International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463

Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

Reduction in defects rate using DMAIC approach-

A Case Study
Jitender Kumar1, Mukesh Verma2, K.S. Dhillon3
1
M.Tech Scholar, SSIET, Dera Bassi
2,3
Associate Prof., ME Deptt. SSIET, Dera Bassi

Abstract: The paper is related to the thread manufacturing process. This work clearly identified the different
problems occurring during manufacturing. In the last process (winding), DMAIC tool is applied. The reason for
choosing this work is to provide a better analysis of different processes in thread manufacturing. This textile firm
has large departments where the thread produced from the waste clothes, after passing through different processes.
Thousands of defects opportunities create in the final package of thread. That’s why it is decided to do work and
implement DMAIC methodology in winding departments where the final package of thread is to be made. Final
package of thread is the end product and it is directly sent to the customers, any defect may lead to the customer’s
complaints. With the help of DMAIC approach the defects has been reduced from 13012 to 513 and the sigma level
of the industry has been increased from 3.8 to 5.03.

Keywords: DMAIC, Process Capability, Six Sigma.

INTRODUCTION

The DMAIC is a financial improvement strategy for an organization and now days it is being used in many industries.
Basically it is a quality improving process of final product by reducing the defects; minimize the variation and improve
capability in the manufacturing process. The objective of DMAIC is to increase the profit margin, improve financial
condition through minimizing the defects rate of product. It increases the customer satisfaction, retention and produces the
best class product from the best process performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Motorola was the first organization to use the term DMAIC in the 1980s as part of its quality performance measurement
and improvement program. Recent DMAIC success stories, primarily from the likes of General Electric, Sony, Allied
Signal, and Motorola, have propagated the use of quality tools for gaining the knowledge. Some of the pioneering
companies, which use DMAIC methodology, are ABB, General Electric (GE), Allied Signal and Texas Instruments.
General Electric spent 500 million dollars on DMAIC works in 1995 and gained more than 2 billion dollars from that
investment. In 2001 Horel shows that the Six Sigma improvement methodology has received considerable attention
recently, not only in the statistical and quality literature, but also within general business literature. Ponce in 2004 shows
that six sigma knowledge characteristics, and their impact on performance and gains, have not yet been addressed
regardless of its knowledge content. In 2005 Kundi studied the implementation of Six Sigma in the UK organizations. Six
sigma is an effective way to find out where are the greatest process needs and which are the softest points of the process.
Also, Six sigma provide measurable indicators and adequate data for analytical analysis. Systematic application of Six
Sigma DMAIC tools and methodology within an automotive parts production results with several achievements. Reduced
tool expenses for 40 %, Reduced costs of poor quality (CORQ) for 55 %, and reduced labours expenses for 59 %.
Production time reduction for 38 %, and Index cost/volume reduction for 31 %. Generally, improvements through reduced
Production time, Control time, Material and Internal scrap will give annual benefits of $ 72 000(Sokovic, 2006). In 2009
Naidu implemented DMAIC in garment industry. The focus was exporting the final product to European countries. It was
operating at a percentage defective of 4.42. After implementing the DMAIC methodology the percentage defective is
reduced to 1.95. Ray in 2011 shown that Savings of Rs.1.070 Lakh per annum. Reduction in follow-up time for resolving
the complaints from 2 Man-days / week to 1 man-day / week. Average time taken for closure reduced from 42 days to 21
days. Ratio of pending complaints reduced from 1.25 to 0.97. In 2012 Ganguly analyzed that the cycle time was reduced
from 47 days to 20 days, resulting in a huge inventory reduction and better order compliance. Dambhare (2013) analyzed
the major problem of continuous rework up to 16%, which was leading to wastage of man hours and labor cost. The

Page | 146
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

DMAIC methodology was successfully implemented to reduce the rework from 16% bores per month to 2.20% bores per
month. The other problem of non uniform step bores was also reduced significantly.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

In all processes the smallest variation in quality of raw material, production conditions, operator behavior and other factors
can result in a cumulative variation (defects) in the quality of the finished product. DMAIC approach aims to eliminate
these variations and to establish practices resulting in a consistently high quality product. Therefore, a crucial part of
DMAIC work is to define and measure variation with the intent of discovering its causes and to develop efficient
operational means to control and reduce the variation. The expected outcomes of DMAIC efforts are faster and more robust
product development, more efficient and capable manufacturing processes, and more confident overall business
performance.

