Ford was facing quality issues with the floor carpets for its new Ford Fiesta vehicle. Using the Six Sigma DMAIC framework, Ford assembled a team from its body engineering department and the carpet supplier, HP Pelzer, to address the issues. Through design of experiments and data analysis, the team uncovered complicated interactions in the carpet manufacturing process. They worked with the supplier to modify the process to produce carpets meeting specifications. The two-week project was completed just before mass production, avoiding potential warranty costs and improving Ford's relationship with the supplier.

1. Making the Case for Quality
September 2011
Ford Team Project Builds
Relationships, Improves Quality
by Janet Jacobsen
As gas prices continued to rise in
At a Glance . . . early 2010, so did expectations for the
fuel-efficient Ford Fiesta. Many in the
• With Ford Fiesta’s launch industry viewed the Fiesta as the most
fast approaching, the significant vehicle introduction in the
organization wrestled with
Ford Motor Company’s recent his-
quality concerns over the
vehicle’s floor carpets. tory. To uphold Ford’s warranty and
customer satisfaction performance, a
• Using quality tools, Ford’s
body engineering team flawless launch was vital.
took on the project,
uncovering complicated Unfortunately, early tests indicated sig-
The 2011 Ford Fiesta
two- and three-way nificant concerns about the quality of
interactions in the carpet the Fiesta’s floor carpet. Despite repeated attempts to correct the problems, Ford and the carpet manu-
manufacturing process. facturer, a valued supplier, were unable to solve the issue. Not only was the quality of the Fiesta launch
• Once these interactions at risk, but so too was Ford’s relationship with the supplier.
were understood, the
supplier modified its About Ford Motor Company
process to produce carpets
that met Ford’s and the
supplier’s specifications. The Ford Motor Company, founded in 1903, designs, develops, manufactures, and services cars
and trucks across six continents under the Ford and Lincoln brand names. The company also pro-
• The two-week project
was completed just vides services and products in the areas of maintenance, collision, vehicle accessories, and extended
prior to the start of mass service warranties under the Genuine Ford Parts, Ford Custom Accessories, and Motorcraft brand
production of the Fiesta. names. Based in Dearborn, Mich., the organization employs more than 166,000 people and operates
• Ford entered this project 70 plants worldwide.
in ASQ’s International
Team Excellence Award The carpet supplier for the Fiesta is HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, a worldwide Tier 1 supplier of
competition, where it automotive interior trim and acoustic components. The organization’s North American headquarters
earned finalist honors.
are in Troy, Mich., and the manufacturing plant for the Fiesta’s carpet is located in Eudora, Kan.
Identifying Quality Concerns
With the Ford Fiesta just months away from arriving at dealerships, pre-launch reviews pinpointed
a concern—the vehicle’s carpet contained visible brush marks. Simply put, the carpet’s appearance
would not be acceptable to the customer. Ford typically uses warranty and customer satisfaction data to
identify top priority projects. In this case, because the Fiesta was a new product, Ford relied on antici-
pated warranty and customer satisfaction impact based on historical benchmarks. Addressing the carpet
quality before manufacturing commenced would alleviate customer concerns and avoid warranty costs.
ASQ www.asq.org Page 1 of 5

2. The carpet quality issue was also straining Ford’s relationship • Wendy Pinter, Ford Body Engineering supervisor
with HP Pelzer, as the two organizations spent countless hours • Jane Aselage, trim manager, Ford Global Car Programs
working to achieve product appearance standards and specifica- • Jan Ladewig, research and development director, HP Pelzer
tions. The deteriorating relationship jeopardized Ford’s corporate • Tom Hanners, plant manager, HP Pelzer
goals and strategies. The One Ford Plan focuses on working • Ryan Yamnitz, process engineer, HP Pelzer
together as a team and fostering technical excellence to deliver • Kurt Mueller, quality manager, HP Pelzer
results. The souring relationship between Ford and HP Pelzer • Steve VanHeusden, Ford program manager, HP Pelzer
put elements of the One Ford Plan, shown in Figure 1, at risk.
