Shainin B vs C Webinar

Everyone is muted. We
will start at 7pm EST.
Ha Dao, Chairman
ASQ Automotive Division
Moderator
Call In: 215-383-1016
Code: 853-908-666
 Thank You for Joining our ASQ Webinar

ASQ Automotive Division 2 Webinar Series

 ASQ Automotive Division Webinar Series

How to Calculate a Risk of

a Decision: Shainin B vs C
February 15, 2010
7:00 pm 8:15 pm EST
Richard Shainin, Executive VP
Shainin LLC

ASQ Automotive Division 3 Webinar Series

 Agenda

Housekeeping Items
About ASQ Automotive Division
Webinar Series
Polls
How to Calculate the Risk of a
Decision: Shainin B vs C
Questions & Answers

ASQ Automotive Division 4 Webinar Series

 Housekeeping Items

Everyone is muted
Session is being recorded
Session will last about 75 minutes
Slides posted at www.asq-auto.org
Participate thru polls, chat & questions
Will answer questions at the end:
Q&A in last 10 minutes
Please type your questions in the panel box

ASQ Automotive Division 5 Webinar Series

 Special Recognition

Tad Kowalski - Emerson Climate Technologies

Sandy Cornellier - Shainin LLC
Kevin Wu - ASQ China
All International Attendees

ASQ Automotive Division 6 Webinar Series

 Your Moderator

About Me Ha Dao, Chairman

ASQ Automotive Division
ASQ Fellow
Six Sigma Master BB
Shainin Red X Master
15+ Yrs of Experience in
Automotive Industry
Troy, Ohio
hadao@woh.rr.com

ASQ Automotive Division 7 Webinar Series

 ASQ Automotive Division

ASQ Automotive
Division is a Division
of ASQ, the Global
Voice for Quality.
ASQ Automotive Division has more than
3200 members globally, who share a
common interest in the automotive
industry. Members include professionals
from almost every discipline in the
vehicle manufacturing and supplier
business in the automotive, heavy-truck,
off-highway, agricultural, industrial and
construction equipment industries.
ASQ Automotive Division 8 Webinar Series
 ASQ Auto Webinars Series 2010-2011

The ASQ Automotive Division

is pleased to present a regular
series of free webinars
featuring leading international
experts, practitioners,
academics, and consultants.
The goal is to provide a forum
for the continuing education
of automotive professionals.
The presentation slides are posted on our
website www.asq-auto.org. Recorded
webinars are also available for
viewing after the events. To register for a
future webinar, see the listings at our
website www.asq-auto.org.

ASQ Automotive Division 9 Webinar Series

 Upcoming Webinar in March

Reliability Maturity
Do you know your RMI (Reliability
Maturity Index)?
March 24, 2011
7:00 pm 8:15 pm EST
Su Glesner, Sr. Reliability Engineer
AM General
ASQ Automotive Division 10 Webinar Series
 Call for Speakers & Volunteers

ASQ Automotive Division

is seeking Speakers and
Topics for our
Webinar Series.
ASQ Automotive Division
is also seeking Contact Ha Dao, Chair
volunteers for leadership ASQ Automotive Division
hadao@woh.rr.com
positions to serve on the
Division Council.
ASQ Automotive Division 11 Webinar Series
 Introducing Dick Shainin

How to Calculate a Risk of

a Decision: Shainin B vs C
February 15, 2010
7:00 pm 8:15 pm EST
Richard Shainin, Executive VP
Shainin LLC

ASQ Automotive Division 12 Webinar Series

 Interactive Polls

ASQ Automotive Division 13 Webinar Series

How to Calculate
the Risk of a
Decision: Shainin
B vs C

Richard Shainin
Executive Vice President
Shainin
February 15, 2011
Agenda

1. Change.
2. Impact of ineffective changes.
3. Minimizing ineffective changes.
4. B vs. C Test.
5. Randomization.
6. Additional examples.

15
Global Electronics Company
One Quarter of Data, > 2000 changes approved
900

800
Number of Changes

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Align to Current Process Product Change Quality Cost Savings
Process Improvement Request Improvement

Change Type
Manufacturing changes for released products across 6 manufacturing sites.
16
Effectiveness?

