Posts Tagged ‘spc’

How To Calculate Process Yields

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

Unit yields are a misunderstood tradition.

Sam handed Peter a computer printout and asked, “If the yields are so high, why is my efficiency so low?”

Peter studied the report for a moment and then nodded. “Let me show you what’s going on,” he said as he picked up a marker and drew a diagram (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Process with 10 Steps


“This process has 10 separate steps,” Peter began. “Each step has a yield of about 90 percent. This is the unit yield for that process step.”

“Right,” Sam interjected. “And all of them are about 90 percent, so the average yield for the whole process should be about 90 percent.”

“Yes, but that isn’t the number you need if you’re trying to determine the final yield for the process,” Peter responded. “Final yield is the proportion of defect-free units out of the final process step relative to what you started with at the first process step.”

Sam nodded. “Yeah, but even though the average yield is nearly 90 percent, our final yield is nowhere near that high.”

Peter turned back to the board. “Here’s a mathematical model of what happens when all process steps have the same unit yield.” He wrote an equation:

Yoverall = (Ystep)number of steps

“The unit yield at every step is about 0.9, but you have to multiply the step unit yields together to get the final unit yield. You can’t just average them,” Peter explained. “Think of a simple two-stage process. You start 100 units at the first step and 90 pass. These 90 start the second step and 90 percent of them pass, leaving 81. The average unit yield is 90 percent, but the final unit yield is only 81 percent.”

“So for our 10-step process,” Sam began.

Peter punched his calculator keys. “0.9 raised to the 10th power is about 0.35. So 35 percent is your predicted final yield.”

“And that’s pretty close to what we’re getting,” Sam said.

Peter knew that misunderstandings on yields lead to a variety of poor management decisions. He was pleased that Sam had asked for clarification. But, Peter knew, Sam still didn’t know the whole picture. Six sigma requires an entirely different mental model of yields.

“That’s not all,” Peter said. “So far we’ve been talking about unit yields. That’s the customary way of doing it around here, but there’s a better way.”

“Unit yields often have very little to do with costs,” Peter continued. “Who knows how we got those 350 good units? Maybe they were reworked several times. There can be a lot of cost hidden in the numbers. If you want an accurate picture of process performance, use rolled throughput yields.”

Peter sketched another picture on the board (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Unit Yields vs. Rolled-Throughput Yield

“Let’s assume that we have two lines making the same product. If we only look at unit yields, they look much different. One process has a 50-percent yield, the other a 90-percent yield. But assume that each unit had 10 critical-to-quality characteristics. If we look at characteristics, we see that both have produced five defects in 100 defect opportunities. In terms of the ability to produce defect-free quality characteristics, they’re actually the same.”

“So if it costs $100 to fix a defect, the two processes have about the same rework cost, even though the unit yields would make the first process look a lot better,” Sam replied, nodding.

“This is exactly why we use rolled throughput yields in six sigma,” Peter responded. “They correlate much more closely with labor, cycle time, rework costs and other important management metrics.”

Sam frowned. “That means that our efficiency reports are worse than useless–they’re misleading!”

Peter smiled.

“Thanks, Peter!” Sam exclaimed. “I think you’re just the man to head a project to fix them!”

Yields: A Glossary

Yield, First-time Yield (unit-based)–the number of units that pass a particular inspection compared to the total number of units that pass through that point in the process.

Final Yield (unit-based)–the number of units that pass the last step in a series of steps in a process compared to the number of units the entire process started with.

Throughput Yield (defect-based)–the probability that all defect opportunities produced at a particular step in the process will conform to their respective performance standards.

Rolled Throughput Yield (defect-based)–the probability of being able to pass a unit of product or service through the entire process defect-free.

Normalized Yield (defect-based)–the geometric average throughput yield one would expect at any given step in the process. Analogous to the “typical” yield. For a k -step process, the normalized yield would be the kth root of the rolled throughput yield. A note of caution: This metric can be misleading if the throughput yields of the process steps vary a great deal.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Thinking Outside the Box

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

The “P” in SPC stands for process, not product.

A common problem with SPC is that the world appears too complicated for a statistical approach to work. In complex electronics products, for example, circuit boards may have thousands of holes and microchips may have millions of transistors. Plotting control charts of each and every dimension is clearly not feasible. What can be done?

To answer this question, consider a simple product: the box in Figure 1. How many things could we measure on this box? It turns out, a great many. Length, width and height are obvious choices. But we could also measure the diagonals on all six sides, interior diagonals front-to-back and back-to-front, linear combinations of these measurements and a great many more. We could conceivably come up with dozens of measurements on this simple box.

But–and this is critical–we don’t need these measurements to control the box process. The “P” in SPC stands for process, not product. When we focus on the product, we lose sight of the fact that we’re not trying to control the product. Control of the box process may be a great deal more simple than controlling the product. And if we control the process properly, the product will take care of itself.