Finger-pointing, blaming, not working together to solve issues Members were selected based on their areas of technical exper-
and share data, and conducting unscientific studies neither fos- tise and the responsibilities identified within the project. Each
tered technical excellence nor helped deliver results. person’s participation was dependent on the needs for a par-
Figure 1— isk and impact of the carpet quality issue,
R ticular phase of the project, which followed the define, measure,
quantified using a 10-point scale, on analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) framework of the Six
Ford’s corporate goals and strategies Sigma methodology.
Risk of not Magnitude Measure
Organizational goal/strategy delivering X of impact = of severity Defining the Stakeholders
One Team/One Plan 8 9 72
Foster technical excellence 6 7 42
After defining the project scope, one of the first tasks was creating
Own working together 8 8 64
a supplier, inputs, process, outputs, customers (SIPOC) diagram to
Deliver results 10 9 90
define stakeholders. Internal stakeholders included the Fiesta pro-
gram team, the Fiesta (Cuautitlan, Mexico) assembly plant, and
Using the DMAIC Framework members of the Body Six Sigma team, while external stakeholders
included HP Pelzer, and most important, the end customer—future
With a clear need for analytical expertise, Ford’s Body Six Sigma owners of the Fiesta. The raw materials supplier was not included
team, a group of Six Sigma Black Belts, was called to lead this because data showed that raw material quality and variation were
vital project in March 2010. The improvement team included the not root causes of the quality issues.
following representatives from Ford and the supplier:
Measuring Critical-to-Quality Factors
• Scott Sterbenz, Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Ford Body
Engineering, team leader and DMAIC expert Scott Sterbenz, Six Sigma Master Black Belt and team leader,
• Pramod Thanedar, Six Sigma Black Belt, Ford Body says the initial meeting with members of the improvement team
Engineering focused on the automotive carpet manufacturing process, as
• Gary Danhoff, Six Sigma Black Belt, Ford Body Engineering illustrated in Figure 2. “We are big believers in knowing how
Figure 2— arpet manufacturing process
C
Raw
material
bales of
staple
Bale fibers Carpet brush marks
Opener
The card
opens fibers
and lays Flat needling of loose two-dimensionally
them into a oriented fibers. Pad is bonded by
loose two- adding vertical orientation to fibers.
dimensional
felt.
To finished goods,
coating, or surface finishing
Winding
Station
ASQ www.asq.org Page 2 of 5

3. things work. After all, if you can’t explain how something works, from actual quality impact resulting from the changes to the
how can you possibly explain how it doesn’t?” says Sterbenz. needler’s settings.
After discussing the current process with HP Pelzer’s carpet Analyzing for Root Cause
engineering experts, the team developed a fishbone diagram and
an f(x) cascade. The y = f(x) cascade is a physics and engineer- Despite careful planning, the team experienced some unexpected
ing-based flowchart that uses why and how questions to identify issues during the DOE. The first four runs took three hours to
potential root causes. The two key questions are asked until spe- finish. Sterbenz says the biggest obstacle was simply coordinat-
cific measurables are identified. If, through the analyze phase, ing the experiment because the carpet manufacturing process is
these measurables are determined to be the key process input complex and uses a continuous roll of material. It would have
been wasteful to conduct each DOE run combination on indi-
variables (KPIVs), then control of these KPIVs automatically
vidual rolls. The only alternative was making changes to the
leads to control of the key process output variables (KPOVs),
machine settings on the fly and marking the roll where those
which is the big Y in the y = f(x) equation. In this case, the
changes were made, which required great coordination and more
y = f(x) cascade brought the team to the needler, which is a
manpower than originally anticipated. “It took us a few hours
machine that has a bed of needles that penetrate the raw material
and a few botched runs to work out the logistics, but we got it.
to produce the pile of the carpet. The needler and the needler set-
This created some stressful moments where I thought the DOE
tings became the factors in the design of experiments (DOE). would be abandoned, but through teamwork and some quick
It is essentially through the DOE that certain needler settings problem solving, we succeeded,” explains Sterbenz.
