This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Design for Six Sigma with Critical – To-Quality Metrics for Research Investments
Technical Paper
2006-01-0995
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) has evolved as a worthy predecessor to the application of Six-Sigma principles to production, process control, and quality. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), we are exploring the interrelation of our current research, development, and design safety standards as they would relate to the principles of DFSS and Six-Sigma. We have had success in prioritization of research and design using a quantitative scalar metric for value, so we further explore the use of scalar metrics to represent the outcome of our use of the DFSS process. We use the design of an automotive component as an example of combining DFSS metrics into a scalar decision quantity. We then extend this concept to a high-priority, personnel safety example representing work that is toward the mature end of DFSS, and begins the transition into Six-Sigma for safety assessments in a production process. This latter example and objective involves the balance of research investment, quality control, and system operation and maintenance of high explosive handling at LLNL and related production facilities. Assuring a sufficiently low probability of failure (reaction of a high explosive given an accidental impact) is a Critical-To-Quality (CTQ) component of our weapons and stockpile stewardship operation and cost. Our use of DFSS principles, with quantification and merging of CTQ metrics, provides ways to quantify clear (preliminary) paths forward for both the automotive example and the explosive safety example. The presentation of simple, scalar metrics to quantify the path forward then provides a focal point for qualitative caveats and discussion for inclusion of other metrics besides a single, provocative scalar. In this way, carrying a scalar decision metric along with the DFSS process motivates further discussion and ideas for process improvement from the DFSS into the Six-Sigma phase of the product. We end with an example of how our DFSS-generated scalar metric could be improved given success of our future research investments in impact safety scenarios.
Recommended Content
| Technical Paper | Kaizen Through Heijunka Production (Leveled Production) |
| Technical Paper | Analysis Tools for Managing in an Emerging Technological Environment |
| Technical Paper | Forecasting Farm Equipment Sales in a Declining Market |
Authors
Citation
Logan, R., Nitta, C., and Chidester, S., "Design for Six Sigma with Critical – To-Quality Metrics for Research Investments," SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0995, 2006, https://doi.org/10.4271/2006-01-0995.Also In
Reliability and Robust Design in Automotive Engineering, 2006
Number: SP-2032; Published: 2006-04-03
Number: SP-2032; Published: 2006-04-03
References
- DOE 1997 U.S. Department of Energy Renewable Energy Annual 1996 US-DOE 1997
- EPA 1999 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1997 Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation Washington, DC 1999
- Kiely 1997 Kiely G. Environmental Engineering Berkshire, England McGraw-Hill 1997
- Leopoulos et al 2003 Leopoulos V. Kirytopoulos K. Malandrakis C. “An applicable methodology for strategic risk management during the bidding process” Int. J. Risk Assessment and Management 4 1 2003
- Logan Nitta 2000 Logan R.W. Nitta C.K. “Quantitative Stockpile Value (QSV), Rides for Nine (R49), and relevance to Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)” Mar 2002
- Logan 2002 Logan R.W. “Graded Scale Timeline for SLEP-NEP (U)” Nov 2002
- Matthews 2000 Matthews H. “Case Study - Landfill Power Generation” paper for Green Design Initiative Carnegie Mellon U 2000
- Murray et al 2004 Murray R.C. “Engineering Design Safety Standards Manual” Nov 2004
- Nitta et al 2004 Nitta C.K. Logan R.W. Chidester S.K. Foltz M.F. “Benefit / Cost Ratio in Systems Engineering: Integrated Models, Tests, Design, and Production” University of California, LLNL Nov 2004
- Kogure Akao 1983 Kogure M. Akao Y. “Quality Function Deployment and CWQC in Japan” Quality Progress Oct 1983 25
- Shamim et al 1999 Shamim T. Adamczyk A. Son S. Shen H. “Performance Analysis of Catalytic Converters” Center for Eng. Education and Practice, U. Michigan 1999
- Switzer et al 2003 Switzer L.L. Vandersall K.S. Chidester S.K. Greenwood D.W. Tarver C.M. “Threshold Studies of Heated HMX-based Energetic Material Targets Using the Steven Impact Test” 13 th APS Topical Conference on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter Portland, OR Jul 2003
- Taguchi 1987 Taguchi S. Byrne D.M. “The Taguchi Approach to Parameter Design” Quality Progress Dec 1987
- Teller et al 1997 Teller E. Wood L. Nuckolls J. Ishikawa M. Hyde R. “Problem-Free Nuclear Power and Global Change” Univ. of California, LLNL Aug 1997
- Usan et al. 2005 Usan M. De Weck O. Whitney D. “Exhaust System Manifold Development Enhancement Through Multi-Attribute System Design Optimization” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Apr 2005
- Wilson et al 2000 Wilson B. Cappelleri D.J. Simpson T.W. Frecker M.I. “Efficient Pareto Frontier Exploration Using Surrogate Approximations” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Sep 2000