LSBB_NOK_bob1

1
Note:
This projectpresentation is submittedto NTUC Learning Hub to fulfillone of the
requirementsfor certifying Lean SigmaBlackBelt.
The contentsare confidentialof PT. NOK Precision Component,Batam.
The DMAIC Project
Product LPC Reduction
<project duration, Nov 2010 – June 2011>
By
Bob Thwin Naung Soe
<bobthwin@nok.com.sg>
Six Sigma Green Belt
Production Engineering Section
NOK Precision Component Batam

2
DEFINE
Background
Ramps are precision componentsused in the Hard Disc Drives, and producedfrom
plastic injectionmolding.
LPC is LiquidParticle Countswhich representsthe cleanlinessof the product
(Ramps).
Ramps undergo UltrasonicWashing(and drying)Processbefore packaging.
LPC is measuredto indicate the cleanlinessof the final productsto customer.
In year 2010 October,Customerofficially request to tighten (lower down) the LPC
specification by 60%. (New UCL = 40%of Current UCL)
Internally,QC controlsthe processby trigger limit 70% of current UCL.

3
Background
Two model productsare selectedto representeach of two differentgroups.
CrockettSlider LimiterRamp to represent smallersize ramps.
Muskie 3D Ramp to represent big size ramps.
Focusarea is definedas UltrasonicWashing (and drying)process.
Qualitytarget is set as follow:
process mean + 2 sigma is lower than 70% of newUSL
(newUSL = 40% of currentUSL)
Crockett Slider LimiterRamp Muskie 3D Ramp
12mm x 8mmx 6mm) 15mm x 14mmx 8mm)
Project Charter
Project Title
Problem/Opportunity Statement Business Case
Goal Statement
Team Leader : Bob Thwin (Green Belt)
Members : Rifana (QC)
Hari (Washing Line)
Yohanes (Prod Engg)
Kornelius (Prod Engg)
Project Scope
Time Line
Sponsor Name :
Basilian Lee
Sign
Date : Nov 2010
Financial Benefit (estimate) : Prevent lost of
business. Secure customer’s allocation of order.
Product LPC Reduction
Product LPC specification (USL) needs to
be reduced by 60% from current spec.
process mean + 2 sigma is lower than 70% of
new USL (new USL = 40% of current USL)
Customer Satisfaction
Product Washing Line (Ultrasonic
Washing + Drying)
Define Nov 2010
Measure Dec 2010
Analyze Jan 2011
Improve Mar ~ Jun 2011
Control Aug 2011

4
Ultrasonic Washing Process
Tank 1
Ultrasonic Wash
Tank 2
Ultrasonic Wash
Tank 3
Water Jet Spray
Tank 5
Final Rinse
Tank 4
Ultrasonic Wash
Tank 6
Blow Dry Tank
Tank 7
Drying Oven
Tank 8
Vacuum Drying
Off Line
Oven Drying
MEASURE

5
Process output measure :
LPC of product
Data Collection Method
Obtain the data from existingQC records
Sampling Time Frame
January 2010 to January 2011
Sample Size
Average (X-bar) of 5 samples. 2 to 3 data collectionsin each month.
(2 to 3 data points per month)
Sampling Method
RandomSamples
Measurement System
Measurement Sampler PMSLS-200/LS-50
Devices Detector Liquilaz-S02-HFsensor
Software SamplerSight
MagnetStirrer HI 190M
Data Collection Plan
MeasureSystemQualification.
1. Correlation:
Correlationmust be done withCustomer’s(Seagate) measurement (method &
equipment) to certify our measurementprocess.And the renewal of certificate
is once in every 6 months.
Customer does not providethe data. But, only Pass or Fail
2. Calibrationof LPC Sensor:
Calibration of LPC sensoris done yearly.
Calibration data attached.
Adobe Acrobat
Document
Adobe Acrobat
Document
Correlation Certificate Calibration Certificate