Lots of engineers making things better.

Less than 20% of the changes achieved their desired result.

17
Compressor Broken Reed Case

Automotive HVAC

Compressors fail in the field after

21,000 miles.
All vehicle platforms experience
the failure.
Returned compressors have
extensive damage.

The majority of warranty claims are in warmer climates.

Warranty claims are highest in the summer months.
Warranty costs have risen to $20 million per year.

18
Background Information
Product Function

New
Reed

Failure
Initiation

Failed
Reed

19
The X Y Approach

Four teams of experts have already solved this problem.

Nine product changes over seven years.
Five documented processing changes over seven years.
Make a change and wait for the next round of summer
warranty data to see if the problem has been solved.

The customer test fleet!

20
Waste from Ineffective Changes

Engineering cost of designing the change.

Manufacturing cost to implement the change.
Cost of unnecessary processing.
Cost of extra or more expensive materials.
Cost of containment.
Cost of scrap and rework.
Time from decision to change to implementation.
Time from implementation to accurate assessment of
change.
Warranty costs.

21
Marketing cost of ineffective changes

Loss of brand loyalty.

Loss of credibility within the supply chain.
Loss of credibility with senior leadership.

22
Problem Solving
Contrast based
convergent approach

Process/Product Control

Experience Understandin
Technical
based g the physics
problem
approach
Design Change

Directional correct
design change
Brainstorming based
approach

23
Contrast Based Convergent Approach

Talking to the engineers produced

a list of all the inputs that could be
causing the problem.
Talking to the parts revealed the
true answer.

Keep your eyes open and your

mouth shut. Let the parts guide
you to the answer.

Dorian Shainin (1914-2000)

24
Investigation
Solution Tree

Decrease Increase
Compressor Compressor
Energy Strength
P M

Compressor System Rationale:

Strength Energy

Strategy choice based on

AC
System Platform physics of failure. Lowest
Contrast Contrasts
risk and lowest cost along
with the fastest timing.
Volume Pressure Temperature
B vs C test.

25
B vs C 6 Pack

The B vs C Test is used to determine if a design or process

change produces an improved Green Y distribution.
The 6 Pack is a B vs C test that is simple to run and confirms the
Red X with only a 5% risk of being fooled.

26
B better than C

Statistical representation of an effective change.

27
B is not better than C

Statistical representation of an ineffective change.

28
B vs C

When B is not better, the B vs C test results become a

game of chance, controlled by sample size and analysis
method.

Lets evaluate by putting results in rank

order with the best result having the
highest rank.

29
B Not Better Than C

With 2 samples, 1B and 1C, there are only 2 possible rank order outcomes.

Possible
Rank
Outcomes
1 2
1 B C
2 C B

There is a 50% chance that we will be fooled into believing B is better.

30
B Not Better Than C

With 3 samples, 1B and 2Cs, there are only 3 possible rank order
outcomes.
Ran
Possible Outcomes
k
1 2 3
1 B C C
2 C B C
3 C C B

There is a 33% chance that we will be fooled into believing B is better.

31
B Not Better Than C

With 4 samples, 2Bs and 2Cs, there are only 6 possible rank order
outcomes.
Rank Possible Outcomes
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 B B B C C C
2 B C C B B C
3 C B C B C B
4 C C B C B B

There is a 17% chance that we will be fooled into believing B is better.

32
B Not Better Than C

With 5 samples, 2Bs and 3Cs, there are only 10 possible rank order
outcomes.
Rank Possible Outcomes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 B B B B C C C C C C
2 B C C C B B B C C C
3 C B C C B C C B B C
4 C C B C C B C B C B
5 C C C B C C B C B B
There is a 10% chance that we will be fooled into believing B is better.
33
B Not Better Than C

With 6 samples, 3Bs and 3Cs, there are only 20 possible rank order outcomes.
Ran
Possible Outcomes
k
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 B B B B B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C C
2 B B B B C C C C C C B B B B B B C C C C
3 B C C C B B B C C C B B B W W W B B B C
4 C B C C B C C B B C B C C B B C B B C B
5 C C B C C B C B C B C B C B C B B C B B
6 C C C B C C B C B B C C B C B B C B B B