were determined to be the KPIVs. At the end of the project,
Sterbenz says the team was able to control the KPIVs and there- The next step was analyzing the DOE using an analysis of vari-
fore control the big Y—the carpet quality parameters. ance table, Pareto chart, and plots of the interactions and main
effects. When analyzing the data from the brush marks, it became
He explains that it was clear from the start that the needler was clear why HP Pelzer struggled to achieve the specified quality by
critically important to the carpet’s overall quality. Fortunately, unsystematically adjusting the needler’s settings—there were two
the needler had a limited number of settings to manipulate, offer- significant three-way interactions and several significant two-way
ing an ideal situation for using DOE to optimize the process and interactions. The analysis for softness/plushness was less complex
conduct root cause analysis. Although HP Pelzer had changed with only two significant effects, and this simplified the process of
the needler settings in past studies, Ford’s Black Belts found that simultaneously optimizing both responses.
the trials had been done unscientifically by changing one factor
at a time. Sterbenz explains that the DOE not only provided a list of sig-
nificant variables and interactions, but also a transfer function
Once the DOE planning was complete, the Ford team mem- between the inputs and the response. The transfer function is the
bers traveled to HP Pelzer’s plant in Eudora, Kan., where they mathematical and/or physics relationship between the KPIV and
viewed carpet samples produced when the needler settings were the KPOV. In this case, the transfer function shows the math-
altered. They quickly noticed that while some carpets were quite ematical relationship between the settings in the needler (KPIV)
plush, others were the unappealing texture of felt. At this point, and the carpet quality (KPOV).
the team decided that brush marking and softness/plushness
Using the supplier’s knowledge of the carpet process and the
would both be treated as responses in the DOE.
analysis of the DOE, the team felt certain that the variables that
Next, the team assembled an evaluation jury comprised of Ford control brush marking and softness/plushness were identified. It
and HP Pelzer representatives to conduct a gauge repeatability was clear to all that previous needler setting adjustments were
not successful because of significant interactions among the
and reproducibility (RR) study on the two responses. Brush
variables. Now armed with mathematical models for each of
markings and softness/plushness were each rated using an ordi-
the responses, the team set targets and, after validation, moved
nal ranking scale, with 1–10 used for brush markings and 1–5
ahead with using optimization solvers to uncover the best set-
used for softness/plushness. The higher the rating, the better the
tings for both brush marks and softness/plushness.
quality. Since both responses were attribute and ordinal in nature,
Kendall’s Co-efficient of Concordance was used as the indicator The data analysis was shared at a full team meeting when the
of success. This formula measures directional agreement with optimum needler settings were presented. Unfortunately, these
a value of greater than 0.7 for both responses, indicating that settings were not acceptable because they could damage the
the team could trust the jury to evaluate the carpets fairly and needler if used for extended periods and one of the factor set-
consistently. In addition, the team knew that shifts in the ratings tings could adversely affect the carpet’s durability. These two
were not because of variation in the jury’s opinion, but instead new constraints meant that additional analysis was needed.
ASQ www.asq.org Page 3 of 5

4. Figure 3— ord Fiesta carpet before and after the DOE
F
Baseline carpets: DOE optimized carpets:
• 3.0 rating for brush marking • 8.2 rating for brush marking
• 2.5 rating for softness/plushness • 3.8 rating for softness/plushness
No brush marking
Brush marking
Improving Carpet Quality • Communicating the new process to HP Pelzer employees.
• Programming the needler with the new settings.
