Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y.

Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International

Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

A Case Study on Total Quality Control Of Manufacturing Of

Liners By Applying Spc Technique
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra1, B.Manideep2, R. Prem Sai3, Y. Adi Siva Kishore
Reddy4
1,
Associate professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, K L University,
2, 3, 4
Third Year B. Tech (Mech), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, K L university

ABSTRACT
The growing global economy has caused The findings from process capability study
a dramatic shift towards Quality control and might require adjustment of process using other
management in recent years. Efficient and statistical technique such as SPC or DoE.
effective management of quality control will Capability studies conducted by Motorcu and Gullu
have a beneficial impact on a company's ability (2004) and Srikaeo et al (2005) show that the
in serving its customers properly and to keep machine tool and process capability and production
direct and indirect costs low. Effective stability was evaluated and necessary steps to
management of quality at each stage offers a reduce poor quality production was carried out
great prospective for increasing system using other statistical techniques.
efficiency, customer service level and
minimization of total system costs. This paper II. METHODOLOGY OF QUALITY
discusses analyzing and application SPC CONTROL.
techniques of quality concept to achieve Quality control is the set of operations
customer delightness. (programming, coordinating, carrying out) intended
to maintain or to improve quality and to set the
Key-words: Quality, SPC, Control charts, UCL, production at the most economical level which for
LCL. customer satisfaction. This requires the following
steps.
I. Literature survey a) Setting up standards of performance
Statistical Process Control(SPC) is a b) Comparing the actual observations against the
statistical approach for assisting operators, standards.
supervisors and managers to manage quality and to c) Taking corrective action whenever necessary.
eliminate special causes of variability in a process
(Oakland, 2003). The initial role of SPC is to III. Case-study Analysis
prevent rather than identify product or process 3.1. About the Organization
deterioration, but Xie and Goh (1999) suggest for Bharath Industries (Kusalava international
its new role to actively identifying opportunities for ltd) is a manufacturer of cylinder liners. The
process improvement. The main tools in SPC are products are mainly rejected due to defects arising
control charts. The basic idea of control charts is to in machining section and casting section.
test the hypothesis that there are only common  The defects in casting section are
causes of variability versus the alternative that generally cracks, hard, porosity etc.
there are special causes. By continuously  The defects in machining section are
monitoring the process, the manufacturing generally, undersize of outer diameter and
organization could prevent defect items to be over size of inner diameter, collar, width
processed in the next stage and to take immediate over size etc.
corrective action once a process is found to be out Hence it is necessary to reduce the rework
of control (Hairulliza et al., 2005). DoE and due to defects in casting and machining section and
Taguchi methods are powerful tools for product to improve the quality of product.
and process development. Taguchi methods, for To improve its sales in market, Bharat
instance, aim at making product or process that industry is focusing its business strategy towards
robust to undesirable disturbances such as achieving the good quality products and operational
environmental and manufacturing variations. efficiency by improving productivity and reducing
However, the application of these two methods by internal costs.
industries is limited (Antony and Kaye, 1995). Under these circumstances a case-study
Antony et al (1998) explore the difficulties in the analysis is taken up with the following objectives.
application including improper understanding and a)To improve overall efficiency of the system in
fear of statistical concepts in the methods, thus the section concerned.
propose a methodology for the implementation.