METHODOLOGY- DMAIC APPROACH

D- DEFINE PHASE: The definition of the problem is the first and the most important step of any DMAIC project because
a good understanding of the problem makes the job much easier. In this phase, the purposes of work, scope and process
background for both internal and external customers are defined. The present work deals with the reduction of rejection in
the textile industry. The product of this industry is thread from the waste cloth pieces and having high rate of rejection due
to defects in various operations. The thread produced in this industry after passing waste cloth pieces through the various
departments such as blow room, carding section, draw frame section, combing section and winding section. All the
departments of the industry are chosen for the complete analysis.

M- MEASURE PHASE

The measure phase identifies the defects in the product, gathers valid baseline information about the process and establishes
the improvement goals. Defects in the different sections has been identified.

Defects in Blow Room

 Neps formation
 Curly cotton due to tight gauge
 Lap licking

Defects in Carding Section

 Neps formation
 Holes or patches in card web
 High sliver variation

Defects in Draw Frame Section

 Variation in Draw Frame Sliver

Defects in Combing Section

 Lap weight variation

 Number of piecing in comber
 Brush cleaning problem

Defects in Winding Section

 Breakage of yarn during winding

Measure the performance of the process by collecting the data and also write down the importance of different critical
defects regarding to customer value.

Page | 147
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

Data Collection : The data is collected to find the current rate of rejection and sigma level of all departments to measure
that which one is most critical.

TABLE 1.1: Rate of Rejection of Departments

DEPARTMENT DEFECTS PRODUCTION DEFECT% DPMO SIGMA LEVEL

BLOW ROOM 1035 1227130 0.08 843 4.64
CARDING 370 1227130 0.03 302 4.93
DRAW FRAME 1220 1227130 0.1 994 4.59
WINDING 13012 1227130 1.06 10604 3.80
PACKING 393 1227130 0.32 320 4.91

Table 1.1 shows that defect percentage is highest and the sigma level is low in the winding department. So, winding defects
are most critical defects which are to be removed or reduce at the most.

TABLE 1.2 Defect Percentages and Sigma Level

Departments Blow Room Carding Draw Frame Winding Packing

Defect % 0.11 0.03 0.1 1.06 0.32
Sigma Level 4.64 4.93 4.59 3.8 4.91

Chart between Defect Percentage and Sigma Level

6
Sigma Level & Defecct Percentage

4.93 4.91
5 4.64 4.59
3.8
4
3
2 1.06
1 0.08 0.1 0.32
0.03
0
BLOW ROOM CARDING DRAW FRAME WINDING PACKING

Departments

Fig. 1.1 Chart between Defect Percentages and Sigma Level

A- ANALYZE PHASE: During production of yarn failures occur at many stages. All such failures are recorded in the
manufacturing plant. It was observed that worst defects percentage is at winding stage. So it is useful to implement DMAIC
tool in this process to eliminate large variation. Winding section is very critical department in yarn manufacturing process.
In this department there are comparatively more chances of defects opportunities in the final yarn. It is the last section of
manufacturing process where defects can be minimized or eliminated.

Data is collected from internal and External Customers for inspection, overhauling, scan cuts, guide, gas kit, disk,
temperature, humidity, count, machine change, speed, and yarn type.

