Critical review process of improving the Product reliability by using DFSS and DOE
Introduction:
In this case it all about the using the DFSS (Design for Six-Sigma) and DOE (Design of Computer Experiments) technique to improve the product reliability through developing substrate development effort for a new product with the large scale technology. Thomas Bertels and Arne Buthmann given that this is a process for developing a technology to make the smaller medical devices in a medical company fallows 10 criteria to conduct a critique review. Hear first we try with simple summary about current Six-Sigma approaches Such as DACE and DFSS.
Appling the Six-Sigma tools for developing the Substrate effort in the medical company to improve the product …show more content…
Finally, the results of this study and settings optimization were validated with the laboratory results to know the project will meet the expected results or not.
Critical review of the six-sigma project with the 10 criteria:
1. Link to the strategic imperatives of the organization – High
The strategic imperative of this case is HIGH. The undertaking will enhance anticipating capacity of therapeutic gadget to decrease anxiety brought on by the laser welding procedure to guarantee item unwavering quality. The task has an incredible effect on the key measurements for the association. It is critical to keep up the hold over strategic drivers of business as it guarantees that initiative stays connected with amid the long run changes.
2. Team’s usage level of application of Six Sigma tools – High
The group utilized DACE, sequential experimental, fractional factorial and design of experiments (DOE). The analysis is a key to discovering and tending to main drivers, and permits the task group to follow each venture in the process and find where there are open doors for development. I will rank it HIGH for the Application of six sigma …show more content…
I will rank it HIGH, in light of the fact that the undertaking effectively distinguished critical elements influencing two basic parameters reflecting dangers for another innovation and related restorative items, and gave ideal settings identified with the laser welding methodology to deliver ideal dependability. Furthermore, it was dead set that the anxiety can be anticipated utilizing the exchange capacity in light of the settings of the laser welding procedure.
7. Completion time of the project – High
The undertaking was finished on time. The whole venture was finished rapidly and proficiently. It was finished amid a late spring entry level position. Short venture term supports the assurance of the colleagues and long length of time tasks make colleagues lose center. I will rank it HIGH.
8. Successful transition of ownership to process owner – Low
A process owner has not been identified in the case study. Hence, it can be ranked Low.
9. Sustained improvement of implemented processes over time – Low
This is LOW. There is no confirmation that change has been maintained over a period of time. The case did not specify the sustainability of the project.
10. Replication of project results – High
I will rank it MEDIUM. The group has not added to a careful arrangement to show how the change would be replicated. Changed management has not been set up for effective continuation of the project results.
Introduction:
In this case it all about the using the DFSS (Design for Six-Sigma) and DOE (Design of Computer Experiments) technique to improve the product reliability through developing substrate development effort for a new product with the large scale technology. Thomas Bertels and Arne Buthmann given that this is a process for developing a technology to make the smaller medical devices in a medical company fallows 10 criteria to conduct a critique review. Hear first we try with simple summary about current Six-Sigma approaches Such as DACE and DFSS.
Appling the Six-Sigma tools for developing the Substrate effort in the medical company to improve the product …show more content…
Finally, the results of this study and settings optimization were validated with the laboratory results to know the project will meet the expected results or not.
Critical review of the six-sigma project with the 10 criteria:
1. Link to the strategic imperatives of the organization – High
The strategic imperative of this case is HIGH. The undertaking will enhance anticipating capacity of therapeutic gadget to decrease anxiety brought on by the laser welding procedure to guarantee item unwavering quality. The task has an incredible effect on the key measurements for the association. It is critical to keep up the hold over strategic drivers of business as it guarantees that initiative stays connected with amid the long run changes.
2. Team’s usage level of application of Six Sigma tools – High
The group utilized DACE, sequential experimental, fractional factorial and design of experiments (DOE). The analysis is a key to discovering and tending to main drivers, and permits the task group to follow each venture in the process and find where there are open doors for development. I will rank it HIGH for the Application of six sigma …show more content…
I will rank it HIGH, in light of the fact that the undertaking effectively distinguished critical elements influencing two basic parameters reflecting dangers for another innovation and related restorative items, and gave ideal settings identified with the laser welding methodology to deliver ideal dependability. Furthermore, it was dead set that the anxiety can be anticipated utilizing the exchange capacity in light of the settings of the laser welding procedure.
7. Completion time of the project – High
The undertaking was finished on time. The whole venture was finished rapidly and proficiently. It was finished amid a late spring entry level position. Short venture term supports the assurance of the colleagues and long length of time tasks make colleagues lose center. I will rank it HIGH.
8. Successful transition of ownership to process owner – Low
A process owner has not been identified in the case study. Hence, it can be ranked Low.
9. Sustained improvement of implemented processes over time – Low
This is LOW. There is no confirmation that change has been maintained over a period of time. The case did not specify the sustainability of the project.
10. Replication of project results – High
I will rank it MEDIUM. The group has not added to a careful arrangement to show how the change would be replicated. Changed management has not been set up for effective continuation of the project results.