357 | P a g e
 Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

b) To maximize output per section with less drawn as shown in figures . it needs further
defects. development to stabilize the process by eliminating
c) To modify the production process for better the causes of variations, they are
understanding and execution.  Lack of periodic training to the employees
 Deviations from specifications
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis  Shift generation and alteration of working
The objective of SPC is to obtain a hours
reliable and unbiased picture of how the process is These are shown in Table 2 to Table 6.
performing to get the required quality of products. They are further illustrated graphically as
The success of the objective naturally based on shown in Fig 3 to Fig 8
reliable and unbiased data collected. Hence prior to
SPC study, careful plan for data collection, 4.2 BRINGING THE CHARACTERISTICS
effectiveness of operational personnel and well UNDER CONTROL :-
maintained, calibrated measuring equipment are By measuring and comparing the
necessary. characteristics of final product generated at each
section with a standard one, if it is found to be
3.2.1. Before the Application of SPC inferior and the characteristic is not under control.
The data collected regarding the number The parameters, which effect the characteristics of
of castings produced and number of casting final products, are controlled to obtain the required
rejected because of casting defects and machining characteristics.
defects as shown in Table 1 and illustrated by
graphically. It is shown in Fig 1. 4.3 AFTER THE APPICATON OF SPC
P – Chart was drawn using the data Again the data is collected regarding the
shown. It shows that few sample points are not number of castings produced and number of
close to process average, there is tolerance, but casings rejected because of casting defects and
only the aim of zero defect (or) 100% acceptable machining defects
items. The simplistic measure of capability can P – chart was drawn as shown using the
hence be provided by the relevant mean value data as shown in table. It shows that some sample
points are close to process average, P̅
IV. PARETO ANALYSIS The capability P̅ = 0.0462
Pareto analysis, reveals that most of rejections = 4.62 %
are due to machining defects occurring in It is concluded that process capabilities are
machining section. It is shown in Table 3 and Fig 2. improved by decreasing the rejection rate from
6.52% (before SPC) to 4.62% (after SPC). It is
4.1 DURING THE APPLICATION OF SPC :- shown in Table 7 to Table 9 and further illustrated
The data was collected regarding the graphically. It is shown in Fig 9.
parameters such as weight, mould temperature, A pareto analysis for comparative results reveals
outer diameter, inner diameter and total collar that there exists reduction in wastage of units
width. The above, reveals that some of the sample produced. It is shown in Table 10 and Fig 10.
points are out of control. X̅ - chart and R – chart are

Table : Rejection Trends Before SPC

Sl. No Produced Rejected Proportion of UCL LCL
Quantity Units rejections
1 742 51 0.068 0.095 0.04
2 424 41 0.097 0.14 0.053
3 725 35 0.048 0.538 0.427
4 866 81 0.094 0.123 0.064
5 911 69 0.076 0.102 0.049
6 862 56 0.065 0.09 0.039
7 511 28 0.055 0.085 0.024
8 855 27 0.032 0.05 0.013
9 930 79 0.085 0.112 0.057
10 917 52 0.057 0.079 0.034
11 893 63 0.071 0.096 0.045
12 894 23 0.023 0.038 0.007
13 1012 83 0.082 0.107 0.056
14 1020 78 0.076 0.1 0.051

358 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

15 979 68 0.069 0.09 0.024

16 887 48 0.054 0.076 0.031
17 924 12 0.013 0.024 0.001
18 734 80 0.109 0.143 0.074
19 873 53 0.061 0.085 0.036
20 906 95 0.105 0.135 0.074
21 990 78 0.079 0.104 0.053
22 903 47 0.052 0.074 0.029
23 874 46 0.053 0.075 0.03
24 964 45 0.047 0.067 0.026
25 883 52 0.059 0.082 0.035
TOTAL 21479 1390 0.0652 0.1084 0.05488

Table : Rejection trends in machining section (before spc)

Sl. No Total defects OD defects ID oversize ID die mark Collar dia- Crack
tool mark
1 15 1 6 0 0 4
2 17 0 10 2 0 0
3 28 2 10 8 3 0
4 41 7 17 2 0 5
5 35 0 9 8 3 6
6 26 4 8 5 2 3
7 2 0 1 0 0 1
8 24 6 9 3 0 2
9 44 1 23 8 3 5
10 27 0 5 8 6 6
11 29 2 13 6 1 3
12 21 4 12 1 0 3
13 27 8 11 2 0 3
14 30 0 6 11 4 2
15 36 0 2 8 18 2
16 38 3 8 7 11 2
17 9 3 2 1 0 1
18 42 6 7 11 10 2
19 47 6 9 9 7 2
20 47 2 9 7 6 4
21 41 1 3 13 2 3
22 38 4 12 5 12 1
23 18 2 6 0 22 2
24 41 7 9 4 10 2
25 49 5 6 7 14 3
TOTAL 772 74 213 136 134 67

359 | P a g e
 Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

P - CHART BEFORE SPC

0.12

0.1
PROPORTION OF
0.08 REJECTIONS
UCL
0.06
FRACTION
·
O Gibber ingriffsgren e

LCL
DEFECTIVE 0.04
U6 Untere ingriffsgren
:

· e

P bar
0.02
·
-

ielwert

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425

SAMPLE NUMBER
Fig : 1 P – Chart before SPC
Table : 3 Rejection of Trends before application of SPC
Types 01- 02- 03- 04- 05- 06- 07- 08- 09- 09- 10- 11- 12-
of nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov
defects
A 1 0 2 7 0 4 0 6 1 0 2 4 8
B 6 10 10 17 9 8 1 9 23 5 13 12 11
C 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 3 6 1 0 0
D 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
E 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
G 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
H 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
I 4 0 2 5 6 3 1 2 5 6 3 3 3
J 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0
K 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M 0 2 8 2 8 5 0 3 8 8 6 1 2
REJEC 14 17 28 35 34 26 2 24 43 27 29 21 27
TIONS
Tale is continued to next page

Types 16- 18- 19- 20- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 29- 30- TOTAL
of nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov nov
defects
A 0 0 3 3 6 6 2 1 4 2 7 5 74
B 6 2 8 2 7 9 9 3 12 6 9 6 213
C 4 18 11 0 10 7 6 2 12 22 10 14 134
D 0 3 2 0 1 4 2 4 3 0 1 11 37
E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
F 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
G 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 3 3 2 19
H 4 1 3 1 1 0 5 6 1 0 2 0 33
I 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 1 2 2 3 69

360 | P a g e
-

ielwert

8 Gibber ingriffsgren e

U 6 Untere ingriffsgren
:

e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

J 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 1 0 28
K 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 2 0 20
L 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 7
M 11 8 7 1 11 9 7 13 5 0 4 7 136
REJEC 30 36 38 9 42 47 47 41 38 35 41 49 780
TIONS

Fig : 2 Pareto – Analysis before application of SPC

NOTATIONS :-
A. OUTER DIAMETER UNDER SIZE.
B. INNER DIAMETER OVER SIZE.
C. OUTER DIAMETER/COLLAR DIAMETER TOOL MARK.
D. COLLAR WIDTH UNDER SIZE.
E. INNER DIAMETER VIBRATIONS.
F. COLLAR/WHEEL TOOL MARK.
G. UNDER CUT SIZE DIAMETER UNDER SIZE.
H. DAMAGE.
I. CRACK.
J. COLLAR DIAMETER UNDER SIZE.
K. OLD MARK.
L. TOTAL LENGTH UNDER SIZE.
M. INNER DIAMETER TOOL MARK.

Table : 4 Outer diameter before SPC

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (X) Range (R)
1 129.41 129.476 129.445 129.45 129.43 129.442 0.066
2 129.425 129.445 129.44 129.45 129.452 129.442 0.027
3 129.385 129.42 129.38 129.4 129.399 129.399 0.04
4 129.442 129.432 129.452 129.436 129.435 129.44 0.017
5 129.435 129.436 129.451 129.438 129.442 129.441 0.016
6 129.38 129.395 129.4 129.421 129.398 129.398 0.041
7 129.382 129.376 129.395 129.4 129.402 129.391 0.026
TOTAL 129.421 0.033
FOR X̅ - CHART FOR R - CHART
MEAN (x̿) = 129.421 MEAN (R̅) = 0.033
UCL = 129.44 UCL = 0.0698
LCL = 129.401 LCL = 0.00

361 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

Fig : 3 X̅ - chart (outer diameter)

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05
RANGE

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SAMPLE NUMBER

Fig : 4 R – chart (outer diameter)

Table : 5 Inner diameter (before SPC)
Sl. no 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (X̅) Range (R)
1 123.876 123.889 123.873 123.862 123.87 123.877 0.019
2 123.863 123.874 123.869 123.856 123.871 123.867 0.018
3 123.831 123.825 123.815 123.838 123.83 123.829 0.023
4 123.871 123.869 123.856 123.874 123.863 123.867 0.018
5 123.862 123.873 123.869 123.826 123.83 123.852 0.047
6 123.838 123.83 123.815 123.825 123.831 123.829 0.023
7 123.856 123.867 123.883 123.88 123.869 123.871 0.027
TOTAL 123.856 0.025

