Proportion
87
1. In the field adjacent to “Confidence level,” wishes to test their data sample against a
input the confidence level for the data target. The null hypothesis is that the two
sample (in this example, 95%) are equal; the alternative hypothesis is that
the two are “not equal”)
2. In the field adjacent to “Test Proportion”
input the target against which the data 4. Click on the check box “Use test and
sample will be tested (In this example, the interval based on normal data” (as
average percentage for observable defect is appropriate for sample size)
3%; therefore, input .03)
5. Click “OK”
3. Select “not equal” in the “Alternative” pick
box (In this example, the Project Team
1 Proportion
88
1. Click “OK”
1 Proportion
89
1. Results of the 1 Proportion test provide a the Taurus/Sable data sample is statistically
P-Value of 0.000 different from the national average percentage
of observable defects.
A P-Value less than .05 means the Project
Team must reject the Null Hypothesis (If the Because the P-Value is less than .05, the
P is low, the null must go!). The Null Project Team is directed to the Alternative
Hypothesis is that Taurus/Sable data sample is Hypothesis. The data sample shows that
statistically the same as the national average Taurus/Sable models are exhibiting more
percentage of observable in-transit defects. in-transit damages than other models.
By contrast, the Alternative Hypothesis is that
1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
2 Proportion
• Tests two data samples against each other
between the two data samples
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no significant difference
between the two data samples (A = B)
90
The Project Team wants to see if there is a To perform the 2 Proportion test:
statistical difference in the amount of in-transit 1. Click on “Stat” from the Minitab navigation
damage observed in Taurus models compared toolbar
to Sable models. Statistical difference will be
tested using a 2 Proportion test. 2. Click “Basic Statistics” from the pull-down
menu
3. Click “2 Proportion” from the secondary
pull-down menu
2 Proportion
91
1. Click on the “Summarized data” checkbox 3. In the “First sample”/“Successes” field,

(In this example, it is easy to determine total enter the number of observable defects (19)
number of delivered units versus total
number of defects. Other projects may 4. In the “Second sample”/ “Trails” field,
make use of the column features, reference enter the total number of Sable vehicles
Minitab training for additional information) delivered (47)
2. In the “First sample”/“Trials” field, 5. In the “Second sample”/“Successes” field,

enter the total number of Taurus vehicles enter the number of observable defects (11)
delivered (78)
6. Click “Options”
2 Proportion
92
1. In the “Confidence level” field, enter the 3. In the “Alternative” pick box, select “not
appropriate confidence level (In this equal” (In this example, the Null Hypothesis
example, the confidence level is 95%) states that the two data samples are equal.
The “Alternate Hypothesis” states that the
2. In the “Test difference” field, enter the two data samples are not equal)
appropriate parameter (In this example, the
Project Team is testing to see if the degree 4. Click “OK”
of observable defective units is the same
between Taurus and Sable models;
therefore, the difference is set to zero)
2 Proportion
93
1. Click “OK”
2 Proportion
94
1. Results indicate a P-Value greater than .05; indicated that both Taurus and Sable
therefore the Project Team fails to reject the models are experiencing the same degree
Null Hypothesis that the two data samples of in-transit defects)
are the same (In this example, the data
1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
Chi-Square
• Tests for independence between data samples (shows no relationship)
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is statistical independence between
the two data samples (no relationship exists)
95
The Project Team notices that damage related To prepare for this test the Project Team
to “Paint (scratches)” occurs more frequently structures the data sample such that
than other types of damage. The Project Taurus and Sable counts are combined and
Team next wants to see if there is a all other vehicles are totaled and placed into
relationship between paint damage and another row.
location on the vehicle. To take a look at these 1. Row 1 contains data on all vehicles other
possible relationships, the Project Team than Taurus and Sable
conducts a Chi-Square test.
2. Row 2 contains Taurus and Sable data
Chi-Square
96
1. Click “Stat” on the Minitab navigation toolbar 3. Click “Chi-Square Test” on the secondary
2. Click “Tables” on the pull-down menu pull-down menu
Chi-Square
97
1. In the field adjacent to “Columns containing location of defect including: “Doors,” “Hood,”
the table,” input labels for those columns to “Truck/Tailgate,” “Front Qtr,” “Rear Qtr.”)
be analyzed (In this example, the Project
Team analyzes data for “Paint (Scratch)” 2. Click “OK”
and “Dent” as well as data relating to
Chi-Square
98
The Chi-Square Test results show • Statistically anticipated damage located on

the following: the Hood = 11.97
1. Sample 1 represents data for “All Other 5. P-Value = 0.000
Models”; sample 2 represents data for Based on results from the Chi-Square Test
Taurus and Sable models. (P-Value = 0.000), the Project Team rejects the
2. This row contains “actual” observed Null Hypothesis (there is statistical
damage counts. independence between the data samples).
3. This row contains “statistically Therefore, the Alternate Hypothesis is
anticipated” counts. accepted (there is some dependency between
data samples).
4. Taurus/Sable data shows:
• Actual observed damage for Paint The Project Team is also directed to look at
(Scratch) = 25 why Paint (Scratch) damage located in the
• Statistically anticipated damage for Paint Hood area of Taurus/Sable models is
(Scratch) = 18.67 occurring at a rate greater than what is
statistically anticipated.
• Actual observed damage located on the
Hood = 21
ANALYZE PHASE
Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Variation
Chi-Square 2 Proportion 1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
F-Test
99
After making the “Easy Win” improvement relating to Sport Trac models, the Project Team
collects a second data sample:
The second data sample will be used throughout the Analyze Phase.
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Variation
F-Test
• Tests and compares two data sets for variance
• Assumes a random sample of normal data (see “Testing for
Normal Data” in Appendix)
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = both data samples have the same
degree of variance
• P-Value greater than .05 = accept the null hypothesis
• P-Value less than .05 = reject the null hypothesis
100
F-Test (Stacking Data)

Based on work done during the Graphical Analysis step, the Project Team suspects that LEG2 is
still a significant contributor to overall variation in the vehicle delivery process. To understand
how variation in LEG2 impacts TOTAL delivery timing, the Team will conduct an F-Test on the
second data sample to determine if LEG2b and TOTAL B have the same degree of variation.
In order for Minitab to perform an F-Test, the data to be tested must appear in a single column
with corresponding subscripts in an adjacent column. This is referred to as Stack Columns.
To stack columns of data, the Project Team will:
1. Label two empty columns so that stacked data can be easily identified later.
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
101

1. Click on “Manip” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click on “Stack/Unstack” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “Stack Columns” from the secondary pull-down menu
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
102

