6SIGMA黑帶項目教材

1、通過6Sigma項目改善 提高攪拌式水壺直通率實施單位：實施時間：項目 B B：6Sigma BB項目2022/9/221Six Sigma定義階段DMAIC2022/9/222Six Sigma 客戶對此款攪拌水壺產(chǎn)品需求量大,品質(zhì)要求嚴.同行業(yè)產(chǎn)品價格競爭激烈外部環(huán)境攪拌式水壺現(xiàn)時直通率為78.5%客戶要求1.產(chǎn)品需求量大(30萬/年)2.品質(zhì)要求嚴提升直通率提升品質(zhì)DMAIC項目選定背景2022/9/223Six Sigma項目選定背景內(nèi)部環(huán)境1.2013年1-4月成品直通率低,為78.5% 2.成品合格率低，2012年QA驗貨合格率為86.2%3.劣質(zhì)成本高，占銷售額的比例大。檢查工序

2、水溫檢測功能檢測耐壓測試外觀檢測總裝直通率單站直通率88.9%98.6%96.4%92.9%78.5%DMAIC2013年1-4月產(chǎn)品直通率 2022/9/224Six Sigma顧客及CTQ直通率低DMAIC外部顧客銷售/客服要求提升產(chǎn)品品質(zhì)/低廉的價位/較少的維修機會利益獲取更大利潤/節(jié)省維修投入內(nèi)部顧客財務管理中心/成本核算部要求降低劣質(zhì)成本/一次就做好利益增加利潤 VOCCTQ2022/9/225Six Sigma項目范圍PMC進料成品入倉OQC檢驗IQC檢驗總裝主要生產(chǎn)過程過程范圍DMAIC2022/9/226Six Sigma項目范圍主要裝配流程（SIPOC)DMAIC拆底座裝腳墊

3、與繞線蓋拆大身上座,裝電源線到底座裝馬達墊裝固定板到電機固定電機到大身插插座引線裝插座到大身壓連接頭,裝開關焊接引線(一）焊接引線(二）焊接引線(三）固定壓線碼與PCB板接線扎扎帶機身內(nèi)檢吹熱縮管找出影響直通率的關鍵流程裝裝飾圈2022/9/227Six Sigma項目范圍主要裝配流程（SIPOC)DMAIC固定大身上下座拆大杯裝手柄蓋與水龍頭壓滾動軸承壓軸承到發(fā)熱盤固定發(fā)熱盤到大杯固定FUSE與溫控器裝腳墊壓插片到杯座，插杯座引線（一）插杯座引線（二）固定杯座裝攪拌刀組件上連接頭水溫測試耐壓測試功率測試清潔機身，繞電源線清潔大杯與杯蓋外觀檢查找出影響直通率的關鍵流程2022/9/228Six

4、 Sigma戰(zhàn)略分析1.高品質(zhì)生活供應商2.質(zhì)量上臺階，管理上層次， 滿足客戶要求3.經(jīng)市場為中心，以客戶為中心， 以技術為中心集團戰(zhàn)略提高直通率，既降低了劣質(zhì)成本，又降低了制造成本，而且提高了產(chǎn)品品質(zhì)，保證了交期，提高了產(chǎn)品市場競爭力和客戶滿意度。DMAIC2022/9/229Six Sigma問題綜述DMAIC2022/9/2210Six Sigma總裝一車間近期直通率走勢圖DMAIC問題綜述2022/9/2211Six SigmaY和缺陷定義 Y =直通率 =Y1*Y2*Y3*Y4 DMAICY1定義:煲水測試合格率Y2定義:耐壓測試合格率Y3定義:功能測試合格率Y4定義:外觀檢查合格率

5、Y的定義缺陷定義2022/9/2212Six Sigma項目目標DMAIC現(xiàn)狀1-5月目標11月78.5%90%2022/9/2213Six Sigma財務收益預計改善目標計算工式合計(RMB) 年度收益(人工費用x50%+裝配費用0.53x30%+公共費用0.23x100%）x預計訂單量300,000 x直接提高直通率10%=(1.49x50%+0.53x30%+0.23x100%)x300,000 x11.5%￥:44365元 投入費用改模費用3000+制作夾具費2000=5000元￥:5000元相關費用1.人工成本：1.49元2.裝配成本：0.53元3.公共費用：0.23元財務總收益:

