Total Quality Management Project Report

On

ENHANCING QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY IN GLASS MANUFACTURING: APPLYING SIX

SIGMA THROUGH QUALITY CONTROL CHART AND STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL IN
THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Submitted by

SL No. Course Group No. Enrolment Number Name TQM Section

1 MBA 4 220004 Abhirup Saha 2
2 MBA 4 220038 Sanu Mahanta 2
3 MBA 4 220164 Sayan Mazumder 2
4 MBA 4 220026 Nishant Kumar Singh 2
5 MBA 4 220017 Divyansh Saraswat 2

Of

BML Munjal University (Master of Business Administration (MBA) 2022-2024)

Date: 29th January 2024

Under the guidance of,

Dr Mashkur Zafar
Consultant and Visiting Faculty
School of Management
(BML Munjal University)
Consultant Data Analytics
(Analyttica Datalab Inc)
Industry Expert
(25+ years of Experience in Quality Excellence)
ENHANCING QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY IN GLASS MANUFACTURING:
APPLYING SIX SIGMA THROUGH QUALITY CONTROL CHART AND
STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Abhirup Saha1, Sanu Mahanta2, Nishant Kumar Singh3

Sayan Mazumder4, Divyansh Saraswat5

BML Munjal University, Sidhrawali, Gurgaon district, 67th Milestone, NH 48, Kapriwas,
Haryana 122413

1. Abstract:

Purpose: Enhancing Quality and Productivity in Glass Manufacturing: Applying Six Sigma through
Quality Control Chart and Statistical Process Control in the Manufacturing Process.

Methodology: The Six Sigma DMAIC methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) is
employed to minimize defects and variations in the glass manufacturing process. This systematic approach
relies on data and insights-driven analysis to identify and address issues and root causes within the industry.
By focusing on key stages such as Pre-processing, defects, and the bending and layup processes, the
methodology aims to reduce defects through a thorough examination of potential problems and the
implementation of targeted improvement strategies.

Findings: This research describes the Six Sigma methodology in the glass manufacturing industry of the
Indian Automotive sector. The roll throughput yield of the windshield of the car was achieved from 85.6%
to approx. 96% resulting in saving a huge amount due to no repairing and rework in the manufacturing
sector automotive glass industry. The process improvement overall reduces defects and variation and
improves profitability and customer satisfaction.

Research Limitations/Implications: This research applies to the glass manufacturing industry, its principles
can also find utility in various other sectors such as service industries, manufacturing, and beyond.

Practical Implications: The case study serves as a problem-solving methodology applicable to both
manufacturing and service industries. The tools and techniques presented in the study can be adapted for

Page 1 of 50 A TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PAPER

use in diverse manufacturing processes. This paper proves valuable for industries, researchers, and
academics seeking insights into the practical implementation of the Six Sigma methodology.

Originality and Value: This case represents an effort to address challenges in automobile glass
manufacturing using the DMAIC approach. The paper is a real case study showing the benefits of Six Sigma
implementation in the manufacturing industry and saving a huge amount due to rejection in the process.

Keywords: Six Sigma, DMAIC, Process improvement, Glass manufacturing, Quality Control Charts,
Design of experiments, Lean management, Defects.

Paper Type: Research paper

2. Introduction:

In the current milieu of hyper-competitive markets and ever-increasing consumer expectations,

