Backlight Particle 改善6sigma 专案ppt课件

Cover ParticledefectiverateimprovementofNBBLU Define ProjectCharterVoiceofCustomerCOPISDefinitionMainProcessMapping ProjectCharter ProblemdescriptionWhychosethistopic DecreasetheNBparticledefectiverateofOQC DecreasetheNBdefectiverateatOQC MeetthecustomerVLRRtarget Meetcustomersatisfaction ProjectDescription ProjectStatement VoiceofCustomer ProjectScope EstimatingBenefits COPISDefinition Materialincoming IQC Materialinput Assembly FQC2 OQC Deliverytocustomer IQCofCustomer CustomerlineProduce Yes Yes Yes No No No CustomerService No LGPProcess Sorting VLRR FQC No Yes Yes CriticalProcess MainProcessMapping Measure CTQTree MetricTableMSAPlanningSPCscheme DatacollectionBaselinedataConclusion Customer Need Driver Metric CMO FQC2 FQC IQC Cleannessofmaterialinput GR RofMSA Cleannessofcleanroom Innerqualitymonitoring OQC Cleanlyoperatingenvironment Qualifiedoperators MeetOQCtarget Qualifiedmaterials CTQTree MetricTable 1 Object Usesamples particledefects tocarryMSAinordertoanalyzethevarianceofoperators andcheckedthecollectiondataisobjective 2 Time 2007 08 31 2007 09 213 Member IQC FQC FQC2 OQC Sortingoperatorsatcustomerside 4 Place IQCarea 2Fcleaningroom5 MSAfocus 1 Candidate ChoseInspectors 2 Sampleschoosing 20PcsOK NGBLU 3 Educationtraining Basedonthespecificationofcustomer 4 Testcriteria IfitisnotKappa 0 90 GRR 30 Maximum mustbetestagainafterre training 5 Recordandfile MSAPlanning SPCscheme Datacollection 1 2007yJan Aug defectiverateofVLRR 25 297PPMTheparticledefectiverate 9 030PPM Top1 35 7 2 2007yJan Aug defectiverateofSorting 16 233PPMTheparticledefectiverate 6 130PPM Top1 37 8 3 2007yJan Aug defectiverateofOQC 20 856PPMTheparticledefectiverate 4 492PPM Top1 32 3 4 2007yJan Aug defectiverateofFQC2 65 058PPMTheparticledefectiverate 41 563PPM Top1 63 9 5 2007yJan Aug defectiverateofFQC 141 039PPMTheparticledefectiverate 92 415PPM Top1 65 5 BaselineData Baselineconclusion Itneedtocheckregularly traintheoperatorsthatarenotqualifiedforGR Ranalysis AccordingtothecollecteddatabasefromFQCtoVLRR thetop1defectwasparticle IQCmaterialexaminationdidnotrejectparticledefectsissue Theresultofparticletrendchartfrommeasuringdatabasewasstable thecleannessofenvironmentwasnotparticularabnormal Fromthesamplingmaterial 50pcs ininput room themaximumamountofparticleadheredwasLGP Analyze ParticleanalysisCauseandEffectDiagramRootcauseanalysisSummary ParticleAnalysisinSep Clean clothwasnot100 cleanedbeforeentertheclean room CauseandEffectDiagram Environmentcleaningwasnotimplement S V Fiber Measure Man Machine Environment Materials Method Effect InputLGPwasimpure Clean clothwaspollutedbeforeenterthecleanroom Inputmoldframecleaningwasinadequate Twinadhesive separatorpaperfragments Clean clothwastoodirty Theclassofwashingclean clothwasinsufficient ImpurityofcircularsystemInclean room V V V S V V V V V V S N HowLikelyV verylikelyS somewhatlikelyN notlikely HowEasyV veryeasyS somewhateasyN noteasy S V S V HowLikelyV verylikelyS somewhatlikelyN notlikely HowEasyV veryeasyS somewhateasyN noteasy V S S S S V S V S S Cause EffectSystemDiagram CauseSummary Improve