6、￥年度預計收益總值=預期收益-投入費用 =44365-5000 =39365元DMAIC無形收益：直通率的提高，同時產(chǎn)能也顯著提高，產(chǎn)品品質(zhì)明顯改善，提高了產(chǎn)品的市場競爭力和客戶滿意度。2022/9/2214Six Sigma項目團隊組織Champion X君BB:B君MBB：M君XXXXXXXXX品質(zhì)監(jiān)控及檢驗標準的制定現(xiàn)場作業(yè)改善及作業(yè)方式標準化，控制文件。FMEA分析，流程改進，工程優(yōu)化測量系統(tǒng)分析，人員培訓計劃，實驗實施。項目協(xié)調(diào)跟進及MSA、DOE、各階段分析品管部ZZZ工程部VVV總裝部YYY數(shù)據(jù)的收集和改善的實施，生產(chǎn)現(xiàn)場的控制DMAIC2022/9/2215Six Sigma階

7、段6月定義測量分析改進控制5月7月11月內(nèi)容項目進程計劃項目建立，完成 定義階段的9個部分Y的確認，數(shù)據(jù)收集，MSA現(xiàn)水平分析C&E Matrix , FMEA數(shù)據(jù)收集，多變量分析主變量確定，方差分析FMEA改善計劃作成確立質(zhì)量改進的持續(xù)有效方案，通過實驗確認工藝，管理標準化，制造系統(tǒng)內(nèi)推廣提交項目報告DMAIC10月9月8月5.6-6.46.6-7.67.7-9.109.11-10.1510.16-11.202022/9/2216Six Sigma溝通方式 時間 地點參加人員 主題周總結會 隔周周五下午 16：00 中試部小組全體成員工作進度匯報階段總結會各階段完成時 中試部小組全體成員 各

8、階段工作總結溝通協(xié)調(diào)DMAIC2022/9/2217Six Sigma定義階段總結以VOB、VOC導出CTQ，定義Y.分析內(nèi)外部環(huán)境找到項目范圍確定項目目標和收益估算組建項目團隊、成員角色分工制定項目進程計劃DMAIC2022/9/2218Six Sigma測量階段2022/9/2219Six SigmaYS的確認 顧客CTQ品質(zhì)投訴，成本增加項目Y：提高直通率（計量型數(shù)據(jù)）可操作YS(計量型數(shù)據(jù)）煲水測試合格率、功能測試合格率耐壓測試合格率、外觀檢查合格率DMAIC2022/9/2220Six SigmaYS的確認Y的問題描述煲水測試 不通電 反轉(zhuǎn) 燈不亮 不加熱 水龍頭漏水 連接頭漏水 溫

9、度高或低 發(fā)熱盤漏水 開關不良耐壓測試 耐壓不良功能測試 INT 雜音 功率高或低外觀檢查大身刮花杯刮花機身混色絲印不良手柄蓋離縫大身錯位底座錯位機內(nèi)異物DMAIC2022/9/2221Six Sigma測量日期：2013.6.12分析人員：A君 B君 Y 的MSA-LQC成品外觀判斷 測試員 3名; 樣品 10個; 反復 3次樣品 標準 測試員A測試員B 測試員C 1OKNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG2OKNGNGNGOKOKOKNGNGNG3NGOKOKNGOKOKNGNGNGOK4NGOKOKOKOKNGOKOKOKNG5OKOKOKOKNGNGNGNGNGNG6OKNGNGNGN

10、GOKNGNGNGNG7NGOKOKOKOKOKOKNGNGNG8NGOKNGNGOKNGNGOKOKOK9OKNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG10NGOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKDMAIC2022/9/2222Six SigmaLQC成品外觀檢查MSA結果DMAIC2022/9/2223Six SigmaWithin Appraisers Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI1 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)2 10 6 60.00 (26.24, 87.84)3