organizations worldwide face an imperative to not only meet but exceed the demands of their clientele. This
drive for excellence (Antony et al., 2017; Gijo et al., 2019) is particularly pronounced in industries with
high stakes, such as automotive glass manufacturing. As organizations aspire to claim a premier position in
the fiercely contested Asian market, the need for sustained product quality, profitability, and market
competitiveness becomes paramount. The automotive glass industry in Asia faces intense competition and
escalating customer demands, necessitating a relentless pursuit of product quality (Swarnakar & Vinodh,
2016) and operational excellence (Antony et al., 2017; Gijo et al., 2019) for organizations aspiring to claim
a significant market share. Quality defects within manufacturing processes not only result in tangible losses
of materials, time, and energy but also trigger a chain reaction of rework and additional costs (Narottam et
al., 2019; Snee, 2010), as observed by Dennis (2002). These adverse effects have far-reaching implications,
impacting the operational performance of an organization and, critically, leading to the erosion of customer
satisfaction and trust, as highlighted by Jugulum and Samuel (2008). In response to these challenges, the
last two decades have witnessed the ascendancy of Six Sigma as a transformative force in the improvement
of managing the quality and as well as process (Forrester et al., 2010). Originating on the year of 1980,
Six Sigma's principles and methodologies have gained widespread adoption across diverse industry sectors
(initiated by Motorola), becoming a strategic commitment to enhancing organizational performance,
particularly in Fortune 500 companies (Goh, 2002).

The financial success of Six Sigma is illustrated by Motorola's accomplishment of achieving $16 billion in
savings from 1986 to 2001, highlighting the effectiveness of the methodology in bringing about significant
performance improvements (Chiarini, 2014). Motorola's achievements were further recognized with the
prestigious Malcolm Baldrige recognition (Eckes, 2001; Hendricks & Kelbaugh, 1998). Other industry
Page 2 of 50
leaders, including General Electric, and Honeywell, have also mentioned noteworthy operational excellence
attributed to the acceptance of Six Sigma methodologies (Brue & Howes, 2006). Beyond enhancing
processes, it is acknowledged that Six-Sigma is a comprehensive philosophy in strategy as well as in
management that facilitates cost reductions and serves as a versatile methodology for problem-solving and
improvement (Brue & Howes, 2006).

The Lean Six Sigma (LSS) variant of Six Sigma proves particularly effective, delivering benefits such as
defect elimination (Narottam et al., 2019; Bon & Rahman, 2009; Shandilya, 2016), cost reduction, cycle
time improvement, and increased customer satisfaction (Pyzdek and Keller, 2010; Bailey et al., 2001). With
its multifaceted advantages and widespread adoption across various industries, exploring the application of
Six Sigma in minimizing defects in the glass manufacturing sector emerges as a compelling avenue for
investigation.

This study aims to investigate the application of Six Sigma principles in the automobile glass manufacturing
sector, focusing on a company in India that produces coated windshields, back and side-door glasses for
various vehicles. Utilizing Lean Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)
methodologies, the research intends to define the problem statement and systematically identify and
eliminate issues within the white goods industry (Bhat et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2011; Sordan et al.,
2020; Goh, 2002). The expected outcomes of this study encompass practical recommendations,
implementation strategies, and a framework for automobile glass manufacturers to successfully integrate
Lean Six Sigma methodologies into their operations. This integration aims to enhance product quality
(Timans et al., 2012), operational efficiency (Tikare & Prabhushankar, 2019), cost-effectiveness (Sachin
& Dileeplal, 2017), and environmental sustainability, ensuring competitiveness in a rapidly evolving
market. The research strives to provide nuanced insights in the field of quality management, offering both
academic contributions and actionable strategies for industry stakeholders seeking to optimize their
operations in the challenging domain of glass manufacturing.

3. Literature Review:

In the relentless pursuit of operational excellence, organizations across industries have turned to Six Sigma
as a powerful methodology for process improvement. According to Hassan (2019), The underlying
principle is clear: Six Sigma influences profitability by systematically reducing waste, variability, and
defects from processes (Jeyaraman & Teo, 2010; Yadav et al., 2017; Swarnakar & Vinodh, 2016). This
structured approach is encapsulated in the DMAIC methodology, recognized as a scientific problem-solving

Page 3 of 50
method, emphasizing the importance of validating and identifying the root cause of issues (Prashar, 2014;
Wilson & George, 2004; Goldsby & Martichenko, 2005; Andersson et al., 2006).