The statistical technique known as principle components analysis can help us determine just what is important and what is not. Most statistical software packages can perform PCA. To illustrate the approach, I measured an assortment of boxes (see figure 2). The measurements I obtained are shown (in inches) in Table 1.

When these data are crunched through PCA, we find that three principle components explain 99 percent of the variation in the data set: Component No. 1 explains 76.9 percent of the variation, component No. 2 explains 14.1 percent, and component No. 3 explains 8 percent. The PCA clearly shows that these three components are associated with A, B and C respectively. Thus, the “box process” can be characterized almost entirely by controlling these three characteristics. If we do that, the other dimensions will be OK, too.

When these data are crunched through PCA, we find that three principle components explain 99 percent of the variation in the data set: Component No. 1 explains 76.9 percent of the variation, component No. 2 explains 14.1 percent, and component No. 3 explains 8 percent. The PCA clearly shows that these three components are associated with A, B and C respectively. Thus, the “box process” can be characterized almost entirely by controlling these three characteristics. If we do that, the other dimensions will be OK, too.

An example of using this approach in the real world involves CNC machining. A defense plant machined parts for use in guided missiles. The parts were extremely complex, with thousands of holes, cutouts, etc. on each. However, when the data were analyzed using PCA, it was determined that four principle components accounted for nearly all of the process variation. Further study showed which measurements were correlated with each principle component.

From this, the engineers determined that, for all the apparent complexity, the machining process was, in fact, quite simple. The four principle components corresponded with the machining center’s four axes of movement: X, Y and Z movement of the bed, and the rotation of the table on which the parts were mounted. SPC could be accomplished by selecting those features most difficult to position in each axis of movement. Often, a single feature could measure more than one axis; for example, a hole furthest from the “home” position in both the X and Y axes. The result: One or two control charts suffice for the control of a process placing thousands of features.

Note that the features selected for SPC may be of little or no importance to the product itself. In fact, some parts were designed with “process control features” that were later removed from the part entirely. This makes sense when remembering that P stands for process, not product. If you keep that in mind, the complexity you face might just evaporate before your eyes.

GD Star Rating
loading...

SPC and Global Warming Part I

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

In the world of work, people have a natural tendency to become emotionally involved in their jobs. This is vital if they are to take pride in their accomplishments and do quality work. However, this involvement also makes it difficult for most people to see problems in their work.

SPC benefits users by directing attention toward the facts and thus promoting reason and rationality in problem solving. In this posting, I’ll put that belief to the test by using SPC to explore an issue that has generated much emotion lately: global warming. Global warming is complex, dynamic, important and imperfectly understood. Statistical methods are designed to help us analyze just such processes.

The figure of merit in this case is the Earth’s mean temperature. Figure 1 presents a run chart of the data. The numbers are coded and show the deviation in average global temperature in hundredths of degrees C from the base period mean temperature. The base period is from 1951 to 1980. A value of 0 indicates an annual global mean temperature equal to the base period mean, while a value of 20 indicates a temperature 0.20° C below the average during the base period. The chart includes data from 1866 to 1996. (There is a comment about more recent data.)

Figure 1

Putting the data into a run chart shows 131 years of temperature variation at a glance. Initially, temperatures are cooler, roughly 0.50° C below the base period mean. At the end they are warmer, roughly 0.25° C above the base period mean.

In SPC, the preferred approach to determine potential long-term process performance is to conduct a process capability analysis. In a PCA, changes are carefully controlled to determine how the process behaves under ideal conditions. Control limits are computed from the PCA data and used to identify important changes that occur in the future.

Needless to say, we can’t to do this with many of our processes, including the global warming process. Instead, we are forced to deal with things the way they are. A first step is to compute the control limits for these data. To do this, we first must estimate the process average and standard deviation, s. The temptation is to compute the average and s by using a spreadsheet such as Excel, which gives us an average of 10.4 and s = 24.30.

However, computing s in this way only works if the process is in a state of statistical control. When the process’s state is unknown, it’s far better to base our sigma estimate on the “moving range.” A recent article in Quality Engineering shows that s can be estimated accurately by multiplying the median moving range by 1.047. With this method, we get s = 10.47.

The control limits are set at plus-and-minus three standard deviations from the long-term mean, giving 41.8 and 21.1 using coded measurement units. Figure 2 shows the control chart with the average and control limits drawn in. There are points below the lower control limit at the beginning of the chart, followed by points above the upper control limit at the end of the chart. This is an SPC definition of a trend.

We’ve now established that between 1866 and 1996, the global mean temperature measurements increased. If we compare the first 20 years on the chart to the last 20, the change is +64.4, or an increase of 0.64° C. The next step is to identify the special cause or causes behind this change. We will explore this issue in a future posting.

GD Star Rating
loading...