Question Details

Answered: - Do you have any suggestions or additions to the list that


Do you have any suggestions or additions to the list that Gordon had preparedat the end of the February 28th meeting? Discuss them in detail.


Dynamic Seal (C)

 

Joseph R. Carter and Thomas E. Vollmann

 

Gordon Jenkins, recently appointed Statistical Process Control (SPC)

 

Coordinator at Dynamic Seal had done some preliminary analyses of problems. He

 

wanted to move ahead on SPC, and he had convinced his boss, Kevin Lynch that

 

this was a good idea. It was clear to Gordon that SPC had many steps and that

 

SPC was, itself, a part of a larger set of manufacturing issues. Kevin Lynch had

 

set a meeting for February 28, 1984 to review these issues with a steering

 

committee formed to oversee SPC implementation.

 

As Gordon Jenkins prepared for the meeting, he came up with the following

 

tentative implementation schedule.

 

A. Education

 

B. Gather Data

 

C. Evaluate Machine Capability

 

D. Evaluate Process Capability

 

E. Troubleshoot

 

F. Identify Corrective Action

 

G. Make Corrections

 

H. Re-evaluate

 

I. Apply Statistical Process Control

 

Gordon was hopeful that the steering committee would agree to this

 

schedule and give him the mandate to go forth.

 

THE FEBRUARY 28, 1984 MEETING

 

Statistical Process Control had been discussed at Dynamic Seal for some time. In

 

December of 1983, a steering committee was formed to oversee the implementation

 

of SPC at Dynamic. Members of the committee were Messrs. Kevin Lynch; Jack Barry,

 

the Manufacturing Manager; Gordon Jenkins, the SPC coordinator; Roger Towne, the

 

Director of Quality Assurance; Scott Palmer, the Assistant Director of Quality

 

Assurance; John Dors, the Manager of Manufacturing Engineering; and Alan

 

Schneider, the manager of the United Aircraft cell. On the morning of February 28,

 

these men met in the staff conference room to discuss the implementation of the SPC

 

system at Dynamic. The opening comments were made by Kevin Lynch.

 

?Gentlemen, I have called this meeting to discuss what I feel will be one of the

 

most successful programs to be implemented at Dynamic Seal. You are all aware of

 

the significant quality costs that are being incurred at Dynamic. I sincerely believe

 

that Statistical Process Control can put an end to these costs. I have instructed

 

Gordon Jenkins to implement the SPC system in the united cell area first. I have

 

chosen the UA manufacturing area for several reasons (see Appendix A for a

 

description of the United Aircraft cell). First, it is a self-contained, manageable work

 

area. Second, even though United comprises 14 per- cent of Dynamic?s sales, we have

 

yet to show anything but a small profit. Third, I feel confident we will be receiving

 

another large order from United. I would now like to let Gordon Jenkins outline his

 

implementation plans.?

 


 

Co-authored by Joseph R. Cafter, Arizona State University, and Thomas E. Vollmann, Boston

 

University. Used by permission.

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Gordon Jenkins then put up an overhead transparency with his points A

 

through I, and he explained why this was his plan. The next person to speak was

 

Roger Towne, the Director of Quality Assurance.

 

?Kevin, I agree with you that our quality costs in United are out of sight. But, it

 

is the same story everywhere at Dynamic. Instead of just implementing the SPC

 

system in the united area, I think we should pick a particular machine type that

 

produces the largest number of defects and apply Statistical Process Control to that

 

particular machine type throughout the entire plant. In this way we could cure the

 

largest number of defects in the shortest amount of time. Once you have set up

 

control charts for a particular type of machine, such as a lathe, getting control charts

 

for every other lathe should be relatively easy. I have had recent conversations with

 

United and contrary to the letter we received, the implementation of the SPC system

 

is not mandatory as long as our quality level remains high,?

 

Scott Palmer agreed with Roger Towne.

 

?Not only is SPC important to United, but I have heard rumors to the effect that

 

Avco, Sorsky, and General Electric are all discussing the benefits of putting their

 

manufacturing process under SPC. I feel it is only a matter of time before they

 

approach us in the same manner as United. By implementing the SPC system

 

throughout the plant, we could use that fact to competitive advantage.?

 

The next to speak was Jack Barry.

 

?If SPC can eliminate rework and reduce lead-times, I am all for it. We need to

 

get a handle on rework. I must spend one month out of every year just reworking

 

defective parts. (In a subsequent cost analysis, this statement proved to be quite

 

accurate.) And this is just rework I know about. This rework and scrap plays havoc

 

with my material control system. Every time one of my material handlers looks for

 

a particular lot, it is either being inspected, waiting for inspection, or rejected. It is

 

no wonder the end of each month is pure chaos.?

 

Scott Palmer directed these remarks to Jack Barry.

 

?Jack, I appreciate the problems you are having getting your materials on time.

 

But you are mistaken if you think SPC will make a significant difference. My

 

inspectors are just plain overworked. Much of the work we do entails products that

 

will ultimately be used for National Defense purposes. Meticulous records need to

 

be kept. Each lot needs to be inspected whether there are defects in it or not.?

 

Alan Schneider now addressed the impact SPC might have on the work force.

 

?I am deeply concerned about the effect the implementation of the SPC

 

program will have on my workers. As you are well aware, the UA production area is

 

composed of a group of highly skilled albeit somewhat temperamental machinists.

