6SIGMA黑带项目教材

1、通过6Sigma项目改善 提高搅拌式水壶直通率实施单位：实施时间：项目 B B：6Sigma BB项目2022/9/221Six Sigma定义阶段DMAIC2022/9/222Six Sigma 客户对此款搅拌水壶产品需求量大,品质要求严.同行业产品价格竞争激烈外部环境搅拌式水壶现时直通率为78.5%客户要求1.产品需求量大(30万/年)2.品质要求严提升直通率提升品质DMAIC项目选定背景2022/9/223Six Sigma项目选定背景内部环境1.2013年1-4月成品直通率低,为78.5% 2.成品合格率低，2012年QA验货合格率为86.2%3.劣质成本高，占销售额的比例大。检查工序

2、水温检测功能检测耐压测试外观检测总装直通率单站直通率88.9%98.6%96.4%92.9%78.5%DMAIC2013年1-4月产品直通率 2022/9/224Six Sigma顾客及CTQ直通率低DMAIC外部顾客销售/客服要求提升产品品质/低廉的价位/较少的维修机会利益获取更大利润/节省维修投入内部顾客财务管理中心/成本核算部要求降低劣质成本/一次就做好利益增加利润 VOCCTQ2022/9/225Six Sigma项目范围PMC进料成品入仓OQC检验IQC检验总装主要生产过程过程范围DMAIC2022/9/226Six Sigma项目范围主要装配流程（SIPOC)DMAIC拆底座装脚垫

3、与绕线盖拆大身上座,装电源线到底座装马达垫装固定板到电机固定电机到大身插插座引线装插座到大身压连接头,装开关焊接引线(一）焊接引线(二）焊接引线(三）固定压线码与PCB板接线扎扎带机身内检吹热缩管找出影响直通率的关键流程装装饰圈2022/9/227Six Sigma项目范围主要装配流程（SIPOC)DMAIC固定大身上下座拆大杯装手柄盖与水龙头压滚动轴承压轴承到发热盘固定发热盘到大杯固定FUSE与温控器装脚垫压插片到杯座，插杯座引线（一）插杯座引线（二）固定杯座装搅拌刀组件上连接头水温测试耐压测试功率测试清洁机身，绕电源线清洁大杯与杯盖外观检查找出影响直通率的关键流程2022/9/228Six

4、 Sigma战略分析1.高品质生活供应商2.质量上台阶，管理上层次， 满足客户要求3.经市场为中心，以客户为中心， 以技术为中心集团战略提高直通率，既降低了劣质成本，又降低了制造成本，而且提高了产品品质，保证了交期，提高了产品市场竞争力和客户满意度。DMAIC2022/9/229Six Sigma问题综述DMAIC2022/9/2210Six Sigma总装一车间近期直通率走势图DMAIC问题综述2022/9/2211Six SigmaY和缺陷定义 Y =直通率 =Y1*Y2*Y3*Y4 DMAICY1定义:煲水测试合格率Y2定义:耐压测试合格率Y3定义:功能测试合格率Y4定义:外观检查合格率

5、Y的定义缺陷定义2022/9/2212Six Sigma项目目标DMAIC现状1-5月目标11月78.5%90%2022/9/2213Six Sigma财务收益预计改善目标计算工式合计(RMB) 年度收益(人工费用x50%+装配费用0.53x30%+公共费用0.23x100%）x预计订单量300,000 x直接提高直通率10%=(1.49x50%+0.53x30%+0.23x100%)x300,000 x11.5%￥:44365元 投入费用改模费用3000+制作夹具费2000=5000元￥:5000元相关费用1.人工成本：1.49元2.装配成本：0.53元3.公共费用：0.23元财务总收益:

6、￥年度预计收益总值=预期收益-投入费用 =44365-5000 =39365元DMAIC无形收益：直通率的提高，同时产能也显著提高，产品品质明显改善，提高了产品的市场竞争力和客户满意度。2022/9/2214Six Sigma项目团队组织Champion X君BB:B君MBB：M君XXXXXXXXX品质监控及检验标准的制定现场作业改善及作业方式标准化，控制文件。FMEA分析，流程改进，工程优化测量系统分析，人员培训计划，实验实施。项目协调跟进及MSA、DOE、各阶段分析品管部ZZZ工程部VVV总装部YYY数据的收集和改善的实施，生产现场的控制DMAIC2022/9/2215Six Sigma阶

