'Dynamic Seal – Mba: Six Sigma / Operations Case Essay\r'

'Dynamic blockade, a precision parts manufacturer with a nature for high tone, does non shortly utilize a Statistical Process Control (SPC) brass. However, United Airlines (UA), a major client representing 14% of Dynamic seal of approval’s business, insists they down an SPC frame or overt United Airlines’ business. In addition Dynamic seal do non have a large(p) preventative posting timberland control carcass in place, preferring 100% surveillance to cull gravely quality, rather than building parts correctly from inception.\r\n death: Reduce crossing variance and the need for remake by implementing a company-wide quality control system that includes an element of Statistical Process Control. A subsidiary goal is to reduce waste by coun selling on dispose technology surgical operationes. Competitive environment: Dynamic Seal are a triple-crown manufacturer of mechanical components for aerospace, marine and military application. Their products g uide precision engineering, and the company has built an excellent character based on â€Å"high quality, innovative engineering and close tolerance manufacturing.” The company makes use of pricey superalloy materials manufactured to extremely tight tolerances, with many products selling for $10,000 to $50,000.\r\nA evidentiary defective rate with such(prenominal)(prenominal) high cost materials / products will severely involve the company’s bottom line. The United Airlines labor line operates under a separate department, with utilize equipment and personnel. Dynamic Seal’s quality study is a result of highly skilled mechanics and a 100% inspection policy. The company employs a custody of approx. 400 people, in a 120,000 sq. ft. facility and has change magnitude it’s sales ten-times over the last 10 years to $130 million. Key Facts:\r\n1.Dynamic Seal does not have a company-wide caliber circumspection ethos. 2.There is a customer requirement to use SPC. 3.No SPC system is currently in place and equipment has not been tested for electrical capacity. 4. part is controlled by 35 quality inspectors and is not the office of the workforce. 5.The Quality Control Dept. is overworked and underpaid †reports to the General Manager. 6.Machinists set informal equipment specifications, not the QC Dept. 7.The company operates a 100% inspection policy. 8.In- mathematical process inspection is infrequent, therefore origin of 25% of defective issues earth-closetnot be found. 9.Inspection and assignment of rework involves significant lag. 10.QC system generates significant volumes of paperwork: 80 defective reports (DMR) per week. 11.Product blueprints and Inspection Specs (IMS) often do not match and are not updated. 12. sign defective rate documents (DMR) are often produced post-rework.\r\n psychoanalysis: Two sets of process information have been cool for initial analysis. Before specific SPC issues can be addressed the pro cess and equipment should be assessed to see they abide the capability requirements laid step forward in the customer specs. The first process examined uses the Lablond Lathe machinery and requires a machined diameter of 7.7250, increase tight tolerances of + .0005 inches. A Process Capability dimension (Cpk) analysis of the lathe’s data, results in a Cpk of .379 (exhibit A). A result of less than one indicates the machine is not capable of matching the tolerances laid out in the IMS spec.\r\nTherefore the Lablond Lathe is not suitable to handle the process it is being used for. Before a to a greater extent suitable machine is selected, the Lablond Lathe should be checked for standardisation, as should the measuring equipment used. If all fall within calibration specs, saucily machinery should be selected that is capable of handling such tight tolerances. Solving machine capability issues is a low-hanging fruit method of quickly improving quality control. The second dat a set refers to the Cincinnati Milling Machine. Initial analysis indicates the machine is capable of meeting the necessitate specs, so X-bar and R-bar run charts were constructed to visualize output exertion against the IMS specs. Positions 8 to 10 on the R-bar chart (exhibit B) distinctly indicate the process is out of control.\r\nThe X-bar chart (exhibit C) further supports this claim by showing the process is out of control at positions 9 and 10. Although a big concern is that all but one data point lies above the control line, indicating the process could be off-center and require recalibrating. As Dynamic Seal’s materials and business methods are so expensive, onward machine recalibration occurs, a fish bone plat should be used to trace the problem to its seminal fluid. utility(a) Options: There are four significant options inconsiderate to Dynamic Seal. The can opt to do zilch and potentially lose the United Airlines contract, plus luck further losses as more customers lower to impose stricter quality control requirements.\r\nThey can implement a company-wide Quality Management system such as six-spot Sigma that incorporates SPC analysis. They can implement an SPC system on one type of machine throughout the manufacturing plant. Or they can implement a Quality Management / SPC system within the United Airlines production cell alone. Recommendation Short-term: To reduce go through scope, I recommend initially focusing on the UA facility only. Once procedures have been tested and proven, they can be rolled out company-wide. Gordon Jenkins is a solid person to head up the Quality Management program, as his initial plan (exhibit D) includes many elements of DMAIC and his surveil of the problems seems accurate.\r\nHowever, he needs senior worry endorse (possibly a promotion) and further Six Sigma training, to combat negatively charged views from Alan Schneider and Scott Palmer. Without the three of them on the same page, any peeled quality management system will fail. ab initio Jenkins and the QC team needs to perform a UA Dept. X-ray, creating process-maps, checking equipment capability and taking base-line SPC data (exhibit E). Once data has been part a full DMAIC analysis using Histogram / Pareto charts should be done to identify the low-hanging fruit. Variance issues in the new SPC data can be tracked to their source using fishbone diagrams and House of Quality reviews. Equipment selection, process streamlining, decline in paperwork and implementing work procedures are valid projects. Equipment settings and stopcock selection should be standardized, reducing the craftsmanship required.\r\nThe responsibility to monitor quality should be moved to the machinists. Having them fully involved in the process design, and giving them responsibility to manage their own quality would achieve machinist buy-in. In addition tight controls need to be placed around the production and updating of product specs, req uiring improved communication and a sign-off system amongst the Sales, Engineering and Production Depts. Finally a measure of improvement is particular to the success of any quality management system. Improved SPC data will be part of that, but the company can in like manner track rework labor hours, improvements in process throughput time, inventory reduction, and reduction in cost-of-goods as critical measures.\r\nRecommendation Long-term: SPC by itself does not levy in-depth quality management, therefore long-term I recommend Dynamic Seal implement a company-wide Lean Six Sigma system, with SPC analysis. To set the right tone and get management buy-in, long-term implementation should begin with upper-management Six Sigma training, including the GM. A dedicated approach to quality management should infiltrate all aspects of the company, from engineering to administration, with the goal of promoting a quality-focused Kaizen culture. The current Quality Control Dept. should trai n as Six Sigma black belts and be mandated to train the workforce in Six Sigma techniques and to oversee on-going Six Sigma projects. hire incentives should be implemented that reflect advancement in Lean Six Sigma training.\r\n'