DOEVerificationOQCTrendChartStatusFMEACostBenefitAnalysis 1 Object Studythecrossinteractionamongcorrectivefactors andfindthebestcombinedsolutions 2 Time 2007 11 19 2007 11 303 Scope Kenmosof12 1 notebooktype 4 Place LGPpackingareaandBLUassemblyclean room 5 Implement 1 Response Theparticledefectsamount 2 Factor A Clean clothputinclean booth B Cleaningclassofclean clothC LGPpackinginclean boothD LGP burrremovingtoolcoveredPP 3 Level Eachfactorhastwolevels 1 2 6 Procedure 1 DOEschemetrialrun Therewere4factorswith2levels duetoeverylevelwasindependent thisstudytookfractionalfactorialexperiment 1 2fraction24 1 8runs 2 RunOrder Collectdata 3 ANOVAanalysis7 Conclusion 1 A2B2C2D2wasthebestcombinedsolution 2 LGPinspectingareaassembledclean boothwasthemosteffectiveaction DOEVerification 1 Object Studythecrossinteractionbetweencorrectivefactors andfindthebestcombinedsolutions 2 Time 2007 12 03 2007 12 043 Scope Kenmosof12 1 notebooktype4 Place BLUmaterialinputofclean room5 Implement 1 Response Frameparticledefectamount 2 Factor A Tools BrushtypesB Area OperatingareaC Method brushingorblowing 3 Level 6 Procedure 1 DOESchemetrialruns Therewere3factorswith3 2 2levels thenthisstudytookfullfactorialexperiment 3 2 2 12runs 2 RunOrder Collectdata 3 ANOVAanalysis7 Conclusion 1 A1B2C2wasthebestcombinedsolution 2 A1brushwasthemosteffectiveaction DOEVerification2 OQCTrendChartStatus Before 2007yJan Aug 4492PPMTarget Theimprovingrate 49 3 During 2007ySep Nov 3359PPMStatus 25 2 Targetachieverate48 8 After 2007yDec 31 18401 1685PPMStatus 62 5 Targetachieverate127 MeetOQCSampleSize 14477pcs BinomialProcessCapabilityZ 2 61 BinomialProcessCapabilityZ 2 71 BinomialProcessCapabilityZ 2 93 FMEA CostBenefitAnalysis Control ControlPlanStandardization ControlPlan Standardization Report ExperiencesharingandfeedbackFollowingplan Experiencesharingandfeedback Firstly team membersveryappreciateDELLCISPprovidedCoreSkilltraining Throughpushingthisprojectwelearnedhowtofindtherootcauseandestablishlogistictheoreticalability UselikeVOC COPIS CTQtree theMetrictabletoolscouldhelpustoestablishmonitoringindexes Utilizestatistictools MSA SPC Fishbone Fivewhys DOEtotestandverifytheresultofaction Kenmosotherimprovingteamsstartedtousethisimprovingway andadministratoralsocarryouttheelementarytoolstraining hopesix sigmatechniquecouldexpandquickly Followingplan CarryoutGR Ranalysisregularlytoappraisetheinspectorcapacity Sixsigmaimprovingtechniquewillparallelleadinnewtypemodelimprovement ThroughtheaccumulationofimprovingprojectstoestablishKMmanagement ThankYou Defectstatement Thebasisofjudgespecification BasedonCMOBLUcommoninspectionstandard Ver 6 0DCCNO 1403Y024 ParticleTypes collectedfromVLRR OQC FQC Defectiverateformulastatement Calculatingformulastatement OQCDefectiverate Input Materialinput LGP c Thecleannessofmaterialpackageinsideandoutsidec Thecleannessofmaterialinputroom MaterialinputstandInspectionstand RawMaterial Materialinput Materialdrying Materialweld injectingMolding Gatecuttingandburnish Scrapetheburr Staticelectricityblow Inspection Packing c Cleannessoffixturesc Cleannessofoperator sequipment c Cleannessoflogisticcarts c