7、段6月定义测量分析改进控制5月7月11月内容项目进程计划项目建立，完成 定义阶段的9个部分Y的确认，数据收集，MSA现水平分析C&E Matrix , FMEA数据收集，多变量分析主变量确定，方差分析FMEA改善计划作成确立质量改进的持续有效方案，通过实验确认工艺，管理标准化，制造系统内推广提交项目报告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沟通方式 时间 地点参加人员 主题周总结会 隔周周五下午 16：00 中试部小组全体成员工作进度汇报阶段总结会各阶段完成时 中试部小组全体成员 各

8、阶段工作总结沟通协调DMAIC2022/9/2217Six Sigma定义阶段总结以VOB、VOC导出CTQ，定义Y.分析内外部环境找到项目范围确定项目目标和收益估算组建项目团队、成员角色分工制定项目进程计划DMAIC2022/9/2218Six Sigma测量阶段2022/9/2219Six SigmaYS的确认 顾客CTQ品质投诉，成本增加项目Y：提高直通率（计量型数据）可操作YS(计量型数据）煲水测试合格率、功能测试合格率耐压测试合格率、外观检查合格率DMAIC2022/9/2220Six SigmaYS的确认Y的问题描述煲水测试 不通电 反转 灯不亮 不加热 水龙头漏水 连接头漏水 温

9、度高或低 发热盘漏水 开关不良耐压测试 耐压不良功能测试 INT 杂音 功率高或低外观检查大身刮花杯刮花机身混色丝印不良手柄盖离缝大身错位底座错位机内异物DMAIC2022/9/2221Six Sigma测量日期：2013.6.12分析人员：A君 B君 Y 的MSA-LQC成品外观判断 测试员 3名; 样品 10个; 反复 3次样品 标准 测试员A测试员B 测试员C 1OKNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG2OKNGNGNGOKOKOKNGNGNG3NGOKOKNGOKOKNGNGNGOK4NGOKOKOKOKNGOKOKOKNG5OKOKOKOKNGNGNGNGNGNG6OKNGNGNGN

10、GOKNGNGNGNG7NGOKOKOKOKOKOKNGNGNG8NGOKNGNGOKNGNGOKOKOK9OKNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG10NGOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKDMAIC2022/9/2222Six SigmaLQC成品外观检查MSA结果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 每个检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外观检查MSA结果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,说明一致性检验结果不可靠检验错误次数每个检查员检查结果与标准一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外观检查MSA结果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所有检验员检查结果）一致性(重复性）百分比所有检验员检查结果一致性Kappa小于0.7，需改善所有检验员检查结果与标准一致性百分比所有检验员检查

18、结果与标准一致性Kappa小于0.7，需改善DMAICLQC成品外观检查MSA结果2022/9/2226Six Sigma样品 标准 测试员A测试员B 测试员C 1OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKNG2NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGOK3OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK4OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK5NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG6OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK7OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK8NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG9NGOKOKOKNGNGNGOKOKOK10OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKY的MSA-LQ

19、C成品功能测试 测试员 3名; 样品 10个; 反复 3次DMAIC2022/9/2227Six SigmaLQC成品功能测试MSA结果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,每个检验员检验结果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,说明一致性检验结果可靠LQC成品功能测试MSA结果每个检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)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检验错误次数Kappa值大于0.7,每个检验员检验结果与标准一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,说明检验员检验结果与标准一致性结果可靠 所有检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICLQC成品功能测试MSA结果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，说明所有检验员检验结果一致性可靠所有检验员检查结果一致性(重复性）百分比所有检验员检查结果与标准一致性百分比Kappa值大于0.7，说明所有检

27、验员检验结果与标准一致性可靠DMAICLQC成品功能测试MSA结果2022/9/2231Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品耐压测试 测试员 3名; 样品 10个; 反复 3次DMAIC2022/9/2232Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品耐压测试结果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,每个检验员检验结果一致性非常好P值小于0.05,说明一致性检验结果可靠每个检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐压测试结果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所有检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比没有检验错误Kappa值大于0.9,每个检验员检验结果一致性非常好P值小于0.05,说明每个检验员检验结果可靠DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐压测试结果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，说明所有检验员检验结果一致性非常好所有检验员检查结果一致性(重复性）百分比所有检验员检查结果与标准一致性百分比Kappa值大于0.9，说明所有检验员检验结果与标准一致性非常好DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品耐压测试结果202