 

To them machining is as much an art as a science. They are the people who specify

 

the feed rates, the machine speeds, and many of the tools used in an operation. I

 

don?t want to alienate them. Even though our relations with the union are cordial,

 

we are inviting trouble if the union gets the impression management is on the witch

 

hunt.?

 

In closing the meeting, Kevin Lynch addressed his comments in particular to

 

Gordon Jenkins and in general to all present.

 

?I thank all of you for your salient comments. We certainly have many issues

 

to address before we can fully implement the SPC system at Dynamic. Our next

 

meeting will be held on Thursday, March 29, 1984 at 1:00 pm. At this next meeting,

 

Gordon, it would certainly be helpful if you could provide us with a milestone chart

 

detailing phases to be completed and supporting efforts. I am particularly interested

 

in a way to measure the progress of the SPC program. Other areas that will need

 

additional coverage are the implementation area, data gathering, data analysis,

 

software, and identifying responsibilities that will be needed to support the SPC

 

efforts. Of course, don?t limit yourself to these areas. Feel free to make

 

recommendations about any phase of our quality control system.?

 

After the February 28 meeting, Gordon Jenkins returned to his office to think

 

about the SPC project. As the day went on he grew more and more pessimistic about

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

the results of the meeting. It was clear that his goal of receiving a mandate to move

 

forward was not accomplished.

 

Gordon spent the afternoon thinking about the meeting, SPC, and his future at

 

Dynamic Seal. That evening he tried to talk it over with his wife, but found that he just

 

couldn't explain the problem. The next day he closed his office door and left word not

 

to be disturbed. On a blackboard, he listed all of the facets of the SPC project he found

 

important. Gordon hoped that this process would clarify his understanding and form

 

the basis of a heart-to-heart talk with Kevin Lynch. At the end of the day, the following

 

were some of the items on his blackboard.

 


 


 

Quality is now largely achieved by inspection?we cull out the bad rather

 

than build them right.

 


 


 


 

Our inspectors are not trained in SPC?they are paid less than shop

 

workers

 


 


 


 


 


 

I work for Kevin, not for Roger.

 

There is a discrepancy between the IMS sheets and blueprints.

 

Methods are informally maintained?operators decide on feeds, speeds,

 

tools, etc.

 

The SPC requirements of United are better known than those of other

 

companies. Will others be the same or will we need to adapt?

 

What is Alan most concerned about? How do I get him on my side?

 

Much of the data on the DMR?s is incorrect or unclear.

 

How do we change this? What will Roger say if I point this out?

 

What does an SPC based quality organization look like?

 

How do we get from here to there?

 

How important is SPC to the top management at Dynamic Seal? Do they

 

understand what it is and the efforts required?

 

What role should I play as the SPC Coordinator? How can I be most

 

effective?

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX A: UNITED AIRCRAFT CELL

 

United Aircraft (UA) comprised 14 percent of Dynamic?s sales and was one of its

 

fastest growing customers. For this reason, Dynamic made the decision to set up a

 

separate department of equipment and personnel dedicated to the manufacture

 

and assembly of the 25 UA mainshaft seal assemblies (60-70 total parts). The

 

equipment was located in a separate UA manufacturing manager (Alan Schneider)

 

and 18 highly skilled machinists. Each machinist was paid an hourly wage of

 

approximately $13.

 

The 25 UA assemblies could be grouped according to 3 major characteristics.

 

Those characteristics were length of the carbon seal (long or short); wall thickness

 

(thick or thin); and number of slots used to hold the seal in place (3 or 4). In general,

 

each seal assembly within a particular grouping went through a similar set of

 

operations. The same operation could be done on any one of a number of machines

 

depending upon the tolerances required and scheduling constraints.

 

The principle measure of effectiveness of the UA cell was the ratio of direct

 

labor costs to overhead. Direct labor costs consisted solely of the standard labor

 

hours (not actual labor hours) it should have taken to complete a given amount of

 

work. Overhead costs consisted of setup times, idle times, tooling expenses, and a

 

percentage of the overhead created by support departments such as accounting,

 

quality control, etc. Quality costs, due to the difficulty of attributing them to any

 

particular machine or work center, were not used in the calculation of either direct

 

labor or overhead. According to Alan Schneider, the UA cell manager:

 

Rework costs are especially difficult to measure. I schedule the rework so as to not

 

disrupt my daily production. Besides, much of the rework is done by the original operator

 

before the part gets to inspection. For example, if the operator sees that some of the parts

 

he free produced are defected, he will immediately rework them before releasing the lot

 

to the next operation. In the long run, it saves us time and a good deal of paperwork.

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

 

1. What are the major steps Gordon Jenkins proposed for implementing SPC in

 

his February 28, 1984 meeting?

 

2. Summarize the remarks made by Kevin Lynch, Scott Palmer, Roger Towne,

 

Alan Schneider, and Jack Barry during the meeting.

 

3. Figures 1-3 and Tables 1-5 show various important information about United

 

Aircraft Cell. How would you approach SPC implementation?

 

4. Do you have any suggestions or additions to the list that Gordon had prepared

 

at the end of the February 28th meeting? Discuss them in detail.

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

Dynamic Seal (C)

 


 

 


Solution details:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15

Solution~0001185688.zip (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website www.aceyourhomework.com (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Sep 18, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN YOUR SET DEADLINE.

Order Now