11、 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0)1 NG 0.733333 0.182574 4.01663 0.0000 OK 0.733333 0.182574 4.01663 0.00002 NG 0.466667 0.182574 2.55604 0.0053 OK 0.466667 0.182574 2.55604 0.00533 N

12、G 0.682540 0.182574 3.73842 0.0001 OK 0.682540 0.182574 3.73842 0.0001Kappa值小于0.7,需要改善 每個檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查MSA結果2022/9/2224Six SigmaEach Appraiser vs Standard Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI1 10 1 10.00 (0.25, 44.50)2 10 1 10.00 (0.25, 44.50)3 10 1 1

13、0.00 (0.25, 44.50)# Matched: Appraisers assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.Assessment DisagreementAppraiser # OK / NG Percent # NG / OK Percent # Mixed Percent1 3 60.00 4 80.00 2 20.002 2 40.00 3 60.00 4 40.003 2 40.00 5 100.00 2 20.00 # OK / NG: Assessments across trials = OK /

14、 standard = NG.# NG / OK: Assessments across trials = NG / standard = OK.# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0)1 NG -0.610774 0.182574 -3.34535 0.9996 OK -0.610774 0.182574 -3.34535 0.99962 NG -0.477441 0.182574 -2.6150

15、5 0.9955 OK -0.477441 0.182574 -2.61505 0.99553 NG -0.666667 0.182574 -3.65148 0.9999 OK -0.666667 0.182574 -3.65148 0.9999Kappa值小于0.7,需要改善P值大于0.05,說明一致性檢驗結果不可靠檢驗錯誤次數(shù)每個檢查員檢查結果與標準一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查MSA結果2022/9/2225Six SigmaBetween Appraisers Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95

16、% CI 10 3 30.00 (6.67, 65.25)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with each other.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.343891 0.0527046 6.52488 0.0000 OK 0.343891 0.0527046 6.52488 0.0000 All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95

17、% CI 10 0 0.00 (0.00, 25.89)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG -0.584961 0.105409 -5.54942 1.0000 OK -0.584961 0.105409 -5.54942 1.0000所有檢驗員檢查結果）一致性(重復性）百分比所有檢驗員檢查結果一致性Kappa小于0.7，需改善所有檢驗員檢查結果與標準一致性百分比所有檢驗員檢查

18、結果與標準一致性Kappa小于0.7，需改善DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查MSA結果2022/9/2226Six Sigma樣品 標準 測試員A測試員B 測試員C 1OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKNG2NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGOK3OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK4OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK5NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG6OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK7OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK8NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG9NGOKOKOKNGNGNGOKOKOK10OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKY的MSA-LQ

19、C成品功能測試 測試員 3名; 樣品 10個; 反復 3次DMAIC2022/9/2227Six SigmaLQC成品功能測試MSA結果DMAIC2022/9/2228Six SigmaWithin Appraisers Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00) 2 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00) 3 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)# Matched: Appraiser agrees with

20、 him/herself across trials.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 1.00 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1.00 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 2 NG 1.00 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1.00 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 3 NG 0.85 0.182574 4.65564 0.0000 OK 0.85 0.182574 4.65564 0.0000Kappa值大于0

21、.7,每個檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,說明一致性檢驗結果可靠LQC成品功能測試MSA結果每個檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAIC2022/9/2229Six SigmaEach Appraiser vs Standard Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 2 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00) 3 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)# Matched: Appraisers

22、 assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.Assessment DisagreementAppraiser # OK / NG Percent # NG / OK Percent # Mixed Percent 1 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 1 25.00 0 0.00 1 10.00# OK / NG: Assessments across trials = OK / standard = NG.# NG / OK: Assessments across

23、 trials = NG / standard = OK.# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 0.78022 0.182574 4.27344 0.0000 OK 0.78022 0.182574 4.27344 0.0000 2 NG 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 3 NG 0.

