Quality has been a rallying call in design and manufacturing for the last two decades. One way to improve quality is through variation reduction (VR). VR teams use tools such as Design of Experiments (DoE) and robust design to improve product performance and quality by reducing variation introduced by manufacturing processes. Because VR teams are typically resource constrained, they must carefully select where to focus their efforts. Planning for VR is complex because reduction efforts are executed on individual features and processes but benefits are accrued when the overall product quality improves. The problem is further complicated by the existence of multiple performance criteria and hundreds of processes and dimensions that effect each performance requirement. Consequently, VR teams typically use qualitative assessments to prioritize and schedule their efforts. This paper provides a mathematical model capable of optimally allocating VR resources for a complex product. The VR model has three parts: a model of variation propagation, a model of variation costs, and a model of variation reduction costs. These models are used to directly calculate the optimal resource allocation plan and schedule for a product with multiple product quality requirements. An example from the aerospace industry is used to demonstrate the theory. [S1050-0472(00)00602-4]

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
quality control, manufacturing processes, design engineering, cost-benefit analysis, scheduling, Key Characteristics, Variation Reduction, Process Improvement, Process Capability, Manufacturing Process Cost
Topics:
Design, Manufacturing, Mathematics, Product quality, Teams, Optimization, Resource allocation, Wings
1.
Deutch, C. H., 1998, “Six Sigma Enlightenment,” New York Times, Dec. 7, 1998, Section C, p. 1.
2.
Doherty
,
J.
,
1997
, “
Mixed Signals: After a Search, Allied Signal’s Chief Aims to Win the Street’s Favor Again
,”
Barrons
,
19
, pp.
29
–
34
.
3.
Henkoff, R., 1997, “Boeing’s Big Problem,” Fortune, December 12.
4.
Atwater
,
J. B.
, and
Chakravorty
,
S. S.
,
1995
, “
Using the Theory of Constraints to Guide the Implementation of Quality Improvement Projects in Manufacturing Operations
,”
Int. J. Prod. Res.
,
33
, No.
6
, pp.
1737
–
1760
.
5.
Deming, W. E., 1986, Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6.
Taguchi
,
G.
, and
Clausing
,
D.
,
1990
, “
Robust Quality
,”
Harvard Bus. Rev.
,
68
, pp.
65
–
75
.
7.
Fine
,
C. H.
,
1986
, “
Quality Improvement and Learning in Productive Systems
,”
Manage. Sci.
,
32
, No.
10
, pp.
1301
–
1315
.
8.
Lundvall, D. M., and Juran, J. M., 1951, “Quality Costs,” Quality Control Handbook, J. M. Juran, ed., McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, Chapter 5.
9.
Taguchi, G., 1993, Taguchi on Robust Technology Development: Bringing Quality Engineering Upstream, ASME Press, New York.
10.
Chang
,
T. S.
,
Ward
,
A. C.
,
Lee
,
J.
, and
Jacox
,
E. H.
,
1994
, “
Conceptual Robustness in Simultaneous Engineering: an Extension of Taguchi’s Parameter Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des. Theory Appl. Conc. Eng.
,
74
, pp.
211
–
222
.
11.
Kazmer, D., Barkan, P., and Ishii, K., 1996, “Quantifying Design and Manufacturing Robustness Through Stochastic Optimization Techniques,” Design Automation Conference, ASME Design Technical Conferences, Irvine, CA.
12.
Cunningham, T. W., Mantripragada, R., Lee, D. J., Thornton, A. C., and Whitney, D. E., 1996, “Definition, Analysis and Planning of a Flexible Assembly Process,” Proceedings of the Japan/USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, Boston, MA, ASME pp. 767–778.
13.
Lee, D., and Thornton, A., 1996, “The Identification and Use of Key Characteristics in the Product Development Process,” Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME Design Technical Conferences, Irvine, CA.
14.
Thornton
,
A. C.
,
1999
, “
Variation Risk Management Using Modeling and Simulation
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
121
, pp.
297
–
304
.
15.
Thornton, A. C., 1997, “Using Key Characteristics to Balance Cost and Quality During Product Development,” Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME Design Technical Conferences, Sacramento, CA.
16.
Thornton
,
A. C.
,
1999
, “
A Mathematical Framework for the Key Characteristics Process
,”
Res. Eng. Des. Theory Appl. Conc. Eng.
,
11
, pp.
145
–
157
.
17.
Phadke, M. S., 1989, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, PTR Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
18.
Frey
,
D. D.
,
Otto
,
K. N.
, and
Pflager
,
W.
,
1997
, “
Swept Envelopes of Cutting Tools in Integrated Machine and Workpiece Error Budgeting
,”
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol.
,
46
, pp.
475
–
480
.
19.
Homann
,
B. S.
, and
Thornton
,
A. C.
,
1998
, “
Precision Machine Design Assistant: A Constraint-Based Tool for the Design and Evaluation of Precision Machine Tool Concepts
,”
AIEDAM
12
, pp.
419
–
429
.
20.
Slocum, A. H., 1992, Precision Machine Design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
21.
Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
22.
Frey, D., Otto, K., and Wysocki, J., 1998, “Evaluating Process Capability Given Multiple Acceptance Criteria,” J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. (to appear).
23.
Gao
,
J.
,
Chase
,
K. W.
, and
Magleby
,
S. P.
,
1998
, “
Generalized 3-D Tolerance Analysis of Mechanical Assemblies with Small Kinematic Adjustments
,”
IIE Trans.
,
30
, pp.
367
–
377
.
24.
Ardayfio, M. A., 1998, “Methods for Capturing Design Intent Using Key Characteristics.” MSc, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
25.
Chen, T., and Thornton, A., 1999, “Quantitative Selection of Inspection Plans,” Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME Design Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, NV.
26.
Thornton, A. C., 1998, “Quantitative Selection of Variation Reduction Plans,” Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME Design Technical Conferences, Atlanta, GA.
Copyright © 2000
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.