6
3. Method of Control:
~ Only certified operationindividualis allowed to do LPC measuring.And a
detail definedSOP is set. (SOP is not attached, as Companyconfidential).
~ DI water for LPC measuring,DI blank particle count must be Lower than 50
counts per ml.
~ DegassedOxygenlevel of DI water must be 40% +/- 2%
(measurement will not be performed till DI water supplymeet above
specifications.And degassing processwill be repeated).
GR&R Analysis1: (For Reproducibility)
In this analysis,samplesmeasured in each replicates are not the same.
LPC of a sample can be measured only once for representative cleanliness.
Samplesfor replicateswere taken from same batch and same locationof the
buddle.(commonpractice to do correlationwith customer)A certain level of
Repeatability& Reproducibilityvariation is expected.
GR&R Analysis 1
~
Measurement System Analysis
Interaction Effect is
NOT Significant
Effect of Operator is
NOT Significant

7
GR&R Analysis 1
~
Total GR&R is about 9%.
Repeatability is the major
Source of variation.
This measurement system
Means for part acceptance.
Precision toTolerance is
Acceptable.
The Precision toTotal
Variation is also
acceptable
Understanding the nature
of process
Ndc is 4. It is acceptable for
this process by nature.
GR&R Analysis 1
Repeatability is by the nature of measuring process.
And Reproducibility is under controlled by SOP.

8
GR&R Analysis2: (For Repeatability)
In this analysis,samplesmeasured in each replicates are the same.
LPC of a sample is usually calculated from average of 3 Runs of particle count
in measurementprocedure.The tolerancelimit among 3 Runs is +/-10%.
In this GR&R analysis, raw data is taken from 3 Runs (as 3 replicates).
In that case, each replicationis done by same operator.
Operator factor is omitted for this analysis.
GR&R Analysis 2
Total GR&R is about 5%.
Repeatability is
Source of variation.
This measurement system
Means for part acceptance.
Precision toTolerance is
Acceptable.
The Precision toTotal
Variation is NotApplicable
for this case.
Ndc is 5. It is acceptable for
this process by nature.

9
GR&R Analysis 2
DataAnalysis onCollected Data
64004800320016000
Median
Mean
3400320030002800260024002200
1st Q uartile 2010.5
M edian 2741.0
3rd Q ua rtile 3841.5
M axim um 6088.0
2412.2 3488.0
2198.0 3330.8
1122.3 1912.6
A -S quared 0.30
P -V alue 0.569
M ean 2950.1
S tD ev 1414.2
V a riance 1999865.2
S kew ne ss 0.5 14417
K urtosis -0.0 16580
N 29
M inim um 387.0
A nderson-D arling N orm ality T est
95% C onfidence Interv al for M e an
95% C o nfidence Interv al for M edian
95 % C onfidence I nterv al for S tD ev
9 5 % C o nf id e nce I nte r v a ls
Summary for Current Process Data (Crockette)
70006000500040003000200010000
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
LPC Result
Percent
M ean 2950
S tDev 1414
N 29
A D 0.296
P -Valu e 0.569
Checking Process Normality , Crockette R amp
Normal
2 82 52 2191 61 31 0741
75 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
0
O b s e r v at io n
IndividualValue
_
X = 29 5 0
U C L= 75 1 1
LC L= -16 1 1
2 82 52 2191 61 31 0741
60 0 0
45 0 0
30 0 0
15 0 0
0
O b s e r v at io n
MovingRange
_ _
M R = 1 7 15
U C L= 56 0 4
LC L= 0
I-M R Ch ar t of C ur r e nt P r o ces s (C r ock ette)