1. Input the column label for LEG2b data (C15)
2. Input the column label for TOTAL B data (C19)
3. In the field next to “Store the stacked data in,” input the label for the column where the data will
be stored (C20)
4. In the field next to “Store subscripts in,” input the label for the column where the subscripts will
be stored (C21)
5. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
103
1. Data from column C15 has been copied into the first 40 rows of column C20 and automatically
assigned the subscript 1
2. Data from column C19 has been copied and stacked underneath in rows 41 through 80 and
automatically assigned the subscript 2
NOTE: Minitab software requires stacked columns data to perform many of the tests used in
the Analyze Phase. From this point forward in the Guidebook, instructions will refer to
Stack Columns as the first step in performing the test. Please refer back to these pages for
referencing the steps involved in stacking data.
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
104
After the Stack Columns function has been performed to arrange data for analysis,
the Project Team will:
1. Click “Stat” from the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click “ANOVA” from the pull-down menu
3. Click “Homogeneity of Variance” from the secondary pull-down menu
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
105
1. In the field next to “Response,” input the label for the column containing the stacked data
(C20)
2. In the field next to “Factors,” input the label for the column containing the subscripts for the
stacked data (C21)
3. In the field next to “Confidence level,” enter the appropriate number (In this example, the
Project Team has a Confidence level of 95% based on the generally accepted 5% error
rate in 6-Sigma)
4. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
F-Test
106
1. The Null Hypothesis for the F-Test is that the two data samples will have the same degree of
variance. Since results of the F-Test have produced a P-Value greater than .05, the Project
Team must accept that the two data samples have the same degree of variance.
In this example, data indicates that LEG2b (the amount of time Explorer vehicles wait on the
plant lot prior to loading on a railcar) has the same degree of variance as TOTAL B (the
amount of time it takes from order submission until the Explorer arrives at the dealership).
Next, the Project Team will look at variation in the other LEGs of the process to determine
impact on the overall total.
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Variation
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
ANOVA (Analysis of Variation)

• Tests and compares three or more data samples for variance
• Bartlett’s requires normal data, Levene’s does not require
normal data
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = all data samples have the same
degree of variance
107
Results of the F-Test indicate a similarity between the degree of variation seen in LEG2 and the
degree of variation seen in the overall delivery timing. However, the Project Team wants to look
at all the LEGs of the process to see the degree of variation in each step. To look at all LEGs
compared to one another, the Project Team will perform an ANOVA test.
1. To perform the ANOVA test, the Project Team must first stack data using the Minitab Stack
Columns function. (In this example, stacked data has been placed in columns C22 & C23.)
ANALYZE PHASE
ANOVA
108

2. Click on “ANOVA” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “Homogeneity of Variance” from the secondary pull-down menu
ANALYZE PHASE
ANOVA
109
1. In the field next to “Response,” input the label for the column containing stacked data (In this
example, data for LEG1b, LEG2b, LEG3b, LEG4b, LEG5b is contained in C22)
2. In the field next to “Factors,” input the label for the column containing subscripts for the
stacked data (C23)
3. In the field next to “Confidence level,” input the appropriate value (In this example, the Project
Team has determined a 95% Confidence level based on the generally accepted % error rate
in 6-Sigma)
4. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
ANOVA
110
1. Results of the ANOVA test on all LEGs of Delivery Timing have produced a P-Value less
than .05. (In this example the data is normal; therefore, the Project Team refers to results of
the Bartlett’s Test.) The Null Hypothesis for an ANOVA test states that all data samples will
have the same degree of variance. Since the P-Value is less than .05, the Project Team
must reject the Null Hypothesis and accepts that all data samples do not have the same
degree of variance.
2. The graphic also indicates that all data samples do not have the same degree of variance.
Furthermore, the graphic shows that LEG2 has the greatest degree of variation when
compared with the other LEGs.
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Means
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
1-Sample T-Test
• Tests the data sample against a test proportion, target or
defined standard
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = there is no significant difference
between the sample data and the target
111
To determine how overall Delivery Timing compares to the target of 35 days, the Project Team
will conduct a 1-Sample T-Test.
To perform a 1-Sample T-Test, the Project Team will:
1. Click on “Stat” on the Minitab navigation toolbar
2. Click on “Basic Statistics” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “1-Sample T-Test” from the secondary pull-down menu
ANALYZE PHASEVariable Data Tools | Analysis of Means
1-Sample T-Test
112
1. In the “Variables” field, input the label for the column of data to be tested
2. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Test mean”
3. In the field next to “Test mean,” input the appropriate value. (In this example, the Project Team
tests current Delivery Timing (TOTAL B) against the goal of 35 days.)
4. In the field next to “Alternative,” select the default of “not equal”
5. Click on “Graphs”
1-Sample T-Test
113
1. To get a complete set of graphs, click on each of the check boxes

2. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Means
1-Sample T-Test
114
1. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
1-Sample T-Test
115
1. Results of the 1-Sample T-Test shows the mean of TOTAL B (40.562 days) as well as the
confidence interval
2. The target mean of 35 days is shown as point “Ho”
ANALYZE PHASE
1-Sample T-Test
The 1-Sample T-Test also provides a Dotplot and Histogram view of mean of the data sample 116
compared to the target. Based on the results of the 1-Sample T-Test, the Project Team looks
for an improvement opportunity or combination of opportunities that will lessen Delivery Timing
by approximately 5 days.
ANALYZE PHASE Variable Data Tools | Analysis of Means
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
2-Sample T-Test
• Tests and compares the means of two data samples
• Assumes a random sample of normal data (see “Testing
for Normal Data” in Appendix)
• Null Hypothesis (Ho) = both data samples have the
same means
117
Because assembly plant production capacity is not within the Project Team’s area of influence,
the team will focus its efforts on downstream activities. The Project Team will be looking for
improvement opportunities that can shorten Delivery Timing by five days.
The Project Team believes LEG2 provides improvement opportunities and suspects there might
be additional opportunities in LEG3. To see a comparison of the means of these LEGs, the
Project Team will perform a 2-Sample T-Test.
To perform the 2-Sample T-Test, the Project Team will:
3. Click on “2-Sample T-Test” from the secondary pull-down menu
2-Sample T-Test
118
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Samples in different columns”

2. In the field next to “First,” input the label for the first column of data to be tested (in this
example, C15 data for LEG2)
3. In the field next to “Second,” input the label for the second column of data to be tested (in this
example, C16 data for LEG3)
4. In the field adjacent to “Alternative,” select “not equal”
5. In the field adjacent to “Confidence level,” input the appropriate value. (In this example, the
Project Team uses a 95% Confidence level)
6. Click on “Graphs”
2-Sample T-Test
119
1. Click on the check box next to “Dotplots of data”

2. Click on the check box next to “Boxplots of data”
3. Click “OK”
ANALYZE PHASE
2-Sample T-Test
120
1. Click “OK”
2-Sample T-Test
121
1. The 2-Sample T-Test provides means for LEG2 and LEG3.

