Total Quality - Assignment BriefThis assignment is based on a case study in which a consultant (you) is asked to investigate a problem with an automotive assembly that is causing the company considerable embarrassment. You are therefore required to produce a report analysing the problem and making recommendations to:
(a) Deal with the immediate situation, and
(b) Prevent the problem from recurring.
Although the assignment does involve the use of statistical tools to perform the analysis there is considerable scope for discussion of a number of factors both with respect to the purchasing policy and the engineering implications. Submissions providing a mere statistical analysis will only attract minimum marks. Higher marks will depend on depth and extent of discussion including the practicality of any recommendations.
Points for consideration are:
1. What tolerances are necessary to ensure non-defective assemblies?
2. Is the critical dimension (protrusion of cotter thread) affected more by one part
than by the other?
3. Which suppliers are the likely cause of the problem?
4. What difference would it make if statistical tolerancing was to be used and what would be the implications/assumptions?
5. What could be done with supplies that are found to be defective?
6. What longer-term steps might the company take? Above are just some suggestions, the list is not exhaustive.
The Shackle
PIN AND SHACKLE ASSEMBLYPROBLEM
A private auto parts supplier obtains samples of original parts and arranges for them to be made and supplied by alternative suppliers. Suppliers were not provided with drawings or specifications only samples. This assignment concerns a three-part assembly for leaf spring shackles. The shackle, pin and cotter when assembled should be such that the thread of the cotter protrudes between 9 and 19 mm to allow for a washer and nut.
Complaints have been received that the items, when bought separately, do not always comply with the above conditions. This results in either the protruding thread being insufficient to allow for the nut and washer or the cotter protruding so much that the nut can’t be tightened.
There are 10,000 shackles, pins and cotters in stock.
TASK
The task is to investigate the reasons for defective assemblies by carrying out a statistical analysis and to suggest recommendations for overcoming the problem.
FACTS
Three different suppliers supply the pins. Four different suppliers supply the shackles. One supplier supplies the cotters. Each of the items may be purchased separately and may be required to be assembled with parts supplied by original manufacturers.
PROCEDURE Pins:
A random selection of 24 pins was taken from each of the sources. They were inspected for width across the flat (dimension A).
AShackles:
A random selection of 24 shackles was taken from each of the suppliers. These were inspected for the distance between centres (dimension B).
BCotters:
24 cotters were assembled with various combinations of shackles and pins representing the two extreme conditions.
OBSERVATIONS
An analysis of the assembly in the light of observations revealed the following specification:
· Cotter: Taper is 1 in 15
· Pin: Width across flat is 19 mm nominal
· Shackle: Distance between centres is 13 mm nominal
Results of inspection of samplesPins (dimension A)Supplier A
18.87 |
18.97 |
19.03 |
18.92 |
18.97 |
19.03 |
18.95 |
19.00 |
19.03 |
18.95 |
19.00 |
19.05 |
18.97 |
19.00 |
19.05 |
18.97 |
19.03 |
19.05 |
18.97 |
19.03 |
19.05 |
18.97 |
19.03 |
19.10 |
Supplier B
19.00 |
19.05 |
19.15 |
19.00 |
19.05 |
19.18 |
19.00 |
19.05 |
19.18 |
19.00 |
19.10 |
19.18 |
19.00 |
19.10 |
19.23 |
19.00 |
19.10 |
19.23 |
19.03 |
19.10 |
19.23 |
19.05 |
19.15 |
19.23 |
Supplier C
18.70 |
19.86 |
20.09 |
18.75 |
19.89 |
20.12 |
18.85 |
19.91 |
20.14 |
18.87 |
19.97 |
20.22 |
18.90 |
19.87 |
20.27 |
19.46 |
20.02 |
20.30 |
19.69 |
20.07 |
20.32 |
19.84 |
20.07 |
20.37 |
Shackles (dimension B)Supplier D
13.10 |
13.28 |
13.36 |
13.10 |
13.28 |
13.36 |
13.10 |
13.28 |
13.38 |
13.13 |
13.18 |
13.30 |
13.41 |
13.30 |
13.41 |
13.20 |
13.30 |
13.43 |
13.25 |
13.33 |
13.43 |
13.28 |
13.33 |
13.46 |
Supplier E
12.92 |
12.97 |
13.08 |
12.92 |
12.97 |
13.08 |
12.92 |
12.97 |
13.10 |
12.92 |
13.00 |
13.13 |
12.95 |
13.03 |
13.13 |
12.95 |
13.03 |
13.13 |
12.95 |
13.05 |
13.15 |
12.97 |
13.05 |
13.30 |
Supplier F
12.87 |
12.97 |
13.03 |
12.90 |
13.00 |
13.03 |
12.92 |
13.00 |
13.05 |
12.92 |
13.00 |
13.05 |
12.95 |
13.00 |
13.08 |
12.95 |
13.03 |
13.10 |
12.97 |
13.03 |
13.10 |
12.97 |
13.03 |
13.15 |
Supplier G
12.77 |
12.85 |
12.92 |
12.77 |
12.87 |
12.92 |
12.80 |
12.87 |
12.92 |
12.80 |
12.87 |
12.95 |
12.82 |
12.90 |
12.95 |
12.82 |
12.90 |
12.95 |
12.85 |
12.90 |
12.97 |
12.85 |
12.92 |
13.03 |
CottersThe quality of the cotters was of the same quality as the originals. From the samples there was no reason to believe that these would be the source of trouble.
20.00
14.00±5
1 in 15
13.00
10.00
12.00
19.00
22.00
40.00