An illustrative demonstration of the transformative impact of Six Sigma is evident in a case study conducted
by Lee-Mortimer (2007) within a CNC machine tool and CMM manufacturing company in the UK and
Ireland. The implementation of Six Sigma resulted in a significant reduction in scrap rates and rework costs,
decreasing the value by £700 per month. Remarkably, the improvements in performance of delivery,
reaching 95%, led to an annual savings conversion of £60,000. This case study highlights Six Sigma's
capacity to generate tangible financial benefits while concurrently enhancing operational efficiency.

Wilson & George (2004) emphasized the efficacy of DMAIC, a pivotal component of Six Sigma, in the
manufacturing industry. Chaurasia et al. (2019) reported a 21.21% improvement in first-time yield and a
reduction in scrap creation to approx. 10.80% over 12 months.

Adikorley et al. (2017) delved into the implementation of Six Sigma in the textile industry, where 70% of
the staff underwent Six Sigma training, resulting in three completed projects. While acknowledging the
specificity of the findings to the textile sector, the study illuminated the potential for Six Sigma to be applied
to similar processes.

Holtz and Campbell (2003) added nuance to the discourse by applying Six Sigma in maintenance activities
and facility management services at Ford Motor Company. According to Gijo and Scaria (2013), the
integration of Six Sigma principles into daily work and projects, with a substantial part of the organization
completing green belt training, resulted in substantial annual savings. The case illustrated that Six Sigma is
not merely a tool but a powerful process improvement methodology leveraging data for effective problem-
solving.

Banuelas et al. (2005) explored Six Sigma's application in waste reduction in a coating process, achieving
significant financial benefits within a six-month period. Furthermore, the study highlighted the ancillary
benefits of increased employee participation in Six Sigma projects and the development of process
knowledge and statistical thinking to solve problems. In the context of small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), Kaushik et al. (2012) applied Six Sigma in a bicycle chain manufacturing unit in India, showcasing
substantial improvements despite challenges related to the scarcity of trained personnel for Six Sigma
project execution.

Bhat et al. (2020) emphasize the need for robust frameworks for the implementation of Six Sigma,
addressing parameters such as tools, performance measures, and critical success factors. Top management's
commitment and leadership consistently emerge as critical constructs in these frameworks.

Page 4 of 50
The success of Lean Six Sigma lies in its ability to integrate statistical and non-statistical tools
systematically within the LSS DMAIC framework (Maneesh Kumar, 2007; Kumar et al., 2011). For
manufacturing firms, the primary objective is to reduce defects and ongoing costs, making LSS increasingly
relevant for minimizing maintenance and production expenses. Lean Six Sigma has become instrumental
in the industry's pursuit of ongoing organizational improvement, targeting the identification and elimination
of errors, flaws, and delays in business processes. As a holistic approach, LSS maximizes overall value
while minimizing production costs through the application of tools and techniques such as Value Stream
Mapping (VSM), Just-in-Time (JIT), 5S, Kaizen, and Kanban. LSS implementation in organizations is
recognized for enhancing process capability and efficiency, and reducing defects and waste, aligning with
the overarching goals of quality improvement and efficiency.

Many manufacturing industries operate their business processes at a 2 or 3-sigma level, as discussed by
Spanyi and Wurtzel (2003) and Gutierrez et al. (2004). A single sigma improvement is a significant step
toward cost reduction and increased customer satisfaction. Sustainability matters in the manufacturing
industry, as sustainable manufacturing reduces negative effects on the environment, human health, and
safety while helping businesses save money and become more competitive.

Snee and Hoerl (2003) discuss the evolving awareness among small companies that barriers to Lean Six
Sigma implementation are more related to the methodology's design and structure than the size of the
organization. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are gradually recognizing that the successful
deployment of Lean Six Sigma is not contingent on the scale of the business but on the strategic approach
to its implementation. SMEs are essential components of any developed economy, serving as the foundation
for economic growth. To thrive in the competitive landscape, SMEs must embrace advanced business
techniques like Lean Six Sigma, as these methodologies have the potential to significantly enhance their
financial performance, foster cultural change, and contribute to the overall prosperity of the manufacturing
industry.