2. The Dotplot depicts the mean as a red line with individual data point shown as dots extending
vertically above and below the mean.
3. The Boxplot depicts the mean as a red dot; the box is a visual representation on the middle
50% of the data. A horizontal line shows the data’s median point while vertical whiskers
convey the extent of the data extremes. Results of the 2-Sample T-Test confirm that LEG2
and LEG3 might provide improvement opportunities equaling five days. In addition, the
Dotplot and Boxplot highlight variation still existing in LEG2.
Before the Project Team begins looking at ways to improve these two LEGs, they will perform an
ANOVA for Means to see how LEG2 and LEG3 compare to all LEGs of the process.
ANALYZE PHASE
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
ANOVA for Means
122
To better understand the overall Delivery Process, Project Team Members will conduct an
ANOVA for Means. This analysis will show whether there is significant statistical difference
between the means of each LEG of the process. The Null Hypothesis is that there will be no
statistically significant difference between one LEG and any other LEG.
To perform an ANOVA for Means the Project Team will:
2. Click on “ANOVA” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “One-way” from the secondary pull-down menu
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
ANOVA for Means
123
1. In the field next to “Response,” input the label for the column for the data to be tested.
(In this example, the Project Team uses Stack Columns data compiled earlier for
ANOVA-Homogeneity of Variance Analysis (C22).)
2. In the field next to “Factor,” input the label for the column containing subscript information
3. Click “OK”
ANOVA for Means
124
1. Results of the ANOVA for Means analysis indicate a P-Value below .05 (in this example,
0.000). Based on this P-Value, the Project Team cannot accept the Null Hypothesis and instead
looks to the Alternative Hypothesis, which states that there is a statistically significant difference
between at least one LEG and one other LEG.
ANOVA for Means
125
1. Scrolling down in the Session window reveals a summary table that includes the Mean and
Standard Deviation for each LEG of the Delivery Timing process.
2. A graphical representation (Boxplot) of the ANOVA for Means shows a mean of each LEG
compared to means for the other LEGs.
Based on the results of the ANOVA for Means test, Project Team Members direct their attention
to LEG1, LEG2 and LEG3, as they represent the largest means.
The Project Team notes that LEG1 (the Factory) is beyond the scope of their project and that
LEG3 (Rail Transit) does not exhibit the level of variation seen in LEG2. Therefore, the Project
Team will target LEG2 for improvement opportunities.
Correlation Regression
1 Proportion
Attribute
Data
Confirm
Data
Type
Variable
Data
Analysis of
Variation
Analysis of
Means
Correlation
Regression
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
• Tests and compares data samples for correlation
• Requires normal data
• R-Squared > .80 correlation may be significant
• R-Squared > .50 and < .80 weak to moderate correlation
(use sound judgment)
• R-Squared < .50 correlation may not be significant
126
To better understand the relationship LEG2 variation has on the degree of variation seen in the
overall process, the Project Team will perform a Correlation Regression test.
To perform a Correlation Regression test, the Project Team will:
2. Click on “Regression” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “Fitted Line Plot”
ANALYZE PHASE Correlation Regression
127
1. In the field next to “Response (Y),” input the label for the column that contains data which will
be impacted by a correlation. (In this example, the Project Team wants to see if LEG2
correlates to the TOTAL; therefore, the “Response” field should contain the label for TOTAL
data (C19).)
2. In the field next to “Predictor (X),” input the label for the column that contains data which will
impact “Response” data. (In this example, Predictor data is LEG2 (C15).)
3. Click “Linear” from the selection boxes beneath Type of Regression Model.
4. Click “Options”
128
1. Click on the check box next to “Display confidence bands”

2. Click on the check box next to “Display prediction bands”
3. In the field next to “Confidence level,” input the appropriate value. (In this example, the Project
Team has 95% Confidence based on the generally accepted error rate of 5% in 6-Sigma)
4. Click “OK”
129
1. Click “OK”
130
1. Results of the Correlation Regression test produces an R-Square value of .853, which
indicates a correlation that may be statistically significant
2. The Regression Line is upward sloping, which indicates a positive correlation (In this example,
as the duration of LEG2 increases there is a corresponding increase in the overall duration of
the Delivery Timing process.)
3. Confidence Interval lines (red) show the confidence interval on the coefficients
4. Prediction Interval lines (blue) show the area (between the prediction bands) where for any
given “X” (Response) there is a 95% chance that the corresponding “Y” (Predictor) will lie
Based on results from the Correlation Regression test, the Project Team will look more closely
at improvement opportunities that exist in LEG2.
IMPROVE PHASE Create
I M P ROV E P H A S E
Perform
Brainstorm “Should Be” Conduct Validate
Cost/Benefit Pilot
Alternatives Process FMEA Improvement
Analysis
Map
IMPROVE PHASE I M P ROV E P H A S E
Overview NOTE: Design of Experiments (DOE) is an

effective tool that can be used in both the
As an outcome of the Analyze Phase, Project Analyze and Improve Phases of the DMAIC
Team members should have a strong process. However, DOE can be a difficult tool
understanding of the factors impacting their to use outside of a manufacturing environment
project, including: where small adjustments can be made to input
• Key Process Input Variables (KPIV) — the factors and output can be monitored in real
vital few “Xs” that impact the “Y” time. In non-manufacturing, other creative
methods are frequently required to discover and
• Sources of Variation — where the greatest validate improvements. Further details
degree of variation exists regarding DOE are provided in the Appendix of
The purpose of the Improve Phase is to: this Guidebook.
• Generate ideas
• Design, Pilot and Implement improvements Outcomes
• Validate Improvements At the conclusion of the Improve Phase, the
Project Team will have:
Key Concepts
• Identified alternative improvement
• Brainstorming • Implemented the best alternative for improving
• “Should Be” Process Map the process
131
• FMEA • Validated the improvement
• Cost/Benefit • Prepared for transition to the Control Phase
• Pilot
• Implementation
IMPROVE PHASE Brainstorm
Brainstorm Alternative
Alternatives
Brainstorm Alternatives 3. List all ideas on flip charts or “Post-it” notes

4. Continue until everyone's ideas are
By definition, Brainstorming is a technique to exhausted
generate a large number of ideas in a relatively
short period of time. Brainstorming is a team 5. Review list for clarity of thoughts and to
activity rather than an individual task. It eliminate duplications
leverages the knowledge, ideas and experience 6. Use as input for Cause-and-Effect diagram
of several people to generate a comprehensive
set of ideas. Participant Guidelines
To increase the effectiveness of Brainstorming, • Take turns; make sure everyone has an equal
the team should follow some standard practices opportunity to contribute
and guidelines. • Listen and respect others’ ideas
• Build on existing ideas
Brainstorming Standard Practices • Stay focused on the topic
1. Agree on and write down the statement of • Do not criticize ideas; no negative comments
the problem (KPIV, X) to be solved
2. Allow each Team Member to contribute
132
IMPROVE PHASE Brainstorm Alternative
At the conclusion of the Analyze Phase, the Project Team is directed toward paint scratch/hood
damage observed on Taurus and Sable vehicles being shipped to high-volume dealerships in the
Southwest Region.
Further investigation by the Project Team indicates that damage is first observed upon the
vehicle arrival at the dealership. Therefore, Project Team Members decide to “Walk-the-Process”
between the outbound Holding Yard inspection and inspection at the dealership to determine
possible causes for damage.
Further Findings
Project Team Members monitor the loading of vehicles on haulaway trucks and then inspect
vehicles upon arrival at the destination dealership. The Project Team notes damage is
observable only on those units located at the most rearward position on the upper level of the
car carrier with the front of the vehicle facing downward.
The Project Team repeats the monitoring process placing special attention to the most rearward
vehicle on the upper level of the car carrier. Team Members note that damage was not observed
133 when the vehicle was loaded with the rear of the vehicle facing downward.
At the conclusion of the monitoring process, the Project Team determines that the technique
used to chain the vehicles to the carrier compresses the vehicle’s suspension such that front
quarter panels of the vehicle rub against the side of the hood. The rubbing action that occurred
during transit removed paint from the hood panel and is noted as Paint Scratch damage during
dealership inspection.
Brainstormed Solutions
1) Training for carrier drivers regarding loading and chaining procedures
2) Panel Spacers for use during transit
IMPROVE PHASE Brainstorm Alternative
At the conclusion of the Analyze Phase, Project Team Members are directed toward LEG2
(waiting period between assembly and loading onto railcars for transit) and LEG3 (railcar
in-transit time). Therefore, the Project Team conducts a deeper investigation into LEG2 and
LEG3 process steps.
Further Findings
The Project Team Members find that notification to the rail transit provider of vehicles ready for
transport occurs once per day as a batch data file. Once the information is received, the rail
transit provider begins a process of sorting vehicles by destination, then sequencing loading at
the assembly plant.
Brainstormed Solutions
• More frequent data transfers
• Pre-notification of vehicle order and build status
• Rate incentives for target date delivery
134
IMPROVE PHASE Create “Should Be” Process Map
Create
“Should Be”
Process
Map
Create “Should Be” Process Map solutions must be determined through the
experience and expertise of the Project Team
After alternatives have been brainstormed, the Members.
Project Team determines which alternative
offers the “best” solution or “best set” of Once a “best” solution has been identified, the
solutions for implementation. Project Team will Create [a] “Should Be”
Process Map." This revised process map will
Design of Experiment (DOE) techniques can be include all steps necessary to implement the
helpful in determining a “best” solution if the improvement. The “Should Be” Process Map
project allows for easy implementation and will serve as the reference document for the
monitoring of incremental changes. However, new process.
on many non-manufacturing projects, “best”
135
The Project Team determines that “Panel Spacers” offers the best solution for reducing the
amount of observable Paint Scratch damage on Taurus and Sable vehicles.
The Panel Spacer solution includes the placement of four small pieces of high density Styrofoam
near the corners of the hood panel. After placement, these spacers maintain a proper gap
between the hood panel and front quarter panels during transit.
The “Should Be” Process Map includes installation of Panel Spacers at the Assembly Plant
as part of the body assembly process.
IMPROVE PHASE Create “Should Be” Process Map
The Project Team determines that the “best” solution alternative is to submit “vehicles ready for 136
transport” information to the rail transit provider twice daily rather than once per day.
The “Should Be” Process Map will include the transmission of data at two intervals each day:
• Late morning between 11:00 A.M. and Noon
• Close of business 5:00 P.M.
IMPROVE PHASE Conduct FMEA
Conduct
FMEA
Conduct FMEA
FMEA is an effective tool that helps ensure
potential process/product failure modes; the
causes and customer impacts of those failures
have been considered and addressed.
137
Definitions 5. Potential Causes — sources of Variability