35、2/9/2236Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品煲水测试 测试员 3名; 样品 10个; 反复 3次DMAIC2022/9/2237Six SigmaY的MSA-LQC成品煲水测试结果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,每个检验员检验结果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,说明检验员检验结果一致性结果可靠每个检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水测试结果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检验结果本身不一致次数Kappa值大于0.,每个检验员检验结果与标准一致性可以非常好所有检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比P值小于0.05,说明检验员检验结果一致性结果可靠DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水测试结果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，说明所有检验员检验结果一致性可靠Kappa值大于0.9，说明所有检验员检验结果

43、与标准一致性非常好DMAICY的MSA-LQC成品煲水测试结果2022/9/2241Six Sigma1.成品外观检查结果不可以接受，需对检验员进行培训。 责任人：XXX、YYY。 培训结束后需进行第二次MSA分析。2.成品功能、耐压、煲水测试结果可以信赖。MSA结果分析人员培训DMAIC2022/9/2242Six Sigma成品外观检查培训DMAIC培训记录2022/9/2243Six SigmaLQC成品外观检查第二次MSA样品 标准 测试员A测试员B 测试员C 1OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK2NGNGOKNGNGNGNGNGNGNG3OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK

44、4NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG5OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK6OKOKOKOKOKOKNGOKOKOK7NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNG8NGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGOKNG9OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOK10NGNGNGOKNGNGNGNGNGNG 测试员 3名（同第一次）; 样品 10个; 反复 3次DMAIC2022/9/2244Six SigmaLQC成品外观检查第二次MSA结果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,每个检验员检验结果一致性可以接受P值小于0.05,说明检验员检验结果一致性结果可靠每个检查员检查结果一致性(重复性)百分比DMAICLQC成品外观检查第二次MSA结果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检验结果本身不一致次数Kappa值大于0.7,每个检验员检验结果与标准一致性可以接受所有检查员检查结果一致性(重复

50、性)百分比P值小于0.05,说明检验员检验结果一致性结果可靠DMAICLQC成品外观检查第二次MSA结果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，说明所有检验员检验结果一致性可靠Kappa值大于0.9，说明所有检验员检验结果与标准一致性非常好DMAICLQC成品外观检查第二次MSA结果2022/9/2248Six Sigma现状能力分析DMAIC2022/9/2249Six Sigma不良率控制图，失控SIGMA水平百万不良数DMAIC现状能力分析2022/9/2250Six Sigma主要问题分析DMAIC需改善范

53、围现状能力分析2022/9/2251Six Sigma1.进料胶件品质 C2.外购零件品质 C3.自制零件品质 C4.产品工程问题 C5.工艺流程执行度 C6.生产工艺改善 C7.人员判定能力 U8.工装夹具/设备 C9.检测方法/手段 U10.产品规格标准 U宏观流程分析1.机身刮花2.连接头漏水 3.水龙头漏水 4.耐压不良5.杯刮花6.手柄离缝7.丝印不良机身混色8.不通电.开关不良.9.机内异物10.温度高或低进料检测主机总装大杯总装功能测试外观检查成品包装耐压测试煲水测试进料检测DMAIC流程输出输入2022/9/2252Six Sigma-电铬铁温度-作业员技能-桌面保护垫CU-大

54、身刮花-丝印脱落-机身混色电机品质 -INT流程输出输入流程输出输入拆底座装脚垫与绕线盖拆大身上座装电源线到底座-机身混色装固定板到电机装马达垫固定电机到大身插插座引线装插座到大身-INT-无功能-不发热-大身刮花-端子尺寸-端子材质-桌面保护垫-作业员技能压连接头,装开关-开关品质-连接头品质焊接引线（一）焊接引线（二）焊接引线（三）固定压线码与PCB板接线绑扎带流程分析(微观）-开关不良-灯不亮-异音-不通电-大身刮花-机内异物-大身刮花底座品质作业员判断能力-大身刮花-反转-INT-大身刮花-作业者技能-闭端子品质-桌面保护垫大身上座品质丝印附着力作业员判断能力桌面保护垫 -电铬铁温度-