In the manufacturing landscape of India, where various process improvement methodologies are employed,
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) has gained prominence for its effectiveness. Combining the principles of lean
manufacturing (Sordan et al., 2020) and Six Sigma (Alexander et al., 2019), According to Fargani et al.
(2016), LSS presents a comprehensive approach to optimize processes in manufacturing industries. As
organizations strive for operational excellence, the literature suggests that Six Sigma, with its proven
methodologies and structured problem-solving approaches (Bhat et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2011; Sordan
et al., 2020; Goh, 2002), continues to play a pivotal role in driving improvements, reducing waste, and
enhancing overall efficiency (Bon & Rahman, 2009; Shandilya, 2016). This study represents the inaugural

Page 5 of 50
endeavour to implement Six Sigma methodologies within an Indian automobile glass manufacturing
company. Given the nature of glass processing, which precludes rework and allows only recycling, the
imperative lies in minimizing defects within the production process. Automobile glass holds significant
importance as a critical component of vehicles, and its processing poses challenges due to the intricate
shapes and stringent requirements for optical quality.

4. Background of the Research Paper:

The subject case study aims to increase the yield of the lowest model production laminated glass in
automobile parts in an Indian manufacturing company. The laminated glass used as a front windshield in
both passenger and commercial vehicles is an advanced composite structure comprising two pieces of glass
laminated together with PVB. The forming of a single homogenous glass is done by this bonding process
at a controlled temperature of T and pressure of P. The merging has a significant safety function in that in
case of an accident or breakage the glass does not splinter into blunt edges safeguarding automotive users.
The laminated glass manufacturing process involves five key stages: processing (cutting), printing, bending
premolding with final inspection.

In the case of discussion, we focus on increasing laminated glass's lowest model production yield in a
company producing automobile components that operates within India. Laminated Glass used as the front
windshield in both passenger and commercial vehicles is a higher-end composite construction consisting
of two glass sheets adhered with PVB. This bonding process is conducted at a controlled temperature of T
and pressure P to produce one single and homogenous glass. The safety role of the integration is also
significant – in case of an accident or breakage, glass does not fall into sharp edges and protects vehicle
users. The laminated glass manufacturing process involves five key stages: Preprocessing (cutting),
printing, bending, and layup autoclaving with the last inspection.

6.1. Laminated Glass Manufacturing Process Sequence:

It is time to consider the ins and outs of every stage involved in laminated glass manufacturing
(Figure 1).

Pre-process: In the Pre-processing stage, raw glass sheets arrive externally based on specific
dimension parameters. These sheets are subsequently cut and ground to the required shape. For
instance, the outer and inner glass is 1 mm wider than core size. In this stage, the critical accuracy of
precision is a prerequisite for subsequent processes.

Page 6 of 50
Printing: After Pre-processing, the inner glass is printed which uses black ceramic ink. This ink has
two functions, it makes the glass more attractive visually and acts as a protective barrier for sealant
applied to place one fragment of glass on a car's body part by UV rays. This stage is essential in
guaranteeing the longevity and efficiency of laminated glass.

Bending: Along the production line, interleaving powder matches up with inner & outer glasses that
are then bent inside a furnace. The furnace process is also important as the temperature increases from
normal temperature to approx. six hundred and twenty degrees centigrade, gradually. The effect of
this constant slow temperature increases plus the shape of the Mold forces glassblowing to take that
perfect curve. This stage influences both the structural integrity and optical clarity of laminated glass
in terms of precision and uniformity.

Layup: After bending, the curved glass undergoes de-pairing and an extensive final cleaning process.
This layer is essential for the homogeneous constitution of laminated glass. In PVB insertion, sight
and clarity are essential to produce a final product over safety standards. The fourth stage must be
addressed with the utmost care, so that no imperfections or inconsistencies are introduced in the
laminated glass.

Autoclave and Inspection: The latter are autoclaving and inspection. The glass is de-aired by heating
it in a pressured atmosphere, thus preserving the visual integrity of components while ensuring proper
adhesion. Brutal inspection follows, when laminated glass is inspected for defects. According to need
some child parts are fitted after inspection and then those sent to the vehicle manufacturer.