associated with Key Process Input Variables
1. Process Step/Part Number — name of issue
to be addressed 6. Occurrence (OCC) — how likely are the
Causes of the Failure Mode to occur
2. Failure Mode — the manner in which a part
or process fails to meet specification (usually 7. Current Controls — description of process
associated with a defect or nonconformance) controls that either prevent the failure mode
from occurring or detect the Failure Mode
3. Failure Effect — impact on the consumer or should it occur
downstream customer if Failure Mode is not
eliminated or mitigated 8. Detection (DET) — how likely it is that the
current system will detect the Causes or
4. Severity (SEV) — how significant is the Failure Mode if it occurs
impact of the Failure Effect on the consumer
or internal customer 9. Risk Priority Number (RPN) — the product of
the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection
Ranking (RPN=SEV*OCC*DET)
IMPROVE PHASE Conduct FMEA
10. Action Recommended — actions to reduce Outputs

any or all of the Occurrence, Severity or
Detection rankings After conducting the FMEA, the Project Team
should have:
11. Responsibility — person or group • A list of potential failure modes
responsible for the Action Recommended
• A list of potential critical characteristics and
12. Actions Taken — a brief description of potential significant characteristics
actual action and effective date • A list of effects
13. SEV, OCC, DET, RPN — new Severity, • Documentation of current controls
Occurrence, Detection, Risk Priority • Documentation and prioritization of
Number ranking based on the recommended improvement actions
Actions Taken • A historical record of improvements
NOTE: An FMEA should be updated after each
change introduced to the process. This means
that the analysis is never over, unless the
process is completely withdrawn.
138
IMPROVE PHASE Perform Cost/Benefit Analysis
Perform
Cost/
Benefit
Analysis
Perform Cost/Benefit Analysis. This analysis will validate that

benefits received from implementation of the
Analysis solution will outweigh implementation costs.
Once an FMEA has been conducted, the
Project Team will Perform [a] Cost/Benefit
139
The Project Team determines the following costs and benefits from implementing the “Panel
Spacer” solution:
Based on the Cost/Benefit Analysis, the Project Team concludes that they should conduct a pilot
of the Panel Spacer solution in preparation for full implementation.
IMPROVE PHASE Perform Cost/Benefit Analysis
140
The Project Team determines the following costs and benefits from implementing the “Twice
Daily Data Submission” solution:
Based on the Cost/Benefit Analysis, the Project Team concludes that they should conduct a pilot
of the “Twice Daily Data Submission” solution in preparation for full implementation.
IMPROVE PHASE Pilot
Pilot
Pilot should be spent developing the pilot to ensure

that all potential risks have been identified and
After performing the Cost/Benefit Analysis, the taken into account.
team will have rationale to conduct a pilot of the
purposed solution. The Project Team should Following the pilot, the team will need to
select a small area or time frame in which to evaluate the results and validate improvements
implement the pilot. Ample time and effort prior to transition to the Control Phase.
The Project Team secures enough Panel Spacers to cover one week’s production of Taurus and
Sable vehicles. Using the same data collection methodology specified in the Measurement
System Analysis, the Project Team collects a new data sample to verify the improvement.

141
The Project Team works with the Louisville Assembly Plant to implement a two-week trial of
“Twice Daily Data Submission." The Project Team also works with the provider of rail
transportation to prepare them for the new process and look for ways to maximize the impact.
A third data sample will be collected to validate the improvement.
IMPROVE PHASE Validate Improvement
Validate
Improvement
Validate Improvement analysis will validate or disprove the validity of

the solution. If the analysis shows valid
Data collected during the Pilot will allow the improvements to the process have been made,
Project Team to conduct a second Capability the Project Team will then develop and execute
Analysis. Results of this second capability a full-scale implementation plan.
142
The Pilot of the Panel Spacers solution is producing defect levels at slightly less than 3.5 Sigma
(3.334). While this performance is not World Class, it does bring the amount of observable
Paint Scratch damage on Taurus and Sable vehicles near the target of 3%. Therefore, the Panel
Spacer solution will most likely produce the projected cost savings and increases in
customer satisfaction.
IMPROVE PHASE Validate Improvement
143
Results of the “Twice Daily Data Submission” have produced a Sigma shift of 1.76 Sigma (.85 to
2.61). While the projection for long-term performance is slightly above the 35-day target, the
improvement is significant enough to warrant full-scale implementation.
CONTROL PHASE CONTROL PHASE
Long-term Control
Mistake Reaction Update
MSA Chart
Proofing Plan S.O.P.
Plan (SPC)
Attribute Confirm Variable

U P Data I-MR Xbar-R
Data Type Data
CONTROL PHASE CONTROL PHASE
Overview • What is being measured