55、作业员技能-桌面保护垫-反转-大身刮花-PCB品质-桌面保护垫 DMAIC类型类型CCUCCCCCUCCCCC-电铬铁温度-作业员技能-桌面保护垫CCCCCCCCUCC-检查方法-桌面保护垫UC-反转-INT-大身刮花-反转-INT-大身刮花2022/9/2253Six Sigma机身内检不良品修理吹热缩管装装饰圈插杯座引线（二）插杯座引线（一）压插片到杯座装脚垫固定FUSE与温控器固定发热盘到大杯压滚动轴承,压轴承到发热盘-发热盘边口锋利度-发热盘外径尺寸-铜杯仕内径尺寸-发热盘品质-耐压不良，-发热盘漏水，-连接头漏水-不发热，-功率不良-电批扭力-密封圈尺寸-作业员技能-耐压不良-不通电

56、-杯刮花固定大身上下座拆大杯,装手柄盖与水龙头-水龙头漏水-手柄盖离缝-发热盘漏水-耐压不良-水温高或低-耐压不良-端子尺寸-端子材质-桌面保护垫-大杯外观-手柄盖扣位尺寸-水龙头尺寸-弹簧拉力-水龙头密封圈硬度-温控器品质-FUSH压板品质-硅胶管品质-硅油脂涂抹均匀度DMAIC流程输出输入流程输出输入类型类型CCCCC流程分析(微观）-底座错位-大身刮花UCC-作业者技能-底座结构-桌面保护垫CCCCCCCCCCCCCC-耐压不良-不通电-杯乱花-端子尺寸-端子材质-桌面保护垫CCC-大身刮花-作业员技能-桌面保护垫-大身刮花-作业员技能-桌面保护垫-大身刮花-作业员技能-桌面保护垫-大身

57、刮花-不通电-作业员技能-桌面保护垫UCUCUCUC-夹具可靠度C-不通电2022/9/2254Six Sigma包装装搅拌刀组件上连接头固定杯座功率测试耐压测试水温测试清洁机身绕电源线-搅拌刀轴直径尺寸-搅拌刀轴长度-装配方法-密封圈品质-连接头漏水-杯刮花-清洁布粗糙度-清洁剂去污能力-大身刮花-丝印刮花清洁大杯与杯盖外观检查DMAIC流程输出输入流程输出输入类型类型流程分析(微观）CCUCCC-清洁布粗糙度-清洁剂去污能力-大杯刮花CC-作业者技能 -装配方法UU-耐压不良2022/9/2255Six Sigma导出主要因子关键流程DMAICC&E矩阵2022/9/2256Six Sig

58、ma导出主要因子关键流程DMAICC&E矩阵2022/9/2257Six Sigma导出主要因子关键流程DMAIC导出预想的16个流程和30个主要因子C&E矩阵2022/9/2258Six SigmaFMEA分析DMAIC2022/9/2259Six SigmaFMEA分析DMAIC通过RPN值，找出16个需改善的因子2022/9/2260Six Sigma问题点原因分析改善对策改善效果完成进度外观刮花,刮伤、脏污,丝印不良转储、搬运不当胶件(外壳,底座,大杯，杯盖)摆放高度控制,避免搬运时叠高运输,挤压产生不良通过此规定,目前小批量有较好改善,将在后续生产收集数据分析改善效果持续产品防护不当

59、 (产品只套PE袋保护)用干净PE胶袋包装,再套装气泡袋,每个胶框最上层用胶纸防护,避免灰尘工人操作刮花、刮伤对工人操作规程做培训,并将操作规程列入产品检验作业指导书，必要时关键工位戴手套作业，台面垫垫布工人操作防护意识逐渐形成,有一定改善,在平常工作中检查及监督,收集数据分析改善效果持续产品外观即时改善DMAIC2022/9/2261Six Sigma作业现场改善作业现场改善前作业现场改善后DMAIC2022/9/2262Six Sigma结构即时改善改善前改善后经现场分析，耐压不良80%由于发热盘边口装配时刮伤内配线所致。DMAIC2022/9/2263Six Sigma裂口模具即时改善水

60、龙头裂口模具改善DMAIC2022/9/2264Six Sigma现状能力再分析不良率控制图,已受控SIGMA水平，已初步提升百万不良数,降低了93477PPMDMAIC2022/9/2265Six Sigma主要问题分析DMAIC现状能力再分析2022/9/2266Six Sigma二次FMEADMAIC通过RPN值，找出8个还需改善的因子2022/9/2267Six SigmaY S的确认LQC的MSA分析检查人员培训宏观、微观流程分析现状能力分析CE矩阵和FMEA分析制定即时改善计划二次能力分析，二次FMEADMAIC测量阶级小结2022/9/2268Six Sigma分析阶段2022/