10
DataAnalysis onCollected Data
8000600040002000
M edian
Mean
5200480044004000
1 st Q uartile 30 93.5
M e dian 44 57.0
3 rd Q ua rtile 53 29.0
M a xim um 80 87.0
3 829 .9 51 81.1
3 773 .5 50 46.9
1 377 .5 23 71.5
A -S quared 0.24
P -V alue 0 .7 67
M e an 45 05.5
S tD ev 17 42.3
V a riance 30 355 12.9
S kew ne ss 0 .2 671 44
K urtosis -0 .4 072 46
N 28
M inim um 13 27.0
A nderso n-D arling N o rm ality T e st
95 % C onfidence I nte rv al for M ea n
95% C o nfid ence Interv al fo r M edian
95 % C onfide nce I nterv al for S tD ev
9 5 % C o nf ide nce I nte r v a ls
Summary for Current Process Data (Muskie3 D)
9000800070006000500040003000200010000
99
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
LPC Result (Muskie3D)
Percent
Mean 4506
StDev 1742
N 28
AD 0.236
P-Value 0.767
Checking Process Normality,Muskie 3D Ramp
Normal
2 82 52 21 91 61 31 0741
1 0 0 0 0
7 5 0 0
5 0 0 0
2 5 0 0
0
O b s e r v a t io n
IndividualValue
_
X = 4 5 0 6
U C L= 1 0 2 1 1
LC L= -1 2 0 0
2 82 52 21 91 61 31 0741
8 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
0
O b s e r v a t io n
MovingRange
_ _
M R = 2 1 4 5
U C L= 7 0 1 0
LC L= 0
I-M R C h a r t o f C u r r e n t P r o c e s s (M u s ki e 3 D )
Baseline Performance againstCurrent Spec:
1 2 0 0 09 6 0 07 2 0 04 8 0 02 4 0 00
U S L
LS L *
T a rge t *
U S L 13000
S a m ple M e a n 2950.1
S a m ple N 29
S tD e v (W ithin) 1460.61
S tD e v (O v e ra ll) 1414.17
P ro ce ss D a ta
C p *
C P L *
C P U 2 .29
C pk 2 .29
P p *
P P L *
P P U 2 .37
P pk 2 .37
C pm *
O v e ra ll C a pa bility
P o te ntia l (W ithin) C a pa bility
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0.00
P P M T o ta l 0.00
O b se rv e d P e rfo rm a nce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0.00
P P M T o ta l 0.00
E xp. W ithin P e rfo rm a nce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0.0 0
P P M T o ta l 0.0 0
E xp. O v e ra ll P e rfo rm a nce
W ith in
O v e rall
P roc es s C a pabili ty w ith c urr e nt S pe c: ( C roc k e tte )
Current USL = 13000 (LPC)
Current UCL = 9100 (LPC)
Process Sigma = 1414
Process Mean = 2950
Cpk (Based on current spec) = 2.29
Ppk (Based on current spec) = 2.37