24、71459 0.182574 3.91398 0.0000 OK 0.71459 0.182574 3.91398 0.0000檢驗錯誤次數(shù)Kappa值大于0.7,每個檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,說明檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性結果可靠 所有檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICLQC成品功能測試MSA結果2022/9/2230Six SigmaBetween Appraisers Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)# Matched

25、: All appraisers assessments agree with each other.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.840077 0.0527046 15.9393 0.0000 OK 0.840077 0.0527046 15.9393 0.0000 All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)# Matche

26、d: All appraisers assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.831604 0.105409 7.88928 0.0000 OK 0.831604 0.105409 7.88928 0.0000Attribute Agreement Analysis Kappa值大于0.7，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可靠所有檢驗員檢查結果一致性(重復性）百分比所有檢驗員檢查結果與標準一致性百分比Kappa值大于0.7，說明所有檢

27、驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性可靠DMAICLQC成品功能測試MSA結果2022/9/2231Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品耐壓測試 測試員 3名; 樣品 10個; 反復 3次DMAIC2022/9/2232Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品耐壓測試結果DMAIC2022/9/2233Six SigmaWithin Appraisers Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00) 2 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100

28、.00) 3 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00)# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 2 NG 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 3 NG 1 0.182574 5.4

29、7723 0.0000 OK 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000Kappa值大于0.9,每個檢驗員檢驗結果一致性非常好P值小于0.05,說明一致性檢驗結果可靠每個檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐壓測試結果2022/9/2234Six SigmaEach Appraiser vs Standard Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00) 2 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 10

30、0.00) 3 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00)# Matched: Appraisers assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.Assessment DisagreementAppraiser # OK / NG Percent # NG / OK Percent # Mixed Percent 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 # OK / NG: Assessments across tr

31、ials = OK / standard = NG.# NG / OK: Assessments across trials = NG / standard = OK.# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 2 NG 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1

32、0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 3 NG 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000 OK 1 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000所有檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比沒有檢驗錯誤Kappa值大于0.9,每個檢驗員檢驗結果一致性非常好P值小于0.05,說明每個檢驗員檢驗結果可靠DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐壓測試結果2022/9/2235Six SigmaBetween Appraisers Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 10

33、0.00)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with each other.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 1 0.0527046 18.9737 0.0000 OK 1 0.0527046 18.9737 0.0000All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00)# Matc

34、hed: All appraisers assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 1 0.105409 9.48683 0.0000 OK 1 0.105409 9.48683 0.0000Kappa值大于0.9，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果一致性非常好所有檢驗員檢查結果一致性(重復性）百分比所有檢驗員檢查結果與標準一致性百分比Kappa值大于0.9，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性非常好DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐壓測試結果202

35、2/9/2236Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品煲水測試 測試員 3名; 樣品 10個; 反復 3次DMAIC2022/9/2237Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品煲水測試結果DMAIC2022/9/2238Six SigmaWithin Appraisers Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 2 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 3 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)# Matched:

36、 Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 0.856459 0.182574 4.69102 0.0000 OK 0.856459 0.182574 4.69102 0.0000 2 NG 0.864253 0.182574 4.73371 0.0000 OK 0.864253 0.182574 4.73371 0.0000 3 NG 0.864253 0.182574 4.73371 0.000

37、0 OK 0.864253 0.182574 4.73371 0.0000Kappa值大于0.7,每個檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,說明檢驗員檢驗結果一致性結果可靠每個檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水測試結果2022/9/2239Six SigmaEach Appraiser vs Standard Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 2 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.7

38、5) 3 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)# Matched: Appraisers assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.Assessment DisagreementAppraiser # OK / NG Percent # NG / OK Percent # Mixed Percent 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 2 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00# OK / NG: Assessments across trials

39、 = OK / standard = NG.# NG / OK: Assessments across trials = NG / standard = OK.# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 0.926740 0.182574 5.07596 0.0000 OK 0.926740 0.182574 5.07596 0.0000 2 NG 0.932660 0.182574 5.1

