• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.121-131
• /
• 2005

Six Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology as the process of a solving problem. Enterprises already propelling Six Sigma successfully, such as Motorola, GE and consulting companies, also traditionally propose DMAIC methodology. But, from activating Six Sigma, enterprises and Six Sigma-consulting companies propose Six Sigma methodology matching indirection part of office and R&D part. As an example, DFSS (Design For Six Sigma) is part of R&D application in GE. This study investigates Six Sigma methodology corresponding to the Right Process of the kernel factor. Especially for the optimum design of R&D, the study revises the definition of DFSS and the general organization through Lean DFSS methodology research and analysis.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Quality Management Conference
• /
• 2006.04a
• /
• pp.431-436
• /
• 2006

6 Sigma uses DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology as process of solving problem. Enterprise already propelling successfully 6 sigma such as Motorolla, GE and consulting companies leading 6 sigma also propose DMAIC methodology traditionally. But from making 6 sigma activated, enterprises and 6 sigma consulting companies propose 6 sigma methodology matching office indirection part and research and development part. As the forward example, DFSS(Design For Six Sigma) is R&D part application in GE. This study investigates 6 sigma methodology corresponding to Right Process of the kernel factor. Especially for optimum design of the R&D part, revise DFSS definition and general concept organization through Lean DFSS methodology research and analysis.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.23-34
• /
• 2007

Many practitioners strive to increase the efficiency of their product development. In addition, smaller companies must satisfy customers' expectations of their product development. These expectations can be e.g. use of specific methodologies such as Lean Product Development (LPD) and/or Design for Six Sigma (DFSS). This study attempts to identify differences and similarities between these methodologies and the connection between them. This comparison is of interest to practitioners that must choose a strategy for their product development as well as to researchers. The aim of both methodologies is to reduce waste and time of development and to raise the quality of a product at the very roots of the product: its development. LPD and DFSS help development managers to structure projects and focus as much as possible on customer expectations and satisfaction.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.173-187
• /
• 2007

Many 6-sigma innovation companies are obtaining ISO9000 series or ISO/TS16949 certifications. However, not many of them have considered the integrated management of ISO/TS16949 at the time of 6-sigma introduction. ISO/TS16949 focuses on the process of an overall company. In particular, APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) requires that from the beginning all the planning should have a clear quality planning business process. Each company can decide the best course of action to suit its individual needs. Lean DFSS in 6-sigma offers the concrete development steps of the product development process. And if analyses of Input, Output, Target, Process, KSF, KPI, and FMEA is done in each process and clearly defined in APQP, mutual organic and effective systems can be initially achieved.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Quality Management Conference
• /
• 2006.04a
• /
• pp.456-460
• /
• 2006

많은 6시그마 혁신을 하는 기업 중에서 ISO9000 시리즈나 ISO/TS16949 인증을 받고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 6시그마 도입 초기부터 ISO/TS16949와 통합운영을 생각하고 추진하는 곳은 많지 않다. ISO/TS16949에서는 기업전반의 프로세스에 많은 중점을 두고 있다. 그 중에서도 APQP(Advanced Product Quality Planning)은 제품 초기에서부터 명확한 품질계획 업무 프로세스를 가지고 활동을 하라는 필수 프로세스를 요구하고 있다. 그러나 구체적인 Flow나 단계는 각 기업체의 특성에 맞기고 있다. 6시그마의 Lean DFSS는 이러한 제품개발 프로세스의 구체적인 전계단계를 제공하고 있다 여기에 APQP에서 요건으로 명시한 각 프로세스 단계마다 Input요소, Output요소, Target, 그 프로세스를 책임질 구성원, 핵심성공요인, 핵심성공지수, 단계마다의 FMEA(Failure Mode Effect Analysis) 분석을 대응하면 도입 초기에서부터 상호 유기적이면서 효과적인 System이 된다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Quality Management Conference
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.381-388
• /
• 2006