34 There is a 5% chance that we will be fooled into believing B is better.

B vs C Table for a One Tailed Test

Number of
Consequences of a
Randomized B better than C, not
Wrong Decision
Samples just different.
Desired B C
Confidence ~ Risk Samples Samples
0.999 0.001 3 16
B and C sample
Super Critical 4 10
sizes are
5 8
interchangeable.
6 6
0.99 0.01 2 13
Critical 3 7
4 5 No overlap of
5 4 ranks is permitted
0.95 0.05 1 19
for this test.
Important 2 5
3 3
0.90 0.10 1 9
Moderate 2 3
35
B vs C Table for a One Tailed Test

Number of
Consequences of a
Randomized B better than C, not
Wrong Decision
Samples just different.
Desired B C
Confidence ~ Risk Samples Samples
0.999 0.001 3 16
B and C sample
Super Critical 4 10
sizes are
5 8
interchangeable.
6 6
0.99 0.01 2 13
Critical 3 7
4 5 No overlap of
5 4 ranks is permitted
0.95 0.05 1 19
for this test.
Important 2 5
3 3
0.90 0.10 1 9 6 Pack Test
Moderate 2 3
36
Our Parts or Systems Vary

37
Spurious Associations
How do variables change over time?

DX

Time
1. Cycle

38
Spurious Associations
How do variables change over time?

DX

Time
1. Cycle
2. Trend

39
Spurious Associations
How do variables change over time?

DX

Time
1. Cycle
2. Trend
3. Shift
40
Spurious Associations
Testing in phase with process variation?

WOW C C C

DX

BOB B B B

Time

41
Spurious Associations
Testing in phase with process variation?

C C C
WOW

DX

BOB B B B

Time

42
Randomization
Breaking Phase With Every Other X

WOW
C C C

DX

BOB B B B

Time

43
Randomization
Breaking Phase With Every Other X: The Result

WOW C C
B

DY

BOB B C B

Time

44
Randomization
Breaking Phase With Every Other X

C C C

DX

B B B

Time

45
Randomization
Breaking Phase With Every Other X

C C C

DX

B B B

Time

Randomization is the engineers insurance policy for

breaking phase relationships with time. Dorian Shainin
46
Planning Randomization
Some of These Do Not Break Phase With Trends,
Shifts and Cycles

C B B B B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C B
C B B B C C C C C C B B B B B B C C C B
C C C C B B B C C C B B B C C C B B B B
B B C C B C C B B C B C C B B C B B C C
B C B C C B C B C B C B C B C B B C B C
B C C B C C B C B B C C B C B B C B B C

47
Planning Randomization
Ten Useful Random Patterns

B B B B B C C C C C
B B C C C B B B C C
C C B B C B C C B B
B C B C B C B C B C
C B C C C B B B C B
C C C B B C C B B B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Select an order among these 10 choices.

48
Broken Reed B vs C Verifies Solution
B = Reduce suction port diameter.
C = Current suction port diameter.
Response = Cycles to failure.
Allowed risk = 5%
Required End Count = 6

Run Order Rank Order

Sample Cycles to Fail
B +7.0M DNF
B +7.0M DNF
C 3.1M FAILED
B +7.0M DNF
C 3.6M FAILED
C 2.8M FAILED
Sample Cycles to Fail
B +7.0M DNF
B +7.0M DNF
B +7.0M DNF
C 3.6M FAILED
C 3.1M FAILED
C 2.8M FAILED

Reducing the suction diameter will improve reed. There was a 5% risk
that these test results happened by chance.
49
Tolerance Parallelogram

Setting the piston orifice diameter to .146 ensures all

reeds will last for at least 5,000,000 cycles by reducing the
maximum energy the reed experiences.