40、0839 0.0000 OK 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000 3 NG 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000 OK 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000檢驗結果本身不一致次數(shù)Kappa值大于0.,每個檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性可以非常好所有檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比P值小于0.05,說明檢驗員檢驗結果一致性結果可靠DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水測試結果2022/9/2240Six SigmaBetween Appraisers Assessment Agreement# Inspected

41、 # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 7 70.00 (34.75, 93.33)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with each other.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.862315 0.0527046 16.3613 0.0000 OK 0.862315 0.0527046 16.3613 0.0000 All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement# Inspecte

42、d # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 7 70.00 (34.75, 93.33)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.930687 0.105409 8.82927 0.0000 OK 0.930687 0.105409 8.82927 0.0000Kappa值大于0.7，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可靠Kappa值大于0.9，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果

43、與標準一致性非常好DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水測試結果2022/9/2241Six Sigma1.成品外觀檢查結果不可以接受，需對檢驗員進行培訓。 責任人：XXX、YYY。 培訓結束后需進行第二次MSA分析。2.成品功能、耐壓、煲水測試結果可以信賴。MSA結果分析人員培訓DMAIC2022/9/2242Six Sigma成品外觀檢查培訓DMAIC培訓記錄2022/9/2243Six SigmaLQC成品外觀檢查第二次MSA樣品 標準 測試員A測試員B 測試員C 1OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK2NGNGOKNGNGNGNGNGNGNG3OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK

44、4NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG5OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK6OKOKOKOKOKOKNGOKOKOK7NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG8NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGOKNG9OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK10NGNGNGOKNGNGNGNGNGNG 測試員 3名（同第一次）; 樣品 10個; 反復 3次DMAIC2022/9/2244Six SigmaLQC成品外觀檢查第二次MSA結果DMAIC2022/9/2245Six SigmaWithin Appraisers Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspect

45、ed # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48) 2 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 3 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 0.728507 0.182574 3.99020 0.0000 OK 0.728507 0.182574 3.9

46、9020 0.0000 2 NG 0.866071 0.182574 4.74367 0.0000 OK 0.866071 0.182574 4.74367 0.0000 3 NG 0.866071 0.182574 4.74367 0.0000 OK 0.866071 0.182574 4.74367 0.0000Kappa值大于0.7,每個檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,說明檢驗員檢驗結果一致性結果可靠每個檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查第二次MSA結果2022/9/2246Six SigmaEach Appraiser vs Standard

47、 Assessment AgreementAppraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48) 2 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75) 3 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)# Matched: Appraisers assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.Assessment DisagreementAppraiser # OK / NG Percent # NG / OK Percent #

48、 Mixed Percent 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 20.00 2 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00# OK / NG: Assessments across trials = OK / standard = NG.# NG / OK: Assessments across trials = NG / standard = OK.# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsAppraiser Response Kap

49、pa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) 1 NG 0.865320 0.182574 4.73955 0.0000 OK 0.865320 0.182574 4.73955 0.0000 2 NG 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000 OK 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000 3 NG 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000 OK 0.932660 0.182574 5.10839 0.0000檢驗結果本身不一致次數(shù)Kappa值大于0.7,每個檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性可以接受所有檢查員檢查結果一致性(重復

50、性)百分比P值小于0.05,說明檢驗員檢驗結果一致性結果可靠DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查第二次MSA結果2022/9/2247Six SigmaBetween Appraisers Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 8 80.00 (26.24, 87.84)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with each other.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) NG 0.8218

51、70 0.0527046 15.5939 0.0000 OK 0.821870 0.0527046 15.5939 0.0000All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 10 8 80.00 (26.24, 87.84)# Matched: All appraisers assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss Kappa StatisticsResponse Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs 0) N