FOR (X̅) – CHART FOR R - CHART

MEAN (X̿) = 123.856 RANGE (R̅) = 0.025
UCL = 123.869 UCL = 0.0528

362 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

LCL = 123.84 LCL = 0.0

Fig : 5 X̅ - chart (inner diameter)

Fig : 6 R – chart (inner diameter)

Table : 6 Total collar width (before SPC)

Sl. no 1 2 3 4 5 MEAN (X̅) RANGE
(R)
1 5.95 6.1 5.94 5.9 5.98 5.974 0.2
2 6.1 5.98 5.95 5.94 5.98 5.97 0.2
3 5.98 5.9 6.05 5.94 5.99 5.96 0.15
4 5.9 5.95 5.935 5.92 6.05 5.95 0.13
5 5.94 5.95 5.87 5.85 5.87 5.9 0.1
6 5.84 5.89 5.84 5.85 5.84 5.85 0.05
7 5.95 5.93 5.9 8.92 5.9 5.95 0.113
TOTAL 5.936 0.118
FOR X̅ - CHART FOR R - CHART
MEAN (X̿) = 5.936 MEAN (R̅) = 0.118
UCL = 5.86 UCL = 0.2494
LCL =6 LCL = 0.0

363 | P a g e
 Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

Fig : 7 X̅ - chart (total collar width)

Fig : 8 R - chart (total collar width)

Table : 7 Rejection trends after SPC

DATE PRODUCED PASSED REJECTED % OF MATERIAL PROCESS
QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY REJECTIONS REJECTIONS REJECTIONS
02-JAN-13 872 826 46 5.2 29 17
03-JAN-13 950 912 38 4 25 13
04-JAN-13 872 832 40 4.5 25 15
05-JAN-13 896 857 39 4.3 11 28
06-JAN-13 985 913 72 7.3 48 24
07-JAN-13 898 846 52 5.7 3 49
01-FEB-13 870 822 48 5.5 26 22
02-FEB-13 735 704 34 4.2 14 17

364 | P a g e
 Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

03-FEB-13 920 909 11 1.1 9 2

04-FEB-13 885 843 42 4.7 12 30
05-FEB-13 980 935 45 4.5 33 12
06-FEB-13 1005 937 68 6.7 29 39
07-FEB-13 995 941 54 5.4 41 13
08-FEB-13 856 831 25 2.9 13 12
09-FEB-13 876 817 59 6.7 33 26
10-FEB-13 920 874 46 5 29 18
12-FEB-13 930 892 38 4 26 12
13-FEB-13 849 820 29 3.4 25 4
15-FEB-13 515 495 20 3.8 13 7
16-FEB-13 857 820 37 4.3 9 28
18- FEB-13 900 845 55 6.1 30 25
19- FEB-13 883 857 26 2.9 3 23
20- FEB-13 745 717 28 3.7 26 2
22- FEB-13 424 412 12 2.8 3 9
23- FEB-13 742 694 48 6.4 10 38
TOTAL 21360 20351 1009 4.604 525 485

Table : 8 P - chart (after SPC)

Sl.no PRODUCED REJECTED PROPORTION UCL LCL
QUANTITY QUANTITY OF
REJECTIONS
1 872 46 0.052 0.074 0.029
2 950 38 0.04 0.074 0
3 872 40 0.045 0.066 0.023
4 896 39 0.065 0.063 0.023
5 985 72 0.062 0.097 0.048
6 898 52 0.055 0.08 0.033
7 870 48 0.042 0.078 0.032
8 735 31 0.025 0.064 0.019
9 920 11 0.047 0.021 0
10 885 42 0.045 0.068 0.031
11 980 45 0.066 0.065 0.025
12 1005 68 0.054 0.09 0.043
13 995 54 0.029 0.075 0.032
14 856 25 0.065 0.046 0.011
15 876 59 0.05 0.092 0.041
16 920 46 0.04 0.071 0.028
17 930 38 0.034 0.059 0.02
18 849 29 0.038 0.053 0.015
19 515 20 0.043 0.063 0.012
20 857 37 0.061 0.063 0.022
21 900 55 0.026 0.085 0.037
22 883 26 0.037 0.046 0.012
23 745 28 0.029 0.057 0.016
24 424 12 0.064 0.052 0
25 742 48 0.043 0.09 0.037
TOTAL 21360 1009 0.04628 0.06708 0.02356