50
Transmission Failures

51
Snap Ring Picture

52
Failed B vs C
B vs C for Group Comparison Red X Candidates
B = Spring Force = 70 lbs., Free ID = 2.25, Free End Gap = 2.1 mm
C = Spring Force = 40 lbs., Free ID = 2.27, Free End Gap = 4.6 mm
Response = Line pressure to fail the snap ring at 4000 RPM in reverse.
Allowed Risk = 5%
Required End Count = 6

Run Order Rank Order

B or C Pressure to Fail B or C Pressure to Fail
C 380 C 600
B 580 B 580
B 270 C 380
C 600 B 380
C
B
Conclusion: Failed to confirm candidates as Red X
53
Pressure Test

54
B vs C to Verify Inhibitor as Red X
B = WOW Time part with sealer (wax) removed.
C = WOW Time part with heavy rust inhibitor (wax) coating.
Response = Line pressure to fail the snap ring at 4000 RPM in reverse.
Allowed risk = 5%
Required End Count = 6

Run Order Rank Order

B or C Pressure to Fail
B 750 DNF
B 750 DNF
C 270 FAILED
B 600 DNF
C 200 FAILED
C 290 FAILED
B or C Pressure to Fail
B 750 DNF
B 750 DNF
B 600 DNF
C 290 FAILED
C 270 FAILED
C 200 FAILED

The Red X is the Rust Inhibitor!

55
B vs C
Pratt & Whitney JD-9D Turbine Blade Creep

1973 New commercial jet engine for Boeing 747. Second

stage turbine blades are discovered to be creeping in service.
Engineers believe the problem is new proprietary coating on
blades. They recommend replacing all second stage blades
with more expensive traditional coating.
Cost to replace blades is going to be $40 million.
Time to replace blades will be months.
Customer planes have been grounded until answer is known.

Cant afford a 5% risk of being wrong.

56
B vs C Table for a One Tailed Test

Number of
Consequences of a
Randomized B better than C, not
Wrong Decision
Samples just different.
Desired B C
Confidence ~ Risk Samples Samples
0.999 0.001 3 16
B and C sample
Super Critical 4 10
sizes are
5 8
interchangeable.
6 6
0.99 0.01 2 13
Critical 3 7
4 5 No overlap of
5 4 ranks is permitted
0.95 0.05 1 19
for this test.
Important 2 5
3 3
0.90 0.10 1 9 Critical
Moderate 2 3 consequences
57
Elements of a Well Designed B vs C Test
The following elements should be documented:

B and C Settings: Defined specifically enough that your work may be

replicated.

Response: Clearly defined so that there is no question regarding how

the samples will be measured. (e.g., Hole radius measured 458 from the
front parting line. Not hole radius.)

Allowed risk and the resulting required end count.

Data Presentation: Two tables (usually side by side) where the first
table shows the result in run order and the second table shows the
result in rank order with the resulting end count at the bottom of the
second table.

Conclusion: Did you meet the required end count? If so, what can
you conclude?
58
Bibliography
Title: How To Calculate The Risk Of A Decision

Copyright: 1968, ASQC

Author: Shainin, Dorian
Organization: Rath & Strong Inc.
Subject: Administration, Shainin techniques;
Series: Quality Progress, Vol. 1, No. 8, August 1968, pp. 21-23

Title: A Quick, Compact, Two-Sample Test To Duckworth's

Specifications*

Copyright: 1959, ASQC and the American Statistical Association

Author: Tukey, John W.
Organization: Princeton University
Subject: ;
Series: Technometrics, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 1959, pp. 31-48

59
 Questions & Answers

Please type your questions in the panel box

ASQ Automotive Division 60 Webinar Series

 ASQ Automotive Division

Check out our

Website New Website

www.asq-auto.org

Twitter.com/asqautomotive

ASQ Automotive Division fan page on Facebook

ASQ Automotive Division group on LinkedIn

ASQ Automotive Division 61 Webinar Series

 Contact Us

ASQ Automotive Division

Ha Dao, Chair
www.asq-auto.org
hadao@woh.rr.com
(937) 524-5533 (T)
(937) 710-3054 (C)
2590 Merrimont Drive
Troy, OH 45373

ASQ Automotive Division 62 Webinar Series

 Thank You for Attending!

ASQ Automotive Division 63 Webinar Series