Laminated glass manufacturing is a set of significant stages which cannot be avoided due to the need
for compliance with safety and quality standards. Failure of any one stage could significantly affect
the final product yield thereby reduced yield and death. The application of Six Sigma principles
alongside Quality Control Charts and Statistical Process control to observe every stage in the
procedure will not only dramatically increase laminated glass quality, but it also ensures further
efficiency by minimizing defect output. This research paper seeks to focus on the application of these
methodologies in laminated glass manufacturing and how they may be used not only for improving
quality but also productivity.

Page 7 of 50
 Figure 1:Process Flow Diagram of Laminated Glass Manufacturing

5. Data Collection:

Overcome these difficulties, the integration of Six Sigma principles and Statistical Process Control (SPC)
is crucial. Six Sigma is a disciplined approach that helps in process improvement by making fact-backed
decisions and reducing variability. SPC complements Six Sigma in in that it allows actual time monitoring
and control of manufacturing processes. Six Sigma methodology includes tools and techniques for data
analysis as well as representation. At the forefront of automotive innovation, our research focuses on a
distinguished company specializing in the manufacturing of high-quality headlights. This company, a key
player in the automotive lighting industry, boasts a reputation for delivering innovative lighting solutions
to various automobile manufacturers. Renowned for its commitment to excellence and innovation, the
company continuously seeks ways to improve the quality and efficiency of its manufacturing processes.

Data Collection and Scope: To conduct a thorough analysis, a comprehensive dataset spanning two months,
from November 1, 2023, to December 30, 2023, was collected. The data is meticulously organized within
an MS Excel workbook, featuring individual sheets for six distinct car models. This approach allows for a
granular examination of manufacturing intricacies, enabling targeted improvements in each production
scenario.

Shift: The "Shift" column serves as a temporal differentiator, categorizing production data into two primary
shifts - "Shift A" and "Shift B." This distinction provides valuable insights into variations in production
dynamics during different time periods.

Page 8 of 50
Input: The "Input" column quantifies the raw materials processed for each car model during a specific shift.
The intricacies of this column reveal the specific input requirements for each car model:

TA-Pu: 800 units per shift

HY-Cr: 600 units per shift

HY-Alzr: 85 units per shift

MS-SPre: 100 units per shift

MS-Wa: 300 units per shift

MS-Br: 500 units per shift

Processes Overview: The manufacturing process unfolds across five pivotal stages, each contributing
uniquely to the final product:

Process 1: Preprocess (Cutting)

Process 2: Printing

Process 3: Bending

Process 4: Layup

Process 5: Autoclaving and Final Inspection

Sub-columns for Each Process: Each major process is dissected into four critical sub-columns, offering
nuanced insights into the production landscape:

Acceptable Units: This sub-column quantifies the number of units that meet the predefined quality
standards during the cutting phase. It provides a crucial measure of the initial quality of the raw materials
and the precision of the cutting process.

Rework: The number of units identified as requiring additional work post-cutting to meet quality standards.
This sub-column reflects the efficiency of the cutting process and the need for corrective actions.

Defectives PPM (Parts Per Million): This metric calculates the frequency of defective units per million
produced during the cutting process. A lower PPM indicates a higher level of quality control in this critical
stage.

Throughput Yield: Representing the proportion of defect-free units produced during cutting, this sub-
column offers insights into the efficiency of the cutting process in generating high-quality components.

Page 9 of 50
The Rolled Throughput Yield column encapsulates the overarching efficiency of the entire production
workflow. It considers the cumulative impact of each process on the final product quality, providing a
holistic view of manufacturing performance.

Significance of Six Sigma and Statistical Process Control (SPC): This research endeavours to explore the
strategic implementation of Six Sigma methodologies, Quality Control Charts, and Statistical Process
Control (SPC) within the manufacturing ecosystem. By employing these advanced tools, the company seeks
to identify areas for enhancement, systematically reduce defects, and elevate overall productivity. The
integration of Six Sigma principles represents a commitment to a data-driven approach, ensuring that the
headlights manufactured meet and surpass the stringent quality standards set by the automotive industry.