11
Baseline Performance against New Requirement
6 4 0 04 8 0 03 2 0 01 6 0 00
U S L
LS L *
T a rge t *
U S L 3 6 4 0
S a m ple M e a n 2 9 5 0 .1
S a m ple N 2 9
S tD e v (W ith in) 1 4 6 0 .6 1
S tD e v (O v e ra ll) 1 4 1 4 .1 7
P ro ce ss D a ta
C p *
C P L *
C P U 0 .1 6
C pk 0 .1 6
P p *
P P L *
P P U 0 .1 6
P pk 0 .1 6
C pm *
O v e ra ll C a p a bility
P o te n tia l (W ithin ) C a pa bility
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 2 4 1 3 7 9 .3 1
P P M T o ta l 2 4 1 3 7 9 .3 1
O bse rv e d P e rfo rm a n ce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 3 1 8 3 4 4 .2 5
P P M T o ta l 3 1 8 3 4 4 .2 5
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 3 1 2 8 2 9 .1 2
P P M T o ta l 3 1 2 8 2 9 .1 2
E xp . O v e ra ll P e rfo rm a nce
W ith in
O v er a ll
P r oc e s s C a pa bil ity w ith N e w T r igge r L im it ( C r oc k e tte )
New required USL = 5200 (LPC)
New UCL = 3640 (LPC)
Process Mean = 2950
Ppk (Based on current spec) = 0.16 6 0 0 05 0 0 04 0 0 03 0 0 02 0 0 01 0 0 00
X
_
H o
L P C R e s u lt ( C r o c k e t t e )
B o x p l o t o f C u r r e n t P r o c e s s M e a n & N e w T r ig g e r L im it ( C r o c k e t te )
( w it h H o a n d 9 5% t -c o nf id e n ce in te r va l fo r th e m e a n )
Baseline Performance againstCurrent Spec:
210001800015000120009000600030000
U S L
LS L *
T a rge t *
U S L 2 2 0 0 0
S a m ple M e a n 4 5 0 5 .5
S a m ple N 2 8
S tD e v (W ithin) 1 8 1 6 .1 8
S tD e v (O v e ra ll) 1 7 4 2 .2 7
P ro ce ss D a ta
C p *
C P L *
C P U 3 .2 1
C pk 3 .2 1
P p *
P P L *
P P U 3 .3 5
P pk 3 .3 5
C pm *
O v e ra ll C a pa bility
P o te ntia l (W ithin) C a pa bility
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l 0 .0 0
O bse rv e d P e rfo rm a nce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l 0 .0 0
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 0 .0 0
P P M T o ta l 0 .0 0
E xp. O v e ra ll P e rfo rm a nce
W ith in
O v er all
P r oc e ss C a pa bility w ith cur re nt S pe c: ( M usk ie 3 D )
Current USL = 22000 (LPC)
Current UCL = 15400 (LPC)
Process Mean = 4505
Ppk (Based on current spec) = 3.35

12
Baseline Performance against New Requirement
New required USL = 8800 (LPC)
New UCL = 6160 (LPC)
Process Mean = 4505
Ppk (Based on current spec) = 0.32 8 0 0 07 0 0 06 0 0 05 0 0 04 0 003 0 0 02 00 01 0 0 0
X
_
H o
L P C R e s u lt ( M u s kie 3 D )
B o x p l o t o f C u r r e n t P r o c e s s M e a n & N e w T r i g g e r L i m it ( M u s k i e 3 D )
(w ith H o a n d 9 5 % t- c o n fide n c e in te rva l fo r the m e an )
8 0 0 07 0 0 06 0 0 05 0 0 04 0 0 03 0 0 02 0 0 01 0 0 0
U S L
LS L *
T a rg e t *
U S L 6 16 0
S a m p le M e a n 4 50 5 . 5
S a m p le N 2 8
S tD e v (W ith in ) 1 81 6 . 1 8
S tD e v (O v e ra ll) 1 74 2 . 2 7
P ro ce s s D a ta
C p *
C P L *
C P U 0 .3 0
C p k 0 .3 0
P p *
P P L *
P P U 0 .3 2
P p k 0 .3 2
C p m *
O v e ra ll C a p a b ility
P o te n tia l (W ith in ) C a p a b ility
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 1 7 8 5 7 1 . 4 3
P P M T o ta l 1 7 8 5 7 1 . 4 3
O b s e rv e d P e rfo rm a n ce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 18 1 1 5 3 . 8 9
P P M T o ta l 18 1 1 5 3 . 8 9
E xp . W ith in P e rfo rm a n ce
P P M < LS L *
P P M > U S L 1 7 1 1 52 . 2 0
P P M T o ta l 1 7 1 1 52 . 2 0
E xp. O v e ra ll P e rfo rm a n ce
W ith in
O v er all
P r oc e s s C a p a b ility w ith N e w T r ig ge r L im it ( M u s k ie 3 D )
ANALYSE