Cleannessofoperationtable c LGPinspectionc OperatebySOPc Environmentpollution LGPProcessMapping Input Output BLU c Confirmqualificationofmaterialsc Cleannessoffixturesc Cleannessofoperator sequipment c Cleannessoflogisticcarts c Cleannessofoperationtable c B Linspectionc OperatebySOPc Environmentpollution c Dust blowmachineparameterc Cleannessoflogisticcarts CleaningstandAssemblystand Parts Materialdust blow Inputmaterialtocleanroom Lampreflector Reflector LGP Diffusiondown BEF Diffusionup BLUAssemblyProcessMapping Cleaningroomcleannessmeasurement 2007Jul Aug run chartofcleaningroommeasurement Cleaning room 10000class ParticleUCL 1000 0 5 m 2007Aug IQCmaterialinputqualitycontrol sizedefectgluedefectsizedefectNANA IQCinputcontrol Cleannessofmaterialinput 2007Aug Sep theamountofadheredparticleonsamplingmaterials 50pcs frominput room MSAAnalysis 9 3 9 7 1 TherewerethreeinspectorsthatmetKappastandard90 2 GR Rofthreeinspectorswas15 2 IQC 9 12 9 21 Lead indate 9 6 9 11 9 4 9 6 8 31 9 3 Lead indate MSAdata MSAdata MSA result Recheckofinspector TherewerefiveinspectorsdidnotmeettheKappastandard90 yet Sortingatcustomerside ThereweresixinspectorsdidnotmeettheKappastandard90 yet OQC ThereweretwelveinspectorsdidnotmeettheKappastandard90 yet FQC2 FQC Allof23inspectorsmetkappastandard90 Theinspectorslowerthan90 Note Allpassedcertificateafterre trainingbyline leader trainingteaching material MSA result Inspector 2007Jan Aug OQCaveragedefectiverate 19752PPM TOP1 particledefect4492PPMThetargetofparticledefectimprovementisfrom4492PPMdownto2279PPMPowerandSampleSizeTestforTwoProportionsTestingproportion1 proportion2 versusnot Calculatingpowerforproportion2 0 002279Alpha 0 05SampleTargetProportion1SizePowerActualPower0 004492144770 90 900018Thesamplesizeisforeachgroup Conclusion Thesamplesizeis14477pcsofOQCdefectiverate SPCsamplingplan OQC 1 1Why Whyanalysis TestandCIforTwoProportionsSampleXNSamplep127510000 275000 Hungin 244710000 447000 Hungout Difference p 1 p 2 H0 p 1 p 2 0H1 p 1 p 2 0P Value 0 0RejectH0Conclusion Therewassignificantdifferenceoftheadheredfiberdefectonclean clothbetweenwithinclean booth outsideclean booth Why WhyAnalysis TestandCIforTwoProportionsSampleXNSamplep110210000 102000 100class 230210000 302000 1000class Difference p 1 p 2 H0 p 1 p 2 0H1 p 1 p 2 0P Value 0 0RejectH0Conclusion Therewassignificantdifferenceoftheadheredfiberdefectbetween100and1000washingclassofclean cloth TestandCIforTwoProportionsSampleXNSamplep11246010000000 012460 Outbooth 2549210000000 005492 Inbooth Difference p 1 p 2 Testfordifference 0 vsnot 0 Z 52 28P Value 0 000H0 p 1 p 2 H1 p 1 p 2 P Value 0 0RejectH0Conclusion Tablesweresetinclean boothornothadsignificantdifferentparticlefalls Why WhyAnalysis 2 1Why WhyAnalysis Two sampleTforLGPburrvsLGPburr 1NMeanStDevSEMeanLGPburr1016 104 071 3LGPburr 1104 301 770 56Difference mu LGPburr mu LGPburr 1 H0 LGPburr LGPburr 1H1 LGPburr LGPburr 1P Value 0 0RejectH0Conclusion TherewassignificantdifferenceofLGP burrlengthbetweenremovingtoolwithPP withoutPP Why WhyAnalysis TestandCIforTwoProportionsSampleXNSamplep143250000 001720 before 248250000 001920 after Difference