Where’s the data?

Evan J. Miller
President & C.E.O.
Hertzler Systems Inc.
 Six Sigma Champion
“We had out-of-date and disparate quality systems
throughout our plant. Our number one impediment to
Six Sigma was getting data for the Analysis and
Improvement phases as we trained our Black Belts. They
were ready to go, but they couldn't get meaningful data.”
 Another view
“Building a robust IT infrastructure has been absolutely
critical to our Six Sigma deployment…
“And we severely underestimated the effort and scope of
bringing those systems up to snuff.”
Islands of Data
 Islands of Data Supplier
Quality

LIMS SCADA

MES

CMS
ERP

CDP

CAR In-process
Final
SPC
Traditional Applications

Application

UI
Data
 IT Infrastructure 2

Application and
Database User Interface
 IT Infrastructure 3

Data Application User Interface

Warehouse
 Islands of Data
UI

UI
App
Data
MI Warehouse

UI

Data App
Warehouse UI
 Integration
UI

UI
App
Data
MI Warehouse

UI

Data App
Warehouse UI
 Fully Integrated or
Best of Breed
Fully Integrated
‹ One IT vendor does it all
‹ Tight interaction between
components
‹ Substantial ramp up
‹ Typically less depth
 Fully Integrated or
Best of Breed
Fully Integrated Best of Breed
‹ One IT vendor does it all ‹ Islands of data
‹ Tight interaction between ‹ Poor interaction
components ‹ Deep functionality
‹ Substantial ramp up ‹ Quicker initial startup
‹ Typically less depth
 Fully Integrated
AND Best of Breed
‹ Application Depth
‹ Interconnected
‹ “Hooks” to other systems
‹ Open database connectivity (ODBC)
‹ Applications Program Interface (API)
‹ Often requires vendor cooperation
 Islands of Data

SCADA
LIMS ERP
MES

In-process
SPC

CDP
Final

Supplier
CAR
Quality
 Bridging Islands for
Six Sigma
SCADA
LIMS ERP
MES

In-process
Real-Time Quality Portal
SPC

Documents
Final
Quality
Data
Warehouse Supplier
CAR
Quality
 Bridging Islands for
Six Sigma
SCADA
LIMS ERP
MES

In-process
Real-Time Quality Portal
SPC

Documents
Final

Quality
Data
Warehouse Supplier MINITAB
CAR
Quality
 Six Sigma Champion
“We had out-of-date and disparate quality systems
throughout our plant. Our number one impediment to
Six Sigma was getting data for the Analysis and
Improvement phases as we trained our Black Belts. They
were ready to go, but they couldn't get meaningful data.”
 Vision
‹ Automated data acquisition of massive amounts of data
from software and devices including
‹ CMMs
‹ gages
‹ PLCs
‹ production control software
‹ Store this data in the company's Oracle data warehouse
‹ Available to quality staff for standard reporting
‹ Available to the Six Sigma teams for use in all phases of
their Six Sigma projects.
 Result
‹ "The Hertzler solution has enabled us to rapidly deploy
and support dozens of Black Belts and Green Belts and
realize substantial savings over the last year. Hertzler's
solutions have been especially effective in helping us in
the Measure and Control Phases of our Six Sigma
Processes."
 Result 2
‹ Industry Week magazine named the plant as one
of the Top Ten plants in the North America in
2000.
 Measure Phase
Key Tools
Hertzler Minitab
Real-time shop floor data acquisition 
Real-time control charts 
Network alarms 
DPU Charts 
Pareto Charts  
High volumes of data  
Basic descriptive statistics  
Basic SPC Charts  
Normal Probablity Plots 
 Analysis Phase
Key Tools
Hertzler Minitab
High volumes of data  
Sort and filter capability  
Scatter diagrams  
F Tests 
Box Plots 
T Tests 
Multivari charts 
ANOVA 
DOE 
 Control Phase
Key Tools
Hertzler Minitab
DPU Charts 
SPC of inputs 
Real time control charts 
Closed Loop SPC 
EWMA, CuSum  
Short Run control charts  
Histograms and descriptive statistics  
Normal and Non-normal Capability  
Long term historical trending  
Batch data Capability 
Attribute Capability 
 Case Study
Manufacturing Example -
Automated Data Gathering -
Hertzler to Minitab
 Coil Winder -
Resistance Testing
‹ 24 Spindles ‹ Sends data to RS232 port with
‹ Measures spindles in batches of spindle number and value:
12 (1 - 12, 13 - 24) 1 106.3
2 105.8
3 105.7
...
12 107.1

13 104.3
…
24 105.5
 Data Collection Process
Get Data
Start PC Enter Traceability
Open Port

Look for Spindle ID

Get Data
(1 or 13)

Read 12 values
Update Charts

Test for control

Wait 15 min. Store

 Cost to Collect
Manual Automatic
‹ 2 shifts, 4 days ‹ 1 shift, 1 day
‹ 21.5 minutes per sample ‹ 0 minutes to collect after
‹ 11.5 hrs collect and enter setup (setup reusable)
data ‹ 10 minutes to transfer
‹ Response delayed 5 days data
‹ Response in less than 1
shift
 Validation Study
‹ New wire placed on spindles 23 and 24
‹ Compared to spindles 21 and 22 (current wire)
 Subgrouping
1 2 3 4 Avg. R
1-4 S1 S2 S3 S4
106.5 105.5 105.0 107.0 106.0 2.0
…
21-24 S21 S22 S23 S24
108.5 109.0 108.5 108.0 108.5 1.0
 Process Capability Analysis
Capability Histogram Chart
Cpk