13
Open >>> Narrow
No Factors Location
Washing Line
(Hari)
Process Engg
(Kornelius)
QC (Fera)
Green Belt
(Bob)
Production
(Marsudin)
Total Vote
1
Aging of Ultrasonic transducers
(more than 5 years)
Tank 1
Tank 3
Tank 4
x x x x x 5
2
Improper filter installation (off
set, discentering)
All water
tanks
x x x x 4
3 Agitation speed is abnormal
Tank 1
Tank 3
Tank 4
x x x x 4
4
Water over floating flow is not
good enough because water level
is not significantly different inside
& outside of the tank. It may
weaken tendency of the particle
flowing out from the tank
All water
tanks
x 1
5
Water spray is not effective
enough toremove LPC
Tank 2 x 1
6
Low Ultrasonic power (40% at
this moment)
Tank 1
Tank 3
Tank 4
x 1
Open >>> Narrow
No Factors Location
Washing Line
(Hari)
Process Engg
(Kornelius)
QC (Fera)
Green Belt
(Bob)
Production
(Marsudin)
Total Vote
7
Vacuum dry tank seal has been in
not good condition.
Vacuum dry
tank
x x x 3
8 Vacuum Pump drops efficiency
Vacuum dry
tank
x x x 3
9
Regular cleaning schedule is not
being practised.
Over all x x x 3
10 Air filters are not replaced regularly
Blow dry,
drying ovens,
Machine hyper
filters, class 100
ovens
x x x x 4
11
Source of blowing air is taken from
underneat of the machine (dirty
area)
Blow dry tank x x x x 4
12
Finding of rust-like surfaces in
machine
Most of the
tank
x x x x 4
13
Robot arms metal to metal rubbing
against washing tray
All arms x x x 3

14
Verify RootCauses
In this case, verifying the root causesby data is not practical.
Verification is done by the physical evidencesand maintenancerecordsof the
machine.
(Item 1) Aging Ultrasonic Transducer
with cavitation marks on surface.
It reduces ultrasonic cleaning effect. And
Contribute particles from surface quoting.
Study : Effect of U/STransducer’s service life time on Cleanliness
The study over effect of UltrasonicTransducerLife on LPC cleanlinesswas done on
anotherWashing Line (similarTransducer is applied)which is being used for Rubber
products.
The cleanlinessshows significantdifferenceacross first to secondyear of service
life while there is no significant change on other factors.(Referencefrom another
project)
JPK LPC 2010JPK LPC 2009
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
Data
Boxplot of JPK LPC 2009, JPK LPC 2010
STA 3D2010STA 3D2009
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Data
Boxplot of STA 3D2009, STA 3D2010

15

16
Verify RootCauses
(Item 2) Cartage filter is offset with the center
Of the filter housing.
It let the recirculating water go through without
Filtering action.
Filter Offset during installation
Filter centered during installation
Study : Recirculation Filter Efficiency
Particle
Size (mm)
LPC result cumulative particle counts/ml
B/F passing filter A/F passing filter Removal Efficiency
0.5 852.33 3.42 99.6%
Particle
Size (mm)
LPC result cumulative particle counts/ml
B/F passing filter A/F passing filter Removal Efficiency
0.5 816.73 128.83 84.2%
Cartage Filter being Installed Offset.
Cartage Filter being Installed properly.
Test was done on Final Rinse , Tank No, 5.
Standard Filter Replacement is done by the time differential Pressure reached 10 Psi.

17
Verify RootCauses
(Item 9) No regular maintenance for
Cleanliness.
It makes particles trapped along where
DI water and blowing air go through.
Recirculation pump collecting dusts
Damage vacuum oven seal
Flow meter collecting dirt
Verify RootCauses
(Item 10) Air filters of the machine are not
changed regularly.
It makes APC (air particle counts) high
during drying process where high speed
blower and vacuum drying are applied.
Dirty High Speed Blower Filter
CDA Blower Filter
Pre HEPA Filter
Dirty HEPA Filter
Dirty Vacuum Oven Filters