52、G 0.910213 0.105409 8.63504 0.0000 OK 0.910213 0.105409 8.63504 0.0000 Attribute Agreement Analysis Kappa值大于0.7，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果一致性可靠Kappa值大于0.9，說明所有檢驗員檢驗結果與標準一致性非常好DMAICLQC成品外觀檢查第二次MSA結果2022/9/2248Six Sigma現(xiàn)狀能力分析DMAIC2022/9/2249Six Sigma不良率控制圖，失控SIGMA水平百萬不良數(shù)DMAIC現(xiàn)狀能力分析2022/9/2250Six Sigma主要問題分析DMAIC需改善范

53、圍現(xiàn)狀能力分析2022/9/2251Six Sigma1.進料膠件品質(zhì) C2.外購零件品質(zhì) C3.自制零件品質(zhì) C4.產(chǎn)品工程問題 C5.工藝流程執(zhí)行度 C6.生產(chǎn)工藝改善 C7.人員判定能力 U8.工裝夾具/設備 C9.檢測方法/手段 U10.產(chǎn)品規(guī)格標準 U宏觀流程分析1.機身刮花2.連接頭漏水 3.水龍頭漏水 4.耐壓不良5.杯刮花6.手柄離縫7.絲印不良機身混色8.不通電.開關不良.9.機內(nèi)異物10.溫度高或低進料檢測主機總裝大杯總裝功能測試外觀檢查成品包裝耐壓測試煲水測試進料檢測DMAIC流程輸出輸入2022/9/2252Six Sigma-電鉻鐵溫度-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊CU-大

54、身刮花-絲印脫落-機身混色電機品質(zhì) -INT流程輸出輸入流程輸出輸入拆底座裝腳墊與繞線蓋拆大身上座裝電源線到底座-機身混色裝固定板到電機裝馬達墊固定電機到大身插插座引線裝插座到大身-INT-無功能-不發(fā)熱-大身刮花-端子尺寸-端子材質(zhì)-桌面保護墊-作業(yè)員技能壓連接頭,裝開關-開關品質(zhì)-連接頭品質(zhì)焊接引線（一）焊接引線（二）焊接引線（三）固定壓線碼與PCB板接線綁扎帶流程分析(微觀）-開關不良-燈不亮-異音-不通電-大身刮花-機內(nèi)異物-大身刮花底座品質(zhì)作業(yè)員判斷能力-大身刮花-反轉(zhuǎn)-INT-大身刮花-作業(yè)者技能-閉端子品質(zhì)-桌面保護墊大身上座品質(zhì)絲印附著力作業(yè)員判斷能力桌面保護墊 -電鉻鐵溫度-

55、作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊-反轉(zhuǎn)-大身刮花-PCB品質(zhì)-桌面保護墊 DMAIC類型類型CCUCCCCCUCCCCC-電鉻鐵溫度-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊CCCCCCCCUCC-檢查方法-桌面保護墊UC-反轉(zhuǎn)-INT-大身刮花-反轉(zhuǎn)-INT-大身刮花2022/9/2253Six Sigma機身內(nèi)檢不良品修理吹熱縮管裝裝飾圈插杯座引線（二）插杯座引線（一）壓插片到杯座裝腳墊固定FUSE與溫控器固定發(fā)熱盤到大杯壓滾動軸承,壓軸承到發(fā)熱盤-發(fā)熱盤邊口鋒利度-發(fā)熱盤外徑尺寸-銅杯仕內(nèi)徑尺寸-發(fā)熱盤品質(zhì)-耐壓不良，-發(fā)熱盤漏水，-連接頭漏水-不發(fā)熱，-功率不良-電批扭力-密封圈尺寸-作業(yè)員技能-耐壓不良-不通電

56、-杯刮花固定大身上下座拆大杯,裝手柄蓋與水龍頭-水龍頭漏水-手柄蓋離縫-發(fā)熱盤漏水-耐壓不良-水溫高或低-耐壓不良-端子尺寸-端子材質(zhì)-桌面保護墊-大杯外觀-手柄蓋扣位尺寸-水龍頭尺寸-彈簧拉力-水龍頭密封圈硬度-溫控器品質(zhì)-FUSH壓板品質(zhì)-硅膠管品質(zhì)-硅油脂涂抹均勻度DMAIC流程輸出輸入流程輸出輸入類型類型CCCCC流程分析(微觀）-底座錯位-大身刮花UCC-作業(yè)者技能-底座結構-桌面保護墊CCCCCCCCCCCCCC-耐壓不良-不通電-杯亂花-端子尺寸-端子材質(zhì)-桌面保護墊CCC-大身刮花-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊-大身刮花-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊-大身刮花-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊-大身