Table : 9 Rejections in machining section (after SPC)

Sl.no TOTAL OD ID ID DIE COLLAR CRACK
DEFECTS UNDERSIZE OVERSIZE MARK DIA- TOOL
MARK
1 17 3 4 5 3 2
2 13 2 1 1 4 5
3 15 3 2 4 3 3

365 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

4 28 9 15 2 1 1
5 24 0 8 14 1 2
6 49 0 25 8 14 2
7 22 9 12 0 0 1
8 17 6 7 0 3 1
9 2 0 0 0 1 1
10 30 2 8 2 16 2
11 12 4 0 6 0 2
12 39 5 22 6 2 4
13 13 1 3 2 4 3
14 12 0 6 4 2 0
15 26 4 10 5 3 4
16 18 6 4 5 0 3
17 12 2 0 7 3 0
18 4 0 1 1 0 2
19 7 3 1 0 1 2
20 28 1 3 2 17 5
21 25 2 7 3 9 4
22 23 0 14 3 1 4
23 2 0 0 1 0 1
24 9 1 2 5 0 1
25 38 0 3 22 5 2
TOTAL 357 57 145 100 93 55

Fig : 9 P – Chart (After SPC)

TYPE OF DEFECTS NO OF UNITS REJECTED NO OF UNITS REJECTED

BEFORE SPC AFTER SPC
A 74 57
B 213 145
C 136 100
M 69 55

Table : 10 Comparative Analysis

366 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

Fig : 10 Comparison of rejection trends

NOTATIONS:-
A – OUTER DIAMETER UNDER SIZE
B - INNER DIAMETER OVER SIZE
C – OUTER DIAMETER TOOL MARK
M – INNER DIAMETER TOOL MARK
are out of control. X̅ - chart and R – chart are drawn
V. Results & Discussions as shown in figures . it needs further development to
5.1. STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL :- stabilize the process by eliminating the causes of
The objective of SPC is to obtain a reliable variations, they are
and unbiased picture of how the process is  Lack of periodic training to the employees
performing to get the required quality of products.  Deviations from specifications
The success of the objective naturally based on  Shift generation and alteration of working
reliable and unbiased data collected. Hence prior to hours
SPC study, careful plans for data collection,
effectiveness of operational personnel and well 5.4. BRINGING THE CHARACTERISTICS
maintained, calibrated measuring equipment are UNDER CONTROL :-
necessary. By measuring and comparing the characteristics
of final product generated at each section with a
5.2. BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF SPC standard one, if it is fond inferior, the characteristic
The data collected regarding the number of is not under control. The parameters, which effect
castings produced and number of casting rejected the characteristics of final products, are controlled to
because of casting defects and machining defects. obtain the required characteristics.
P – Chart was drawn using the data shown.
It shows that some sample points are not close to 5.5. AFTER THE APPICATON OF SPC :-
process average P̅ , there is tolerance , but only the Again the data is collected regarding the
aim of zero defect (or) 100% acceptable items. The number of castings produced and number of casings
simplistic measure of capability can hence be rejected because of casting defects and machining
provided by the relevant mean value P̅ . defects.
The capability P̅ = 0.0652 P – chart was drawn as shown using the data as
= 6.52 % shown in table. It shows that some sample points are
5.3. DURING THE APPLICATION OF SPC close to process average, P̅
The data was collected regarding the The capability P̅ = 0.0462
parameters such as weight , mould temperature , = 4.62 %
outer diameter, inner diameter and total collar width.
The above , reveals that some of the sample points VI. CONCLUSION

367 | P a g e
Sri. T.V.S. Raghavendra, B.Manideep, R. Prem Sai, Y. Adi Siva Kishore Reddy / International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) ISSN: 2248-9622
www.ijera.com Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp. 357-368