18
Verify RootCauses
Trigger Limit : 8160 counts / cubic meter
Study :Air Filters Replacement
~ 24 months APC (Air Particle Count) data is studied to predict HEPA Filter Life Time.
~ 4 readings per month, Sub-group size is 4 for x-bar.
~ Count Particle Size : 0.2 micron.
~ Study Point : Point J2, (Standardized QC checking point)
~ Trigger Limit : 8160 counts per cubic meter.
R-sq = 86.3%
A Quadratic Function is
fitted.
Regression is significant.
Filter life span is decided
to be 60 months of
service life where
predicted APC level is
more than 2000 counts
per cubic meter.

19
Study :Air Filters Replacement
• Regression is significant.
• Although there are some large residuals, the
model can be used to decide the filter life span by
considering certain safety margin.
Verify RootCauses
(Item 12) Found some rusty parts (such
as agitation plates) in the washing tanks.
Rusty metal parts contribute particles to
products.

20
Item No. 3 : AgitationSpeedisAbnormal.
•It can be visually checkedduring operation.
•It happensbecause of degrading of agitation pneumaticcylindersand pneumatic
speed controllers.
•Abnormalagitation speed or movement reducesthe effectsof ultrasonicwashing.
Item No. 7 & 8 : VacuumOven Seal&VacuumPump
•It can be visually verify the conditionof Seal &VacuumOil colour.
•This factorseffect the drynessof the product.
•Semi wet product attractsparticlesin the air.
Verify Root Causes
Item No. 10 : Air filtersReplacement.
• This fact was also verifiedby measuringAPC(Air Particle Counts)of the machine
duringrunning.And the data shows that APC in the machineand air blowing
directly to the productsare at high side.
Item No. 11 : Sourceof BlowerAir
•It is recommendedto locate the air intakefilterof high speed blower at clean place.
And source of air shouldbe clean air.
•Blowinguncleanair onto productscontributeparticles.
Item No. 13 : Metal to metal rubbing between Robot arm & Washing Baskets.
•It can be visually seen.
•Rubbing metal to metal generatesmetal powder.
Verify Root Causes

21
Summary of Major Root Causes
No Factors to Improve
1 Aging of Ultrasonic transducers & Calibration
2 Improper filter installation (off set, discentering)
3 Agitation speed
4 Vacuum dry tank seal
5 Vacuum Pump efficiency
6 Regular cleaning and overall maintenance for machine cleanliness
7 Air filters replacement
8 Source of blowing air
9 Rusty metal components in machine
10 Robot arms metal to metal rubbing against washing tray
IMPROVE

22
Countermeasures & PossibleSolutions
No Factors Location Countermeasures
1
Aging of Ultrasonic transducers &
Calibration
Tank 1
Tank 3
Tank 4
Replace Ultrasonic transducers and calibrate
power generators.
2
Improper filter installation (off set,
discentering)
All water tanks
Ensure filter centering & installation by guide
jig.And use PP pleated filters.
3 Agitation speed
Tank 1
Tank 3
Tank 4
Reconfirm speed and cylinder performance.
Replace cylinders & speed adjusters, if
necessary
4 Vacuum dry tank seal Vacuum dry tank Replace new seal
5 Vacuum Pump efficiency Vacuum dry tank
Change the Oil for vacuum pump. Order oil to
replace.
6
Regular cleaning and overall
maintenance for machine cleanliness
Over all
Establish or reactivate regular cleaning job. Review
PM procedures. Do 1 time overall cleaning.
7 Air filters replacement
Blow dry, drying
ovens, Machine
hyper filters, class
100 ovens
Replace filters and include regular replacement
of air filters in PM activity list.
8 Source of blowing air Blow dry tank
Get the blowing air supply from class 100 clean
room.
9 Rusty metal components in machine Most of the tank Replace all with plastic part
10
Robot arms metal to metal rubbing
against washing tray
All arms Add protector to the arms as JCS proposed.
Improvement Action Plan
No Action Team involved Schedule
1
U/S transducer replacement &
PowerCalibration.
JCS Supplier,
Prod Eng.
20 March 2011.
2 Water Filter guide jig installation. Prod Eng. Jig Implementation by March 2011
3
Agitation speed standardization &
maintenance activities.
Prod Eng.
Maintenance
20 March 2011.
4 Vacuum dry tank seal replacement Maintenance 20 March 2011.
5 Vacuum Pump Oil replacement Maintenance 20 March 2011.
6 Overall machine 5S activities
Production.
Maintenance.
20 March 2011.
7 Air filters replacement Maintenance March 2011.
8
Relocation of high speed blower air
intake filter.
Prod Eng. 20 March 2011
9 Replacement of rusty parts in tanks JCS Supplier.
Prod Eng.
20 March 2011
10 Installation of robot arm protectors Maintenance 20 March 2011..