2.08 2.03 0.88 1.44 1.83 1.85

NS

13-16 5-8
1-4 9-12
21-24 17-20
 Xbar/R Chart for Spindle 21- 24

115 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
Sample Mean

UCL=112.0

110 Mean=109.9

LCL=107.8

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1

Subgroup 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

4
UCL=3.696

3
Sample Range

R=1.131
1

0 LCL=0
 Xbar/R Chart for Spindle 21 -24 by supplier
Supplier 1 Supplier 2
Spindle 21-22 Spindle 23-24
115 1 1
11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 11
11 1
Sample Mean

110 UCL=110.3
Mean=109.3
LCL=108.3

1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11
105 1 1 1
1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 11

Subgroup 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2 1
1
UCL=1.729
Sample Range

R=0.5292

0 LCL=0
Dotplot: Supplier 1, Supplier 2
. .
: . :::::
. :.: ::::::.
:..::::.:::::::.
-+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----Supplier 1
.
: :
: ::
. : ::
::::: : :::
.::::::::::::.
-+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----Supplier 2
104.0 106.0 108.0 110.0 112.0 114.0

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Resistance, Supplier

Two-sample T for Resistance

Supplier N Mean StDev SE Mean

Supplier 1 62 112.841 0.762 0.097
Supplier 2 62 105.738 0.755 0.096

Difference = mu (Supplier l) - mu (Supplier 2 )

Estimate for difference: 7.103
95% CI for difference: (6.834, 7.373)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 52.16 P-Value = 0.000
DF = 122
Both use Pooled StDev = 0.758
 Xbar/R Chart for Resistance by Supplier
Supplier 1 Supplier 2
115
UCL=114.1
Mean=112.8
Sample Mean

1 LCL=111.6
110

1 1 1 111 UCL=106.5
Mean=105.7
105 LCL=105.0
1 1 11 1 11

Subgroup 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Supplier 1 Supplier 2

2
Sample Range

UCL=1.330
1

R=0.4071

0 LCL=0
 Xbar/R Chart f or Supplier 2 data with separation
Data Group 1 Data Group 2
107.5
Sample Mean

106.5

UCL=105.8
105.5
Mean=105.1

104.5 LCL=104.5

Subgroup 0 10 20 30

Data Group 1 Data Group 2

1.5
Sample Range

UCL=1.139
1.0

0.5
R=0.3487

0.0 LCL=0
Dotplot: Supplier 2 by Spindle

Data Group : .: .
1 . . . . : . ::.:::: .:.
-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-Spindle 23
Data Group . . . :.
2 . . : . .:. :.:::. .:. .:
-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-Spindle 24
104.50 105.00 105.50 106.00 106.50 107.00

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Supplier 2 by Spindle

Two-sample T for Supplier 2

Spindle N Mean StDev SE Mean

23 31 106.410 0.376 0.069
24 31 105.107 0.376 0.066

Difference = mu (1) - mu (2)

Estimate for difference: 1.3025
95% CI for difference: (1.1115, 1.4935)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 13.64 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 60
Both use Pooled StDev = 0.376
 X b a r/R C h a rt fo r R e s is ta n c e b y S u p p lie r w ith
s e p a ra tio n o f S u p p lie r 2 's d a ta b y S p in d le
S u p p lie r 1 S u p p lie r 2 ,S p in d le 2 3 S u p p lie r 2 ,S p in d le 2 4
115
S am ple M ean

1
110

U C L = 1 0 5 .8
105 M e a n = 1 0 5 .1
L C L = 1 0 4 .5
S u b g ro u p 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2
S am ple R ange

U C L = 1 .1 3 9
1

R = 0 .3 4 8 7
0 LC L=0
 Action Items
‹ Work with Supplier 2 to modify their product to be at
the level of Supplier 1.
‹ Maintenance technicians to investigate the difference
between spindles 23 and 24.
‹ Perform second validation run within 30 days.
 Case Study
Transaction Example -
Cycle time data collection and analysis
 Process Overview
Customer Issues PO Vendor Receives PO

Post in CRM

Build & Ship Product

Invoice Product
 Process Overview
Customer Issues PO Vendor Receives PO
ET to
receive order ET to enter order
Post in CRM

ET to ship product
Build & Ship Product

ET to invoice product
Invoice Product
 Assumptions
‹ Count 1 defect for every day an order sits in a
queue
‹ Tag the data with order type, source or order,
reason for delay, etc.
‹ Keep data entry as fast and easy as possible
Entry Form (prototype)
Cycle time overview
Exclude early support renewals
Drill down ET to Enter Order
 Case Study
Manufacturing Example -
Down time data collection and analysis
 Assumptions
‹ Each minute = 1 opportunity
‹ Record time in minutes machine is down
‹ Assign reason to downtime
‹ Tag data with machine, shift, operator, tooling,
etc.
‹ Pareto downtime and drill down to get to reasons
Downtime by Reason
Machine Breakdown by Machine
Shift?
Operator?
Drill down path
 Where’s the data?
‹ New breed of information products
‹ Interactive
‹ Interconnected
‹ Best of Breed
‹ Data warehouse