It is concluded that process capabilities are [13] Hairulliza, M. J., Hazura, M. & Erna, B.N.
improved by decreasing the rejection rate from (2005). Aplikasi Carta Kawalan Dalam
6.52% (Before implementation of SPC) to 4.62% Industri Produk Minuman, Seminar
(after Implementation of SPC). A pareto analysis for Kebangsaan Komputeran Industri IComp
comparative results reveals that there exists 2005, Putrajaya, 24 September 2005, pp.
reduction in wastage of units produced. 43-47.
[14] Hanida, A. S., Norazlin, K., Noraidah S.A.,
References Hairulliza, M.J. (2009). Statistical Process
[1] D. Raheja, . Assurance Technologies: Control in Plastic Packaging
Principles and Practices ., McGraw Hill, Manufacturing: A Case Study, 2009
Inc., 1991.1 International Conference on Electrical
[2] FARNUM, N.R., Modern Statistical Engineering and Informatics, 5-7 August
Quality Control and Improvement, 2009, Selangor, Malaysia, 199-203.
Duxbury Press, Belmont, California, p.500, [15] Mahanti, R. & Antony, J. (2005).
1994. Confluence of six sigma, simulation and
[3] Freeman, J, G. Mintzas. 1999. Simulating software development. Managerial
c and u Control Schemes. The TQM Auditing Journal, 20(&), pp. 739-762.
Magazine. 11(4): 242–247. [16] Mason, B. & Antony, J. (2000). Statistical
[4] Gronroos, C. (1983) ‘Strategic process control: an essential ingredient for
management and marketing in the service improving service and manufacturing
sector’, Report No. 83-104, Marketing quality. Managing Service Quality, 10(4),
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. pp. 233-238.
[5] Hwang, C.L. and Lin, M.J. (1987) Group [17] Mohd Nizam A.R., Rosmaizura Jaharah
Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: A.G., Zulkifli M.N., Ahmad R.I. & Suriani
Methods and Applications, Berlin: A.R.. (2009a). Barriers to Implementing an
Springer-Verlag. Online SPC System in Malaysian
[6] Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is Total Quality Automotive mManufacturing
Control. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliff, Companies. European Journal of Scientific
N.J. Research, 30(2), pp.315- 325.
[7] J. Heizer and B. Render, .Operations [18] Mohd Nizam A.R., Rosmaizura M.Z.,
Management, 6th Ed., Prentice Hall, 2001. Zulkifli M.N., Jaharah A.G., Baba, M.D.,
[8] lassen, K.J., Russell, R.M. and Chrisman, Nurhamidi M. & Ahmad R.I. (2009b). The
J.J. (1998) ‘Efficiency and productivity Implementation of SPC in Malaysian
measures for high contact services’, The Manufacturing Companies. European
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18, pp.1– Journal of Scientific Research, 26(3),
[9] Chung, W.W.C., K.C.M. Wong & Soon, pp.453-464.
P.T.K. (2007). An ANN-based DSS system [19] Montgomery, D.C. (2005). Introduction to
for quality assurance in production Statistical Quality Control (5th edition).
network. Journal of Manufacturing John Wiley, New York. Motorcu, A. R. &
Technology Management.18(7), pp. 836- Gullu, A.K. (2004). Statistical process
857. control in machining, a case studdyfor
[10] Ahmed, S. & Hassan, M. (2003). Survey machine tool capability and process
and case investigations on application of capability. Materials and Design, 27, pp.
quality management tools and techniques 364- 372.
in SMIs. International Journal of Quality [20] Oakland, J.S. (2003). Statistical Process
& Reliability Management, 20(7), pp. 795- Control, 5th ed., Oxford: Butterworth-
826. Heinemann. Putri, N.T. & Yusof, S. M.
[11] Hairulliza, M. J., Noraidah, S.A. & Teoh, (2008). Critical success factors for
K.F. (2010). The Design for Real-Time implementing quality engineering in
Paper Perforation Quality Control. Lecture Malaysian’s and Indonesian’s automotive
Notes in Engineering and Computer industries: a proposed model. International
Science. IMECS 2010, 3, pp 1849-1851 Journal of Automotive Industry and
[12] Hairulliza, M. J., & Teoh, K.F. (2007). Management, 2(2), pp 1 – 16, 2008
Output Confirmation Test System for [21] Putri, N.T. & Yusof, S.M. (2009). Critical
Cigarette Paper Perforation Success Factors for Implementing
Quality Measurement, The 5th QualityEngineering Tools and Techniques
International Conference on Quality and in Malaysian’s and Indonesian’s
Reliability, Nov 5-7, Chiang Mai, Automotive
Thailand, pp. 288-292.

368 | P a g e