• Performance parameters
The purpose of the Control Phase is to
institutionalize process/product improvements • Corrective measures
and monitor ongoing performance. Following Key components of the Control Plan include:
the Improve Phase, the Project Team needs to
transition control of the process back to the 1. Mistake Proofing
Process Owner. 2. Long-term MSA Plan
3. Control Chart – Statistical Process Control
Key Concepts (SPC)
4. Reaction Plan
To facilitate a smooth transition and ensure the
Project Team’s work “sticks,” a detailed Control 5. Update Standard Operating Procedures
Plan will be developed. The objective of the (S.O.P.)
Control Plan is to document all pertinent
information regarding:
• Who is responsible for monitoring and
controlling the process
144
CONTROL PHASE
Outcomes
Upon completion of the Control Phase, the
Process Owner will understand performance
expectations, how to measure and monitor Xs
to ensure performance of the Y, and what
corrective actions should be executed if
measurements drop below desired levels.
Likewise, after completion of the Control
Phase, the Project Team members disband
while the Black Belt begins the next Consumer
Driven 6-Sigma Project with a new team.
145
CONTROL PHASE Mistake Proofing
Mistake
Proofing
Mistake Proofing • Revising software so all data must be

input before the user can advance to the
To begin the Control Phase, the Project Team next screen
will investigate ways to mistake proof the • Pre-assembly of individual parts into
implemented process improvement. This step components that can be validated as “good”
helps ensure that mistakes do not happen by prior to final assembly
removing the opportunity for error.
• Elimination of redundant non-value-added
The Team will need to be creative in looking at process steps that are prone to producing
ways to mistake proof the process. Common errors (i.e., double entry of data)
mistake proofing techniques include:
To mistake proof the process of installing panel spacers, Project Team members will need to
investigate how mistakes occur and what means can be used to prevent missed installation.
Possible areas for review included:
146 • How installation of Panel Spacers is embedded in the assembly process
• Determine whether spacers should be installed on the hood or quarter panels

To mistake proof the twice-daily transmission of data to the transit company, Project Team
members consider whether:
• A time sensitive lock-out can be programmed into the system that prevents additional data from
being input until queued data has been transmitted
• Transmission of data can occur as an automated process
CONTROL PHASE Long-term MSA Plan
Long-
Term
MSA Plan
Long-term MSA Plan Xs, the Process Owner can ensure that the Y
output continues to meet the CTQs.
After mistake proofing the process, the Project
Team will develop a Long-term Measurement A critical consideration in the development of a
System Analysis (MSA) Plan. Similar to the Long-term MSA Plan is how changes to the
original Measurement System Analysis, the process will impact what is measured and how
Long-term MSA Plan looks at all aspects of that measurement takes place. Addressing this
data collection relating to ongoing situation avoids measuring process steps that
measurement of the Xs and high-level are no longer relevant to the CTQ.
monitoring of the Y output. By controlling the
The Project Team documents steps involved in validating the measurement system should the
vehicle design change. For example, subsequent product design changes (such as improved
vehicle rigidity) may eliminate observable damage relating to rubbing of the hood and quarter
panels during transit. Should such a design change take place, the measurement system needs
to reflect the change and the use of panel spacer may be unnecessary.
147
Project Team members develop a Long-term MSA Plan that covers measurement system
changes required should steps in the Delivery Process be adjusted or eliminated. For example,
if the Mix Center was eliminated from the process, LEG 4 would no longer be valid and
specifications for other LEGs may need subsequent adjustments.
CONTROL PHASE Control Chart (SPC)
Control
Chart
Control Chart (SPC) • U-Chart

– Tracks the number of
Following development of a Long-term MSA defects per unit sampled.
Plan, the Project Team will need to choose a Shown in comparison to
Control Chart to monitor the improved process upper and lower control
and ensure ongoing gains. There are several limits (default control limits
Control Charts to choose from, depending on are ±3σ to the centerline)
the type of data being collected.
– For use with Attribute Data
Attribute Data — commonly used – Can be used with constant and non-
Control Charts constant sample sizes
• P-Chart
– Tracks the proportion of
defective units observed in
a sample. Special causes
are noted relative to upper
and lower control limits (default control limits
are ± 3 σ to the centerline)
– For use with Attribute Data
148 – Can be used with constant and non-
constant sample sizes
CONTROL PHASE
Variable Data — commonly used • Xbar-R Chart
Control Charts – A Xbar-R Control Chart
• I-MR Chart track process means and
– An I-MR Control Chart indicates special causes.
tracks process variation Xbar-R provides both a
and indicates special chart of the process
causes. I-MR provides means (Xbar) as well as a range chart (R) in
both an Individuals Chart one frame. Data is shown relative to upper
and a Moving Range Chart in the same and lower control limits (default control limits
graph window. Data is shown relative to are ±3σ to the centerline)
upper and lower control limits (default – For use with Variable Data
control limits are ±3σ to the centerline) – Can be used with constant and non-
– For use with Variable Data constant sample sizes
– Can be used with constant and non-
constant sample sizes
149
CONTROL PHASE Control Chart (SPC) | Attribute Data
P-Chart
150
To monitor the number of damaged units (against a target of 3%), the Project Team and Process
Owners will use a P-Chart.
1. To implement the SPC P-Chart, data is collected and input into a Minitab worksheet over
several weeks including:
• Number of Taurus/Sable units delivered
• Number of damaged units (defective)
• Number of defects observed
P-Chart
151

2. Click on “Control Charts” from the pull-down menu
3. Click on “P” from the secondary pull-down menu
P-Chart
152
1. In the field next to “Variable,” input the label for the column containing data on damaged units
2. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Subgroups in”
3. In the field next to “Subgroups in,” input the label for the column containing sample size data
(in this example, C27)
4. Click on “Tests”
P-Chart
153
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Perform all four tests”

2. Click “OK”
P-Chart
154
1. Click “OK”
P-Chart
155
1. The P-Chart shows the data line to be within the upper and lower control limits; therefore, the
process can be considered in control.
2. The data line trends downward indicating improvement over time as Process Owners and
participants become familiar with new procedures and requirements.
3. The average proportion is below the .03 target.
U-Chart
156
As an additional process control, the Project Team will monitor the number of defects observable
on each damaged unit using a U-Chart.
To generate a U-Chart, the Project Team will:
3. Click on “U” from the secondary pull-down menu
U-Chart
157
1. In the field next to “Variable,” enter the label for the column containing defect data (in this
example, C29)
2. Click the selection box adjacent to “Subgroup in”
3. In the field next to “Subgroup in,” input the label for the column containing data relating to the
number of damaged units (in this example, C28)
4. Click “Tests”
U-Chart
158
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Perform all four tests”

2. Click “OK”
U-Chart
159
1. Click “OK”
U-Chart
160
1. Results of the U-Chart indicate the process is within default control limits.
2. U-Chart results also indicate the average number of defects per damaged unit is less
than two.
CONTROL PHASE Control Chart (SPC) | Variable Data
I-MR
I-MR Chart
161
To monitor process variation, the Project Team will use an I-MR (Individual – Moving Range)
control chart.
To generate an I-MR chart, the Project Team will:
3. Click on I-MR from the secondary pull-down menu
I-MR Chart
162
1. In the field next to “Variable,” input the label for the column containing data to be monitored
(in this example, the Project Team wants to monitor LEG2 - C4 for variation)
2. Click on “Test”
I-MR Chart
163
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Perform all eight tests”