Page | 148
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

Cause and Effect Analysis

Fig 1.2: Cause and Effects Diagram

TABLE 1.3 : Customer Voice

RATING OF IMPORTANCE OF CUSTOMER 10 6 6 1 8 8 9 7

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT

CUSTOMER RETURN

CUSTOMER CLAIMS
B-GRADE YARN

KEY PROCESS OUTPUTS

DEFECT RATE

HARD WASTE

INSPECTION
REWORK

S.N. PROCESS STEP PROCESS INPUT FAILURE

TOTAL
INSPECTION 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 101
SUCTION MOUTH 9 9 1 9 9 6 6 1 340
1 MAN
GAUGE
OVER HAULING 3 3 3 6 1 1 1 3 118
2 MATERIALS SCAN CUTS 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 6 420
GUIDE 9 9 1 3 3 3 3 1 207
3 M ACHINE GAS KIT 9 9 1 1 1 3 3 1 217
DISK 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 105
TEMPERATURE 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 168
4 ENVIRONMENT
HUMIDITY 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 101
COUNT 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 3 184
SPEED 9 9 6 9 9 6 6 6 405
5 METHODS
YARN TYPE 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 101
MACHINE CHANGE 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 105
TOTAL 930 558 240 68 496 400 396 210

Page | 149
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

Causes of Winding Defects : From Table 1.3, some significant factors are found which causes major effects on the defects
on the product in the winding process.

 Scan cuts
 Speed of winding machine
 Suction mouth gauge

Above parameters initially found are shown in the Table 1.4

TABLE 1.4: Parameters initially used

PARAMETERS SCAN CUTS SPEED GAUGE

Initial Value 45 1500 rpm 8 mm
RANGE 37- 45 700-1500 rpm 5-8 mm

I- IMPROVE PHASE

In order to improve the process, some preventive action should be taken and critical parameters found are to be changed.

TABLE 1.5 Changed Settings of Parameters Used and its effect

SCAN CUTS SPEED GAUGE DEFECTS PRODUCTION DEFECT% DPMO SIGMA LEVEL
45 1500 rpm 8 mm 13012 1227130 1.06 10604 3.8
43 1400 rpm 8 mm 10657 1134275 0.94 9395 3.85
42 1300 rpm 7 mm 8652 1082813 0.8 7990 3.91
40 1200 rpm 7 mm 2866 989524 0.29 2896 4.26
37 700 rpm 6 mm 643 659372 0.1 975 4.6
37 1000 rpm 6 mm 629 818259 0.08 769 4.67
37 1200 rpm <6 mm 513 1056981 0.05 205 5.03

6
Defect Percentage and

5
Sigma Level

4
3
2 DEFECT%
1 SIGMA LEVEL
0
MARCH APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Month

Fig. 1.3: Chart between defect % and Sigma Level

C- CONTROL PHASE

The final stage of Six- Sigma implementation is to hold the gains that have been obtained from the improve stage. Unless
there is a good control, we are likely to go back to the original stage. Hence, in this stage the new process conditions are
documented, and frozen into system so that the gains are permanent. The process is assessed once more after the setting-in
period in order to check whether the improvements are being sustained or not. In control phase, the process will be check
by applying the control charts whether it is control or not. Variation of whole process should be in control limits for control
process.

Page | 150
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

Fig 1.4: Control Chart (𝑿 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑹)

Data of defects percentage and range shows that the process is under control and there is no point in this graph which is out
of control limits.

RESULTS

With the implementation of DMAIC approach the root causes of winding defects are identified. The defects have been
reduced from 13012 units per month to 513 units per month. The sigma level of the industry has been increased from 3.81
to 5.03.

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to work in a systemic way and try to improve financial condition of the organization. Winding speed
should be 1200 meter per minute for getting good quality. Scan-Cuts and Disk life are most important factors. They need to
be controlled to achieve optimum results best Scan-Cuts are below 40. Condition of Disk should be good always .The
suction mouth gauge should be less then 6 mm.

