Report for a Six Sigma Case Study in a Large-Scale Automotive Supplier Company in TurkeyHong, Kaiwei:Groupmates:Ji, YaoanSong, KaiweiBochen, HuangPaper # and Title:Â 4. <>Summary: This case study starts by presenting and discussing opinions from various researchers about how factors such as human factors and company culture, especially in developing countries and heavy industries, could affect the effectiveness of six sigma projects. Because there were too few studies about them that is conducted at the practices level. The authors conducted large number of six sigma projects in a company of heavy industry and through detailed observations, showed what could specifically happen during each phase of six sigma projects and the effectiveness of DMAIC and six sigma methodology.
http://www.jdmi.com/content/2015/08/14/14/001430-8.html
The findings of the study are included in this paper and will be published soon.
The six Sigma project began with an open access journal article entitled, Developing the Future of Six Sigma Project Information Systems. This paper covers the details, strategies, research findings and development. The next project was with two partners: the Center for Research Ethics and Ethics of the European Society of Physical Technology – Stuttgart, Germany and a Finnish group called the Technology in Organizational Environment, which is chaired by Liisa Iaini.
Overview: The six Sigma project was founded in the U.S. in 2005 by Yu-Cheng Liu of the University of Tokyo, and was made possible through the partnership between the United States National Science Foundation and the European Society of Physical Technology. This university was an informal venue for researchers to develop, analyze and report on the world’s public health systems when they could. The project had numerous stakeholders including the Institute of Medicine and the Society of Physical Therapists. It was also the place for participants to be involved in research, to develop practical knowledge about the human body, and to help shape technological solutions. In contrast to traditional human-to-machine research, the researchers conducted direct experiments and had a team of five, five, and six members to complete these research and make decisions on their own.
http://www.dmi.com/content/2015/09/16/121410-4.html
Analysis: The DMAIC data analyzed by this study and others were compared from an analysis tool to data sets that included data obtained during the eight phases of SIPA. These results are based on the results from their own study of seven sigma project participants and the results of the same three study participants. The two studies have now reached a consensus with most other researchers. As indicated in the conclusion of the paper, the analysis provided a clear view on the current situation for six Sigma. The DMAIC data for four of the eight sigma project participants found nothing different. Furthermore, the eight sigma project participants discovered a large gap in data of eight sigma projects. Therefore, this study should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of the six Sigma project as reported in the article.
http://www.dmi.com/content/2015/09/16/111403-5.html
http://www.jdmi.com/content/2015/08/14/14/001430-8.html
The findings of the study are included in this paper and will be published soon.
The six Sigma project began with an open access journal article entitled, Developing the Future of Six Sigma Project Information Systems. This paper covers the details, strategies, research findings and development. The next project was with two partners: the Center for Research Ethics and Ethics of the European Society of Physical Technology – Stuttgart, Germany and a Finnish group called the Technology in Organizational Environment, which is chaired by Liisa Iaini.
Overview: The six Sigma project was founded in the U.S. in 2005 by Yu-Cheng Liu of the University of Tokyo, and was made possible through the partnership between the United States National Science Foundation and the European Society of Physical Technology. This university was an informal venue for researchers to develop, analyze and report on the world’s public health systems when they could. The project had numerous stakeholders including the Institute of Medicine and the Society of Physical Therapists. It was also the place for participants to be involved in research, to develop practical knowledge about the human body, and to help shape technological solutions. In contrast to traditional human-to-machine research, the researchers conducted direct experiments and had a team of five, five, and six members to complete these research and make decisions on their own.
http://www.dmi.com/content/2015/09/16/121410-4.html
Analysis: The DMAIC data analyzed by this study and others were compared from an analysis tool to data sets that included data obtained during the eight phases of SIPA. These results are based on the results from their own study of seven sigma project participants and the results of the same three study participants. The two studies have now reached a consensus with most other researchers. As indicated in the conclusion of the paper, the analysis provided a clear view on the current situation for six Sigma. The DMAIC data for four of the eight sigma project participants found nothing different. Furthermore, the eight sigma project participants discovered a large gap in data of eight sigma projects. Therefore, this study should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement of the six Sigma project as reported in the article.
The publication of the paper (3/3/10), “Luminal Analysis of Sigma Project Participation In European Studies, 2012-2013” is also online at http://www.dmaic.io, http://docs.dmaic.io/en/dpmss/dpmss.txt, and here with a link to the original version on The Journal of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (NARA).
The European Study Group, consisting of 12 scientists and 11 policy analysts from 28 countries and territories (including Norway) participated in the European Student Survey, a large-scale European Student Survey that was conducted between June 2009 and January 2011. The survey used data from nearly 100 countries.
The DMAIC data was analyzed and tabulated by a special team comprised of scientists from the European Institute of the Science of Science at the University of Helsinki. The analysis was made to have a standard design and parameters based on data from three main research groups during this one-year period of research. In addition, the DMAIC data were tabulated by using only the information provided from the two largest scientific journal papers.
Among the 628 study participants (n = 50), 19 were from the 14 European Universities participating in the French national student survey, 16 from the International Union for Culture and Science, and 9 from France.
More information in the study summary and abstracts is available on the http://www.dmaic.io web page.
About the U.S. Department of Energy:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a member of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the University of California, Riverside and of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is responsible for developing, monitoring, and monitoring utility and solar resource applications in the United States and around the world. DOE supports the U.S.’s role in developing new energy technologies, programs and systems, the energy industry, utilities, research institutions, technology facilities, energy markets, scientific and regulatory institutions, universities and institutions as well as innovative research and development efforts. DOE also provides research and development access to important public-private partnerships. For more information on the DOE, visit http://www.doe.gov.
•
http://www.dmi.com/content/2015/09/16/111403-5.html
The whole project was divided into two major phases (wave 1, 2 & wave 3, 4). Phase1 serves as a warm up period in which projects are composed of whole production process of selected products. During phase1 the DMAIC methodology along with other tools was introduced to participants. So after completion of phase1 with successful results, people improved skills on process approach and data-based decision-making. Also, people understood the need for more complex statistical tools and deeper analysis.  During phase2, in which improvements are harder to achieve due to success in phase1, more statistic tools were taught through training program and supportive case studies. The results was increased statistical skills among participants and on time completion of nearly all phase2 projects.What did you learn from this paper that you did not know before and was interesting to you?I used to think that the DMAIC approach should be strictly conducted in a step-by-step (linear) fashion. But the case showed otherwise. For example, due to the unpredictable nature of the production schedule, the DMAIC structure was repeated as a loop each time the production was due. I learned that in practice, it can be very difficult to finish collecting enough data and act immediately. It may be necessary to go back and forth from measure to define, from improvement to re-measure. Even in data collection phase, lots of root causes could be identified and “emergent improvements” could take place before the Improvement phase. So the DMAIC structure in reality could be composed of multiple Measure phases and Improve phases with Process Walking in between.