2. Click “OK”
I-MR Chart
164
1. Click “OK”
I-MR Chart
165
1. Results of the I-MR Chart show individual values in the top chart. (In this example, the
process is producing fairly stable results within the control limits.)
2. Average number of days for LEG2 is 4.881
3. The bottom chart indicates the Moving Range. The Moving Range chart shows the degree of
variation in the data sample. (In this example, the variation is within control limits, but there
are some “spikes” that might be investigated for special causes.)
4. The average degree of variation is 0.6552
Xbar-R
Xbar-R Chart
166
To monitor the means for the entire delivery process, the Project Team uses an Xbar-R
control chart.
To generate the Xbar-R chart, the Project Team will:
3. Click on Xbar-R from the secondary pull-down menu
Xbar-R Chart
167
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Single Column”

2. In the field next to “Single column,” input the label for the column containing data to be
monitored. (In this example, the Project Team wants to look at the entire process; therefore,
C21 - TOTAL B is input in this field)
3. In the field next to “Subgroup size,” input the desired subgroup size. (In this example, the
Project Team wants to see as many data plot points as possible; therefore, a small subgroup
size of 2 is specified)
4. Click “Tests”
Xbar-R Chart
168
1. Click on the selection box adjacent to “Perform all eight tests”

2. Click “OK”
Xbar-R Chart
169
1. Click “OK”
Xbar-R Chart
170
1. The top chart of the Xbar-R shows the process means

2. The second and third data points are outside the control limits indicating special causes. Early
in the Control Phase, such conditions often indicate the team is becoming familiar with recently
implemented process improvements
3. The average Delivery Timing is 37.57 days
4. The bottom chart depicts the range of data around the average mean. Later data points
indicate greater range; therefore, the Project Team and Process Owners may want to look for
special causes if the trend continues
5. The average range is 1.719 days
CONTROL PHASE Reaction Plan
Reaction
Plan
Reaction Plan
One of the final steps in the Control Phase is
the development of a detailed Reaction Plan.
This document will be used by the Process
Owners as a guide to adjusting the process
should one of the Control Charts begin showing
data that plots outside of the control limits.
The Reaction Plan should include:
• How to differentiate between a Special Cause
and a Process Trend
• When to react
• What actions should be taken
• Who is responsible for implementing
those actions
171
CONTROL PHASE Update S.O.P.
Update
S.O.P.
Update S.O.P. If the process is ISO 9000, the Project Team

will need to update ISO documentation as part
The final step of the Control Phase is to update of this step.
Standard Operating Procedures. Updated
documentation should include all revised
process steps and control measures.
172
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX APPENDIX
Converting Attribute Data to allow Project Teams to convert it to Variable

Data including:
Variable Data
• Changing “counts” data into percentages
Variable Data is sometimes more desirable than • Looking at the number of defects (errors)
Attribute Data to use, because it requires instead of counting defective units
smaller sample sizes. However, some projects
• Considering another aspect of the problem
appear to provide only Attribute Data (damaged
that produce Variable Data (i.e., customer wait
units, number of incorrect invoices). There are
time instead of late deliveries)
several ways of looking at Attribute Data that
173
APPENDIX
Design of Experiments constant during subsequent process
implementation. Ultimately, these variables
The Design of Experiment (DOE) is an need to be desensitized through a more robust
extremely valuable tool not only in identifying process design that will render them
key input variables causing variation but also in controllable.
setting the operating tolerances (precise levels) • Key Process Variables — those variables that
of the key input variables in order to optimize will be varied during experimentation.
the output. DOE works well in manufacturing
processes where equipment can be adjusted Experimentation Types
incrementally and output can be analyzed
over time. • Full Factorial — experimentation that includes
all possible combinations of factors and
In conducting DOE, Project Team Members will levels. If there are k factors and 2 levels, the
make changes to the inputs (factors) for the number of runs will be 2k. Likewise, if there
purpose of observing corresponding changes in are 3 levels, the number of tests would be 3k.
the outputs (responses). In complex processes with many levels, Full
Factorial experimentation can be time and
Key Concepts resource extensive.
Variable Types • Fractional Factorial — experimentation that

makes use of a subset of a full factorial.
• Response Variables (Output) — representing Fractional Factorial experimentation can be 174
the results of a process, these variables are used if the Project Team assumes that some
measured to determine the process or interactions will not occur and then assigns a
product performance. factor to that interaction.
• Controlled Variables (to be held constant) —
those variables that will be held constant
throughout the experimentation. Additional Information
• Uncontrolled Variables (noise) — variables Design of Experiments (DOE) is covered fully
that cannot be held constant during the in the Reference section of the SSA Navigator
experimentation and are not likely to be held tool as well as most textbooks on Statistics.
APPENDIX
Testing for Normal Data
175
To test for data Normality:

3. Click on “Display Descriptive Statistics” from the secondary pull-down menu
APPENDIX
176
1. Input the column label corresponding with the data to be tested (in this example, LEG1 = C14)
2. Click on “Graphics”
APPENDIX
177
1. Clicking the “Graphical Summary” checkbox gives the Project Team a complete set of
data graphs.
2. The default value of 95.0 is appropriate, as the data represents the appropriate number of
random samples.
3. Click “OK"
APPENDIX
178
1. The histogram shows the distribution of data for LEG1 following the normal curve.
2. Likewise the “P-Value” is above .05, thus indicating that the data has a normal distribution.
NOTE: The “P-Value” is an indicator as to whether the Null Hypothesis (H0) can be
accepted or rejected. In cases where the Null Hypothesis is rejected, the Alternative Hypothesis
(Ha) is accepted.
As a rule, If the P-Value is low, the Null has to go. In other words, if the P-Value is less than .05,
the Null Hypothesis must be rejected.
In the case of Normality testing, the Null Hypothesis (H0) holds that the data tested will have a
normal distribution. The Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is that the data is not normally distributed.
APPENDIX
179
1. When LEG2 is tested for Normality, the Project Team notes the same bimodal data.
2. A low P-Value (0.001) confirms that the data is not normally distributed.
APPENDIX
Correcting Non-normal Data • Batch Processing Cycles — where items
missing the current processing cycle are
To correct non-normal data, the Project Team delayed until the next cycle
should investigate the existing process to
determine what conditions are causing data to • Shift Work — work in process at the
exhibit a non-normal distribution. conclusion of the first shift is not finished by
the second, but instead is delayed until the
Often in cases of bimodal distribution, there is a first shift returns
process step which, depending on outcome,
causes measurements to be either high or low. Once identified, conditions such as these can
Examples of this type of condition include: be corrected by either changing the process
step or by adjusting the measurement system
• Parts Availability — where products ship on to accommodate for the condition.
time, when parts are available, and much later
than normal when parts are not available
180
APPENDIX
Gage R&R for Variable Data
181
Project Teams working with Variable Data may want to conduct a Gage R&R to determine the
level of Repeatability and Reproducibility in their measurement system.
1. To conduct a Gage R&R, the Project Team will collect an appropriate data sample. (In this
example, the Project Team asks 3 dealership Technicians (labeled Operators) to measure 10
different vehicle paint scratches (labeled Parts). Measurements (labeled Response) are taken
in inches and the Technicians are asked to measure each scratch twice (in random order).
Results are logged in a Minitab Worksheet.)
APPENDIX
182

3. Click on “Gage R&R Study” from the secondary pull-down menu
APPENDIX
183
1. In the field next to “Part Numbers,” input the column label for part data (in this example, C1)
2. In the field next to “Operators,” input the column label for operator data (in this example, C2)
3. In the field next to “Measurement data,” input the column label for response data (in this
example, C3)
4. Click on the selection box adjacent to “ANOVA”
5. Click “OK”
APPENDIX
184
1. The Gage R&R analysis produces several graphical representations including:

■ Xbar Chart by Operator displays the measurements in relation to the overall mean for each
operator, so you can compare operators to each other and to the mean.
■ R Chart by Operator displays the variation in the measurements made by each operator,
so you can compare operators to each other.
■ Components of Variation is a visualization of the final table in the Session window output,
showing bars for: Total Gage R&R, Repeatability, Reproducibility (but not Operator and
Operator by Part), and Part-to-Part variation.
■ Operator by Part Interaction displays the Operator by Part effect, so you can see how the
relationship between Operator and Part changes depending on the operator.
■ By Operator displays the main effect for Operator, so you can compare the mean
measurement for each operator.
■ By Part displays the main effect for Part, so you can compare the mean measurement for
each part.
GLOSSARY
G LOSSARY OF
T
OF
TERMS
ERMS
GLOSSARY G LOSSARY OF
T
OF ERMS
TERMS
alternative hypothesis the hypothesis to be control (of process) a process is said to be in
accepted if the null hypothesis is rejected. It is a state of statistical control if the process
denoted by H1. exhibits only random variation (as opposed to
systematic variation and/or variation with known
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) a procedure sources). When monitoring control with control
for partitioning the total variation. It is often charts, a state of control is exhibited when all
used to compare more than two population points remain between set control limits without
means. any abnormal (non-random) patterns.
assignable cause (of variation) significant, control chart the basic tool of statistical
identifiable change in a response which is process control. It consists of a run chart,
caused by some specific variable from the together with statistically determined upper and
cause-and-effect diagram. lower control limits and a centerline.
attribute data (quality) data coming basically control limits upper and lower bounds in a
from GO/NO-GO, pass/fail determinations of control chart that are determined by the process
whether units conform to standards. Also itself. They can be used to detect special
includes noting presence or absence of a causes of variation. They are usually set at ± 3
quality characteristic. standard deviations from the centerline.
average (of a statistical sample) (x) also defect departure of a quality characteristic
185
called the sample mean, it is the arithmetic from its acceptable level or state, i.e., the
average value of all the sample values. measured value of the characteristic is outside
It is calculated by adding all the sample values of specification. Also referred to as non-
together and dividing by the number of conformance to requirements.
elements (n) in the sample.
defective unit a sample (part) which contains
bimodal distribution a frequency distribution one or more defects, making the sample
which has two peaks. Usually an indication of unacceptable for its intended, normal usage.
samples from two processes incorrectly
analyzed as a single process. fishbone diagram a wiring diagram which a
group can use to organize and document its
capability (of process) a measure of quality thoughts during a brainstorming session.
for a process usually expressed as sigma The backbone of the fish represents the
capability, Cpk, or defects per million (dpm). response being measured. The “ribs” represent
It is obtained by comparing the actual process the types of factors that affect the response.
with the specification limit(s). Also known as cause-and-effect diagrams or
Ishikawa diagrams.
cause-and-effect diagram a pictorial diagram
showing possible causes (process inputs) for a Flowchart or diagram (for programs,
given effect (process output). decision making, process development) a
pictorial representation of a process indicating
Chi-Square the test statistic used when testing
the main steps, branches, and eventual
the null hypothesis of independence in a
outcomes of the process.
contingency table or when testing the null
hypothesis of a set of data following a hypothesis test a procedure whereby one of
prescribed distribution. two mutually exclusive and exhaustive
statements about a population parameter is
contingency table a two-dimensional table
concluded. Information from a sample is used
constructed for classifying count data, the
to infer something about a population from
purpose of which is to determine if two
which the sample was drawn.
variables are dependent (or contingent) on
each other. level a setting or value of a factor.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Mean the average of a set of values. We There are various measures of process
usually use x or y to denote a sample mean, capability, such as Cpk, σ level, and dpm
whereby we use the Greek letter µ to denote a (defects per million).
population mean.
R average range value displayed as the
normal distribution the distribution centerline on a range control chart. Value is
characterized by the smooth, bell-shaped set at the time control limit(s) are calculated.
curve.
R-chart a control chart of the range of
null hypothesis (H0) the conclusion that variation among the individual elements of a
typically includes equality, i.e., H0: µ1 or H0: σ1 sample — i.e., the difference between the
= σ2. largest and smallest elements — as a
function of time, or lot number, or similar
out of control (of a process) a process is chronological variable.
said to be out of control if it exhibits variations
larger than its control limits, or shows a random sample a sample selected from a
systematic pattern of variation. population in such a way that every element of
the population had an equally likely chance of
p-chart (percent defective) for attribute data: being selected.
a control chart of the proportion of defective
units (or fraction defective) in a subgroup. range a measure of the variability in a data
Based on the binomial distribution. set. It is a value, namely the difference
between the largest and smallest values in a 186
P-value the probability of making a Type I data set.
error. This value comes from the data itself. It
also provides the exact level of significance of regression analysis a statistical technique for
a hypothesis test. determining the mathematical relation between
a measured quantity and the variable it
Pareto diagram a bar chart for attribute (or depends on.
categorical) data that is presented in
descending order of frequency. regression line the line that is fit to a set of
data points by using the method of least
percent defective for acceptance sampling: squares.
the percentage of units in a lot which are
defective, i.e., of unacceptable quality. repeatability (of a measurement) the extent
to which repeated measurements of a particular
population a set or collection or objects or object with a particular instrument produce the
individuals. It can also be the corresponding same value.
set of values which measure a certain
characteristic of a set of objects or individuals. reproducibility the variation between
individual people taking the same
probability a measure of the likelihood of a measurement and using the same gaging.
given event occurring. It is a measure that
takes on values between 0 and 1 inclusive, with run chart a basic graphical tool that charts a
1 being the certain event and 0 meaning that process over time, recording either individual
there is relatively no chance at all of the event readings or averages over time.
occurring. How probabilities are assigned is
another matter. The relative frequency sample a set of values or items selected from
approach to assigning probabilities is one of some population.
the most common.
sample size the number of elements, or units,
process capability comparing actual process in a sample.
performance with process specification limits.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
sampling the process of selecting a sample UCL (Upper Control Limit) for control charts:
from a population and determining the the upper limit below which a process statistic
properties of the sample. The sample is ( x, R, etc.) must remain to be in control.
chosen in such a way that its properties are Typically this value is 3 standard deviations
representative of the population. above the centerline.
scatterplot a two-dimensional plot for variability the property of exhibiting variation,
displaying bivariate data. i.e., changes or differences, in key
measurements of a process.
Sigma (σ σ) the standard deviation of a
statistical population. variables data concerning the values of a
variable, as opposed to attribute data. A
Sigma level a commonly used measure of dimensional value can be recorded and is
process capability that represents the number only limited in value by the resolution of the
of standard deviations between the center of a measurement system.
process and the closest specification limit.
variance a measure of variability in a data
simple linear regression a model where one set or population. It is the square of the
independent variable is used to predict one standard deviation.
dependent variable.
x and R charts for variables data: control
stability (of a process) a process is said to charts for the average and range of subgroups
187
be stable if it shows no recognizable pattern of data.
of change.
x and s charts for variables data: control
standard deviation one of the most charts for the average and standard deviation
common measures of variability in a (sigma) of subgroups of data.
data set or in a population.
z-value a standardized value formed by
subgroup for control charts: a sample of subtracting the mean and then dividing this
units from a given process, all taken at or near difference by the standard deviation.
the same time.
t-test a hypothesis test of population means
when small samples are involved.
u-chart for attribute data: a control chart of
the average number of defects per part in
a subgroup.
Table of Symbols Table of Symbols
∑ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(capital sigma) summation dpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .defects per million
σ . . . . . . . . . . .(lower case sigma) population ANOVA . . . . . . . . . . . .analysis of variance