REFERENCES

[1]. Anthony, R. and Banualas, W.(2002) , “Design for Six Sigma”, Journal of Research Technology and Management, Vol. 65, pp.
23-25.
[2]. Anup A. Junankar, P.N Shende (2011 ) “Minimization Of Rework In Belt Industry Using DMAIC” International Journal of
Applied Research in Mechanical Engineering, Volume-1.
[3]. Benjamin Duraković (2012) “Six Sigma Model Testing In Optimizing Medium-Sized Company Production Process” Journal of
Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology Vol. 16, No. 1 p.p. 103-106.

Page | 151
 International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science Technology & Engineering, ISSN: 2319-7463
Vol. 3 Issue 12, December-2014, pp: (146-152), Impact Factor: 1.252, Available online at: www.erpublications.com

[4]. Chethan Kumar C S, Dr. N V R Naidu, Dr. K Ravindranath (2009) “ Performance improvement of manufacturing industry by
reducing the Defectives using Six Sigma Methodologies” IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN) Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 001-009
[5]. Diana Bratić (2011) “Six Sigma: A Key Driver for Process Improvement” IBIMA Publishing Vol. 2011 , Article ID 823656.
[6]. Hackman, F. and Wageman, G. (2003) , “Why Should Statisticians Pay Attention to Six Sigma”, Journal of Productivity, Vol. 14,
No. 2, 2003, pp. 100-103.
[7]. Jayesh Pathak , Tushar N. Desai (2011) “Six Sigma Quality Management Technique – An Overview” Journal of Engineering
Research and Studies JERS/Vol.II/ Issue III pp. 64-72.
[8]. Kunal Ganguly (2012) “ Improvement process for rolling mill through the DMAIC Six Sigma approach” International Journal for
Quality research UDK- 378.014.3(497.11).
[9]. Linda Whicker (2005) “A conceptual model for the application of Six Sigma methodologies to supply chain improvement”
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications Vol. 8, pp. 51–65.
[10]. M. Sokovic (2010) “Quality Improvement Methodologies – PDCA Cycle, RADAR Matrix, DMAIC and DFSS” Journal of
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering vol 43 issue no. 1 Nov 2010.
[11]. M. Soković (2006) “Six Sigma process improvements in automotive parts production” Journal of Achievements in Materials and
Manufacturing Engineering vol 19 issue no. 1 Nov 2006.
[12]. Markus L. Stamm, Thomas R. Neitzert, Darius P.K. Singh (2009) “TQM, TPM, TOC, Lean and Six Sigma – Evolution of
manufacturing methodologies under the paradigm shift from Taylorism/Fordism to Toyotism” pp1-10.
[13]. Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged (2010) “Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future research” International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Vol. 27 pp. 268-317.
[14]. Obaidullah Hakeem Khan Kundi ( 2005) “A Study of Six Sigma Implementation and Critical Success Factors” Pakistan’s 9th
International Convention on Quality Improvement November 14-15, 2005.
[15]. R.Veeramani, C.Dhanapal (2007) “Application of six-sigma in controlling cotton contamination and vendor quality ratings”.
[16]. Roger W. hoerl (2001) “Six Sigma Black Belts: What Do They Need to Know?” Journal of Quality Technology Vol. 33, No. 4.
[17]. Silvia Ponce And Sid-Ali Zahaf (2004) “Knowledge communities, a key element in six-sigma implementation strategies and
deployment” Hec Montreal pp 4-6.
[18]. Sunil Dambhare and Siddhant Aphale (2013) “Productivity Improvement of a Special Purpose Machine Using DMAIC Principles:
A Case Study ” Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering Volume 2013, Article ID 752164, 13 pages.
[19]. Tushar N. Desai and Dr. R. L. Shrivastava (2008) “ Six Sigma – A New Direction to Quality and Productivity Management”
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2008 WCECS 2008, October 22 - 24, 2008.

Page | 152