많은 6시그마 혁신을 하는 기업 중에서 IS09000 시리즈나 IS0/TS16949 인증을 받고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 6시그마 도입 초기부터 ISO/TS16949와 통합운영을 생각하고 추진하는 곳은 많지 않다. ISO/TS16949에서는 기업전반의 프로세스에 많은 중점을 두고 있다. 그 중에서도 APQP(Advanced Product Quality Planning)은 제품 초기에서 부터 명확한 품질계획 업무 프로세스를 가지고 활동을 하라는 필수 프로세스를 요구하고 있다. 그러나 구체적인 Flow나 단계는 각 기업체의 특성에 맞기고 있다. 6시그마의 Lean DFSS는 이러한 제품개발 프로세스의 구체적인 전개단계를 제공 하고 있다. 여기에 APQP에 서 요건으로 명시한 각 프로세스 단계마다 인풋(Input)요소, 아웃풋(Output) 요소, 타켓(Target), 그 프로세스를 책임질 구성원, 핵심성공요인(KSF), 핵심성공지수(KPI), 단계마다의 FMEA(Failure Mode Effect Analysis) 분석을 대응하면 도입 초기에서 부터 상호 유기적이면서 효과적인 System이 된다.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.82-91
• /
• 2006

In order to achieve sustainable growth in the era of global competitiveness, a speedy and flexible strategy is needed in the fast changing management environment. For this purpose, strengthening the core confidence in the organization along with acquiring competitive advantages that cannot be easily copied by competitors should be done based on dealing with needs from customers and markets positively. In this study, the creative value innovation strategy and creative value design methodology will be presented to improve company competitiveness.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Quality Management Conference
• /
• 2007.04a
• /
• pp.18-32
• /
• 2007

최적의 혁신기법이란 각사의 핵심역량을 명확히 한 후 꾸준히 그리고 지속적으로 자사에 맞게 시스템(SYSTEM)을 변형해 나가는 과정에서 완성된다고 볼 수 있다. 반도체 제조사인 H사는 지난 IMF 때 경영적인 어려움을 극복하고 최근 각 부문(제조, 연구개발, 영업 등)의 탁월한 경영성과를 올리고 있다. 이러한 성과를 뒷받침하는 것은 경영혁신 활동이 일환으로 TPM을 2001년부터 꾸준하게 적용을 해 오고 있다는 것이다. 일반적으로 TPM은 제조중심의 활동이 대부분이나, H사는 R&D부문 경영혁신 활동에 TPM활동을 접목해 활동을 하고 있다. 본 연구는 H사의 R&D부문 TPM R&D보전의 10대 지주 활동과 연구개발 부문에서 활발하게 연구되고 있는 Lean DFSS의 두 방법론에의 장 ${\cdot}$ 단점을 분석하여 좀 더 바람직한 방법론을 연구해 볼 필요가 있다.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.106-116
• /
• 2016

MTO (Make to Order) is a manufacturing process in which manufacturing starts only after a customer's order is received. Manufacturing after receiving customer's orders means to start a pull-type supply chain operation because manufacturing is performed when demand is confirmed, i.e. being pulled by demand (The opposite business model is to manufacture products for stock MTS (Make to Stock), which is push-type production). There are also BTO (Build to Order) and ATO (Assemble To Order) in which assembly starts according to demand. Lean manufacturing by MTO is very efficient system. Nevertheless, the process industry, generally, which has a high fixed cost burden due to large-scale investment is suitable for mass production of small pieces or 'mass customization' defined recently. The process industry produces large quantities at one time because of the lack of manufacturing flexibility due to long time for model change or job change, and high loss during line-down (shutdown). As a result, it has a lot of inventory and costs are increased. In order to reduce the cost due to the characteristics of the process industry, which has a high fixed cost per hour, it operates a stock production system in which it is made and sold regardless of the order of the customer. Therefore, in a business environment where the external environment changes greatly, the inventory is not sold and it becomes obsolete. As a result, the company's costs increase, profits fall, and it make more difficult to survive in the competition. Based on the customer's order, we have built a new method for order system to meet the characteristics of the process industry by producing it as a high-profitable model. The design elements are designed by deriving the functions to satisfy the Y by collecting the internal and external VOC (voice of customer), and the design elements are verified through the conversion function. And the Y is satisfied through the pilot test verified and supplemented. By operating this make to order system, we have reduced bad inventories, lowered costs, and improved lead time in terms of delivery competitiveness. Make to order system in the process industry is effective for the display glass industry, for example, B and C groups which are non-flagship models, have confirmed that the line is down when there is no order, and A group which is flagship model, have confirmed stock production when there is no order.