standard deviation
COPQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cost of poor quality
σ 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .population variance
DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .design of experiments
s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sample standard deviation
LCL . . . .lower control limit (for control charts)
s2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sample variance
LSL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lower specification limit
µ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .population mean
RPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .risk priority number
n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .sample size
SEV . . . . . . . . . . . . .severity of failure effect
N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .population size
188
SOP . . . . . . . .standard operation procedure
x . . . . . . . . . . . .sample mean (for data set x)
SPC . . . . . . . . . . . .statistical process control
p . . . . . . . . . .probability or sample proportion
UCL . . .upper control limit (for control charts)
e . . . . . . . .base of natural logarithm (≈ 2.718)
USL . . . . . . . . . . . . .upper specification limit
R2 . . . . . . .sample coefficient of determination
REFERENCES
R EFERENCES
DEFINE PHASE Define
D EFINE P HASE
Identify Identify Map Scope
Problem Customer CTQs Process Project
MEASURE PHASE Develop

Data
M EASURE P HASE
Perform
Measurement
Conduct
Data
Perform
Graphical
Conduct
Baseline
Collection System
Collection Analysis Analysis
Plan Analysis
ANALYZE PHASE A N A LY Z E P H A S E
Attribute Confirm Variable Analysis of Analysis of Correlation
Chi-Square 2 Proportion 1 Proportion Data Variation Means Regression
Data Type Data
1- 2- ANOVA
T-Test T-Test Means
IMPROVE PHASEBrainstorm
I M P ROV E P H A S E
Create
“Should Be”
Conduct
Perform
Cost/Benefit Pilot
Validate
Alternatives FMEA Improvement
Process Map Analysis
CONTROL PHASE Mistake

CONTROL PHASE
Long-term
MSA
Control
Chart
Reaction Update
Proofing Plan S.O.P.
Plan (SPC)
Attribute Confirm Variable

U P Data I-MR Xbar-R
Data Type Data
HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS ESTING
TTESTING
R RM OAD
OAD MAP AP
SIGMA CONVERSION TABLE Sigma Conversion Table
Long-Term Process Defects Per Defects Defects

Yield Sigma 1,000,000 Per 10,000 Per 100
99.99966% 6.0 3.4 0.034 0.00034
99.9995% 5.9 5 0.05 0.0005
99.9992% 5.8 8 0.08 0.0008
99.9990% 5.7 10 0.1 0.001
99.9980% 5.6 20 0.2 0.002
99.9970% 5.5 30 0.3 0.003
99.9960% 5.4 40 0.4 0.004
99.9930% 5.3 70 0.7 0.007
99.9900% 5.2 100 1.0 0.01
99.9850% 5.1 150 1.5 0.015
99.9770% 5.0 230 2.3 0.023
99.9670% 4.9 330 3.3 0.033
99.9520% 4.8 480 4.8 0.048
99.9320% 4.7 680 6.8 0.068
99.9040% 4.6 960 9.6 0.096
99.8650% 4.5 1,350 13.5 0.135
99.8140% 4.4 1,860 18.6 0.186
99.7450% 4.3 2,550 25.5 0.255
99.6540% 4.2 3,460 34.6 0.346
99.5340% 4.1 4,660 46.6 0.466
99.3790% 4.0 6,210 62.1 0.621
99.1810% 3.9 8,190 81.9 0.819
98.930% 3.8 10,700 107 1.07
98.610% 3.7 13,900 139 1.39
98.220% 3.6 17,800 178 1.78
97.730% 3.5 22,700 227 2.27
97.130% 3.4 28,700 287 2.87
96.410% 3.3 35,900 359 3.59
95.540% 3.2 44,600 446 4.46
94.520% 3.1 54,800 548 5.48
93.320% 3.0 66,800 668 6.68
91.920% 2.9 80,800 808 8.08
90.320% 2.8 96,800 968 9.68
88.50% 2.7 115,000 1,150 11.5
86.50% 2.6 135,000 1,350 13.5
84.20% 2.5 158,000 1,580 15.8
81.60% 2.4 184,000 1,840 18.4
78.80% 2.3 212,000 2,120 21.2
75.80% 2.2 242,000 2,420 24.2
72.60% 2.1 274,000 2,740 27.4
69.20% 2.0 308,000 3,080 30.8
65.60% 1.9 344,000 3,440 34.4
61.80% 1.8 382,000 3,820 38.2
58.00% 1.7 420,000 4,200 42
54.00% 1.6 460,000 4,600 46
50% 1.5 500,000 5,000 50
46% 1.4 540,000 5,400 54
43% 1.3 570,000 5,700 57
39% 1.2 610,000 6,100 61
35% 1.1 650,000 6,500 65
31% 1.0 690,000 6,900 69
28% 0.9 720,00 7,200 72
25% 0.8 750,000 7,500 75
Note: Subtract 1.5 to get long-term sigma level

© 2000 Ford Motor Company
6-Sigma Guidebook, Version 1, June

6-Sigma GDBK 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6-Sigma GDBK 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T O O L S

Table of Contents Page Page

Guidebook Overview hypothetical in nature but have benefited from

Define — Select Critical To Satisfaction

ANALYZE Analyze — Identify sources of variation

IMPROVE Improve — Discover process relationships

CONTROL Control — Implement process controls

Extending the example, if the

Looking at “Fresh Squeezed

Y = X1 X2 Y = Focus is placed on satisfaction with processes, which include:

Y = X1 X2 Y = Inventory satisfaction includes satisfaction with:

Y = X1 X2 Y = Attention is directed to inventory delivery, which includes:

Y = X1 X2 Y = Two issues influence satisfaction with vehicle delivery:

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

■ Recurring events? Yes, vehicles delivered ■ Customer Satisfaction? Yes,

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

process. improvement will shorten waiting periods.

Define Identify Identify Map Scope

Overview Key Concepts

Define Problem • Does not include assumptions regarding

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Identify Customer NOTE: During the Identify Customer step, the

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Cost of Poor Quality

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Cost of Poor Quality

Identify CTQs • Accurately describe the Critical-To-Quality

After CTQs are identified, the Project Team

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Map Process • Way to identify process inputs and outputs

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

High-Level Process Map

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Scope Project Refined Problem Statement

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

To brainstorm possible causes of variation, the Project Team develops a

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

1. Click on “Stat” from the Minitab navigation toolbar

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Refined Problem Statement

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Refined Problem Statement

Summary • Performance described in terms of CTQs

Overview • Sufficient sample of data for analysis

Develop Data Key Concept

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

In developing the Data Collection Plan, the Project Team:

2. Generates responses to the Data Collection Plan questions:

27 • What data will be collected (including type)

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Summary • If data is currently available

Perform Measurement Operational Definitions

Gage R&R a sum of Repeatability variation and

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Vehicle Condition at Delivery — Example “A”

Delivery Timing — Example “B”

Summary • What confidence level can be attached to the

Overview The Project Team should collect data