Assignment
This case study will ask you to use the DMAIC process for your process improvement project. The basis of this case study will follow Table 13-2 in your textbook, the Six Sigma process,
DMAIC:
1. Define the project goals and customer (internal and external) deliverables.
2. Measure the process to determine current performance.
3. Analyze and determine the root causes of the defects.
4. Improve the process by eliminating defects.
5. Control future process performance.
Provide at least one paragraph for each DMAIC step as noted above. Be creative and apply research, course concepts, tools, and techniques to help improve your process. Requirements of Submission: The case study assignments must follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one- inch margins. Each case study should be one to two pages in length. Include at least two sources of research and follow APA guidelines for citations and references.
For this case study, use one or both of the following process improvements:
1. check sheet to collect data on the frequency or patterns of the events, problems, defects, defect location, defect causes, etcto narrow down the root cause of the issues andidentify corrective action
2. cause and effect analysis by Ishikawa
The basis of this case study will be based on the following:
A Closer look At Quality 13-2 D in Action
While Kevin Colby was working on a Six Sigma project at the Truck Components Automated Products Division of Eaton Corporation, the company was examining cost-savings opportunities. The division produced transmissions that included speed sensors, which measure shaft speeds and work in conjunc- tion with the gears produced by the Cleveland, Ohio-based company. The gears with holes caused signal fluctuations that affected the sensors. Two electronic control units (ECUs) with different circuit speeds were manufactured to allow the sensor to work with both types of gears.
Engineers within the division's design group who were involved with the gear project realized that they could simultaneously have an impact on two divisions. Jerry Ganski, principal engineer who led the effort to eliminate the second ECU, said, "We realized that removal of the holes in the gears would allow the Automated Products Division to eliminate the special ECU we had to manufacture to deal with the holes. We now use a common ECU for all our platforms and thus save the money it took to build, stock, and handle two ECU styles where the only difference between them was the speed sensor circuit. The savings is estimated at approximately 12 percent." Based on the improvements realized from these three projects, Eaton is investigating other gear-related projects for potential improvement opportunities.