23
After the activitieson 20th March 2011, confirmation was givenby QC department
for Fit to Run the washing line by thorough checking of APC (Air Particle Counts)&
LPC (LiquidParticleCounts)levelsof the washing line.
Starting from 21st March,2 weeksdata collection was done to verifythe solution
effectiveness.
The two weeksdata shows there is no significant difference of before and after
improvement.
It was decidedthat more data should be collected, since washing line needs time to
stabilize it’sAPC & LPC as a lot of maintenancejobs were done on washingline itself
and inside the Clean Room (Class1000).
ProductLPC data were collected3 months (April, May & June).
Data recordingmethod also has been improvedas daily product LPC checkingis
established. (5 samplesper day, x-bar is average of 5 randomsamples).
Verify Solution Effectiveness
Washing Line APC PerformanceAfter Filter Replacement
Location
Particle Size (micro
meter)
APC (Counts/cubic meter), at 1cfm
Before After
Tank 6
Blow dryTank
0.2 8154.3 2180.7
0.3 1835.6 608.9
0.5 353 47.8
1.0 0 0
5.0 0 0
Tank 7
DryingOven Tank
(Temp @ 38 deg C)
0.2 25098.3 11707.67
0.3 8119 2219.56
0.5 1270.8 281
1.0 35.3 0
5.0 0 0
Vacuum Oven Tank
(Temp @ 30 deg C)
0.2 13590.5 8812.8
0.3 9072.1 6012.9
0.5 6848.2 580.9
1.0 2435.7 17.8
5.0 0 0
HEPA Filter(Point J2)
0.2 600.1 35.3
0.3 141.2 0
0.5 35.3 0
1.0 0 0
5.0 0 0

24
Verify Solution Effectiveness (Crockett)
Result After Improvement (Crockett)
USL = 5200 (LPC)
UCL = 3640 (LPC)
Process Sigma = 621
Process Mean = 2021
Cpk = 1.71
Ppk = 1.70
525045003750300022501500750
USL
LSL *
Target *
USL 5200
Sample Mean 2021.57
Sample N 88
StDev (Within) 620.805
StDev (O verall) 621.822
Process Data
Cp *
CPL *
CPU 1.71
Cpk 1.71
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 1.70
Ppk 1.70
Cpm *
O verall Capability
Potential (Within) Capability
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 0.00
O bserved Performance
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 0.15
PPM Total 0.15
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 0.16
PPM Total 0.16
Exp. Ov erall Performance
Within
Overall
Process Capability of Aft Imp, Crockette, X-bar
Mean + 2 x Sigma = 2021 + 2 x 621 = 3263
70% USL = 5200 x 0.7 = 3640 (UCL)
Mean + 2 Sigma is LESS THAN 70% of USL