57、刮花-不通電-作業(yè)員技能-桌面保護墊UCUCUCUC-夾具可靠度C-不通電2022/9/2254Six Sigma包裝裝攪拌刀組件上連接頭固定杯座功率測試耐壓測試水溫測試清潔機身繞電源線-攪拌刀軸直徑尺寸-攪拌刀軸長度-裝配方法-密封圈品質(zhì)-連接頭漏水-杯刮花-清潔布粗糙度-清潔劑去污能力-大身刮花-絲印刮花清潔大杯與杯蓋外觀檢查DMAIC流程輸出輸入流程輸出輸入類型類型流程分析(微觀）CCUCCC-清潔布粗糙度-清潔劑去污能力-大杯刮花CC-作業(yè)者技能 -裝配方法UU-耐壓不良2022/9/2255Six Sigma導出主要因子關鍵流程DMAICC&E矩陣2022/9/2256Six Sig

58、ma導出主要因子關鍵流程DMAICC&E矩陣2022/9/2257Six Sigma導出主要因子關鍵流程DMAIC導出預想的16個流程和30個主要因子C&E矩陣2022/9/2258Six SigmaFMEA分析DMAIC2022/9/2259Six SigmaFMEA分析DMAIC通過RPN值，找出16個需改善的因子2022/9/2260Six Sigma問題點原因分析改善對策改善效果完成進度外觀刮花,刮傷、臟污,絲印不良轉(zhuǎn)儲、搬運不當膠件(外殼,底座,大杯，杯蓋)擺放高度控制,避免搬運時疊高運輸,擠壓產(chǎn)生不良通過此規(guī)定,目前小批量有較好改善,將在后續(xù)生產(chǎn)收集數(shù)據(jù)分析改善效果持續(xù)產(chǎn)品防護不當

59、 (產(chǎn)品只套PE袋保護)用干凈PE膠袋包裝,再套裝氣泡袋,每個膠框最上層用膠紙防護,避免灰塵工人操作刮花、刮傷對工人操作規(guī)程做培訓,并將操作規(guī)程列入產(chǎn)品檢驗作業(yè)指導書，必要時關鍵工位戴手套作業(yè)，臺面墊墊布工人操作防護意識逐漸形成,有一定改善,在平常工作中檢查及監(jiān)督,收集數(shù)據(jù)分析改善效果持續(xù)產(chǎn)品外觀即時改善DMAIC2022/9/2261Six Sigma作業(yè)現(xiàn)場改善作業(yè)現(xiàn)場改善前作業(yè)現(xiàn)場改善后DMAIC2022/9/2262Six Sigma結構即時改善改善前改善后經(jīng)現(xiàn)場分析，耐壓不良80%由于發(fā)熱盤邊口裝配時刮傷內(nèi)配線所致。DMAIC2022/9/2263Six Sigma裂口模具即時改善水

60、龍頭裂口模具改善DMAIC2022/9/2264Six Sigma現(xiàn)狀能力再分析不良率控制圖,已受控SIGMA水平，已初步提升百萬不良數(shù),降低了93477PPMDMAIC2022/9/2265Six Sigma主要問題分析DMAIC現(xiàn)狀能力再分析2022/9/2266Six Sigma二次FMEADMAIC通過RPN值，找出8個還需改善的因子2022/9/2267Six SigmaY S的確認LQC的MSA分析檢查人員培訓宏觀、微觀流程分析現(xiàn)狀能力分析CE矩陣和FMEA分析制定即時改善計劃二次能力分析，二次FMEADMAIC測量階級小結2022/9/2268Six Sigma分析階段2022/