Despite the new constraints, the team determined two new opti- • Monitoring the quality of the carpets produced.
mized factor settings for the needler. The new settings were • Monitoring the condition of the needler.
projected to deliver significantly higher levels of quality for both
brush marks and plushness/softness. The next step was produc- In addition to improving the carpet for the new Fiesta, the team
ing samples of both options for the jury to evaluate. Happily, wanted to ensure that future models were protected as well. By
neither sample had visible brush markings, and the softness/ documenting the gauge RR methodology and the transfer
plushness was much improved over the baseline. The jury’s rat- function development process with the supplier, along with
ings—8.2 (out of 10, and both samples were rated the same) for implementing quality and maintenance control plans, the team
brush markings and 3.7 (out of 5 for option one) and 3.8 (for played a role in the quality of both current and future models.
option two) on softness/plushness—closely matched the math-
ematical model predictions. Ultimately, the team selected option Project Yields Tangible Benefits
two because it produced a slightly more plush carpet. Figure 3
shows the difference in the carpet quality after the DOE. While production of the Fiesta had not begun, the project, which
took less than two weeks to complete, provided valuable benefits
The final samples were tested to ensure that additional factors for Ford and HP Pelzer, such as protecting customer satisfaction,
such as color, sheen, wear, durability, stain resistance, and uni- avoiding warranty claims, and eliminating scrap materials, as
form pile direction were not compromised. The samples passed shown in Figure 4 (on next page).
all validation testing.
The intangible benefits were significant as well:
Setting Controls to Sustain Improvements
• A stronger relationship with the supplier.
Plans to implement the final improvement actions quickly and • Increased technical knowledge.
maintain the results involved the following tasks: • The creation of a new optimization process for the supplier.
• A great product for customers.
• The creation of a Six Sigma program by HP Pelzer to
increase efficiency and improve quality.
ASQ www.asq.org Page 4 of 5

5. Figure 4—Tangible benefits for both Ford and the supplier
Realized Tangible Benefit Recipient Value Validation
Warranty avoidance Ford $630 per claim No warranty claims (mass production
started in May 2010).
Scrap avoidance HP Pelzer $1,200 per roll No scrapped carpet rolls (mass
production began in April 2010).
Customer satisfaction Ford Proprietary calculation No customer complaints about carpet quality
Loss avoidance _____________________________ _____________________________________ on either internal or external surveys.
External customer Carpets that look and feel as expected
This project also clearly achieved the goals of the One Ford Engineering competed in the 2011 ITEA and was named as one
strategy. Ford’s relationship with the supplier was strengthened of 29 finalists. Team members shared their story with a live audi-
through teamwork and the mutual sharing of expertise. ence at the 2011 World Conference on Quality and Improvement,
where they captured the best OEM/supplier relationship award and
Sterbenz says that team building and understanding the critical earned second place in the team display competition.
KPIVs were the keys to the success of this project. “It was sur-
prising to us that scientific experiments had not been conducted Sterbenz says this project was a good candidate for the ITEA
prior to this project to fully understand the KPIVs. Now that process because the team used quality tools to reduce the defect
the KPIVs are understood, we have much better control over rate to zero, and after one year, there have been no warranty
the process and understand how to control the sensitivity of claims on the carpet and no scrapped carpets. “That is total suc-
certain factors.” cess and the epitome of teambuilding,” he states.
Improvement projects typically encounter resistance during the For More Information
implementation phase. In this case, questions came earlier when
the DOE was conducted and the supplier was concerned about • To learn more about this project, contact Scott Sterbenz at
potential damage to the needler and possible adverse side effects ssterben@ford.com.
on carpet durability. These issues were addressed by providing • Complete details on ASQ’s ITEA process are available at
training and successful examples, along with leveraging the sta- wcqi.asq.org/team-competition.
tistical expertise of Ford’s Six Sigma Black Belts. • Read more case studies on successful quality improvement
projects in the ASQ Knowledge Center at asq.org/
Sharing the Success Story knowledge-center.
Ford, an enterprise member of ASQ, believes in the value of shar- About the Author
ing quality success stories because tools or methods used in one
project can often be useful in another. The results of this improve- Janet Jacobsen is a freelance writer specializing in quality and
ment project were shared with several other teams at Ford and HP compliance topics. A graduate of Drake University, she resides
Pelzer and with a wider audience through ASQ’s International in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Team Excellence Award (ITEA) process. Team Ford—Body
ASQ www.asq.org Page 5 of 5