25
75006000450030001500
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
Data
Density
4506 1742 28
2908 846.1 69
Mean StDev N
LP C Result (Muskie3D)
Aft Improv ement, Muskie3D X-bar
Variable
Normal
Histogramof Before & Aft Improvement, (Muskie3D Ramp)
Verify Solution Effectiveness (Muskie 3D)
Result After Improvement (Muskie 3D)
USL = 8800 (LPC)
UCL = 6160 (LPC)
Process Sigma = 846
Process Mean = 2907
Ppk = 1.45
Mean + 2 x Sigma = 2907 + 2 x 846 = 4599
70% USL = 8800 x 0.7 = 6160 (UCL)
Mean + 2 Sigma is LESS THAN 70% of USL
8000700060005000400030002000
USL
LSL *
Target *
USL 8800
Sample Mean 2907.83
Sample N 69
Location 2519.89
Scale 665.805
Process Data
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 1.45
Ppk 1.45
O verall C apability
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 0.00
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL *
PPM > USL 80.09
PPM Total 80.09
Exp. Overall Performance
Process Capability of Aft Improvement, Muskie3D X-bar
Calculations Based on Largest Extreme Value Distribution Model

26
CONTROL
Operational Control
(1) Preventive Maintenance System Reviews.
Item Name Action Frequency
Ultrasonic Transducers (3 units) Replace 3 yearly (yearly inspection)
Ultrasonic Power Generator (3 units) Calibration yearly
HEPA filters (machine) : 3 units Replace 5 yearly
HEPA pre-filters Replace 6 monthly
CAD Filters Replace 3 yearly
HSB Filter Replace Yearly
Vacuum Oven Filter Replace 3 yearly
Oven HEPA Filter Replace 3 yearly
Vacuum Oven Oil Replace By Go/ No Go color quote
Cartridge Filters (Recirculation) Replace By differential pressure of 10 psi
Dry Oven Filter Replace 2 yearly
Recirculation Pumps Cleaning 4 monthly

27
Operational Control
(2) Statistic Process Control. (Product LPC)
Starting March 2011, Product LPC checking is implemented in house. And LPC of each product is
measured once a day, sub-group size of 5.
Re-establish new trigger limits for internal control chart for each item using 1 month data (April).
(total 30 data of sub-group size of 5)
Operational Control
(2) Statistic Process Control (Product LPC).
Notes:
~ Outlier was found in first time plotting control chart.
~ It was omitted to establish the control limits.

28
Operational Control
(2) Statistic Process Control (Machine APC).
• Establish Control limits for machine APC (HEPA filter performance)
• Single APC reading data daily. (30 data points of April is plotted I-MR chart)
QC Monitoring Plan (before : 1 LPC data for every 2 weeks)

29
QC Monitoring Plan (After : daily LPC X-bar Control Chart)
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
05954-1809
05962-1818
06005-1804
06007-1804
05954-1816
06007-1810
06007-1812
06007-1813
06157-180806007-1818
06157-1807
06101-1803
06101-1810
06159-1802
06159-1804
10099-1801
10099-1802
06005-1817
06005-1818
10099-1807
10100-1801
10099-181410101-1802
006157-1818
10101-1805
10165-1804
10165-1805
10100-1806
10100-1802
10165-1818
10165-1812
10165-1815
10102-1807
10102-1809
10166-1802
10166-1804
Crockett Slider Limiter Ramp GZ8082V0 LPC Xbar Control Chart
Xbar0.6 CL
UCL 2 sigma Line
1 sigma Line Xbar 0.3
Operational Control
(3) Personnel Control
All production operators and leaders were trained to understand abnormalities in Washing
Process Line.
Introduced TPM concept.
Original schedule of general cleaning & 5S activities are reactivated.

30
Financial Benefits
Gain Customer Satisfaction
Prevent lost of Business
Positive sign for Future business
from customer.
The End
(Refer to Appendix for step by step data analysis by Mini Tab)

LSBB_NOK_bob1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to LSBB_NOK_bob1

Similar to LSBB_NOK_bob1 (20)

LSBB_NOK_bob1