Subsequent Sections: The following sections of the research paper will meticulously delve into the
intricacies of each manufacturing process. Through detailed analysis of the collected data, the paper aims
to propose targeted strategies for continuous improvement, aligning with the overarching goal of optimizing
the quality and efficiency of automotive headlight manufacturing.

Defect Analysis and Aggregated Results: Having dissected each manufacturing process and its respective
sub-columns, we now proceed to a detailed defect analysis. The total defectives for each car model, as well
as the summation of defects across all processes, provide a comprehensive view of the quality landscape.

Defectives Analysis for Each Car Model: For each car model, defectives have been meticulously calculated
by summing the defects across all processes. This detailed breakdown allows for a granular understanding
of where quality issues may be concentrated within the production of specific car models. Such focused
insights provide invaluable guidance for targeted improvement initiatives.

Total Defectives Summation for Each Process: Furthermore, the defects identified in each process have
been aggregated to unveil the cumulative impact of individual stages on the overall defect rate. This holistic
approach enables a thorough assessment of the production pipeline, identifying critical junctures that
demand focused attention for process refinement.

Defectives Summation for Each Process:

Process 1: Preprocess (Cutting): Sum of defects across all car models during the cutting stage.

Process 2: Printing: Total defects observed in the printing process for all car models.

Process 3: Bending: Aggregated defects stemming from the bending process across all car models.

Process 4: Layup: Total defects encountered during the layup process for all car models.

Page 10 of 50
Process 5: Autoclaving and Final Inspection: The sum of defects identified during the autoclaving and final
inspection stages.

Insights and Actionable Strategies: The detailed defect analysis not only highlights areas of improvement
within specific car models but also identifies processes that warrant targeted interventions. Armed with this
information, the company can strategically allocate resources and implement Six Sigma-driven
methodologies to address specific pain points in the production pipeline.

Continuous Improvement Initiatives: Armed with a comprehensive understanding of defects across car
models and individual processes, the company can embark on a journey of continuous improvement. Six
Sigma principles, coupled with Statistical Process Control (SPC), will be applied to systematically reduce
defects, enhance process efficiency, and elevate overall quality.

Future Directions: The aggregated defect data serves as a roadmap for future quality enhancement
initiatives. By prioritizing interventions based on the impact of defects on specific car models and processes,
the company can implement targeted strategies for sustainable improvements.

Defect Count Analysis for Each Car Model: The defect count for each car model has been meticulously
calculated, offering a detailed breakdown of the number of defects identified within individual models. This
specific analysis provides a nuanced perspective on the unique challenges associated with each car model's
production, allowing for tailored improvement strategies.

Defect Count by Car Model:

TA-Pu: The total number of defects identified in the TA-Pu car model across all processes.

HY-Cr: The aggregated count of defects in the HY-Cr car model throughout the production stages.

HY-Alzr: Defect count specific to the HY-Alzr car model, encompassing all manufacturing processes.

MS-SPre: Total defects calculated for the MS-SPre car model across all production phases.

MS-Wa: The count of defects attributed to the MS-Wa car model, considering all relevant manufacturing
processes.

MS-Br: Aggregated defect count for the MS-Br car model, spanning the entire production pipeline.

6. Research Methodology:

The research focuses on augmenting quality and productivity in glass manufacturing through the
application of Six Sigma principles, specifically utilizing Quality Control Charts and Statistical Process

Page 11 of 50
Control (SPC) within the manufacturing process. This methodology outlines the systematic approach
adopted for the study, encompassing Design of Experiments (DOE), DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve, Control) framework, tools and software utilization, problem-solving programs, statistical
examination for Lean Six Sigma, cause-and-effect analysis, and ethical considerations.

6.1. Design of Experiments (DOE) and DMAIC Framework:

Design of Experiments (DOE) stands as a pivotal methodology in the realm of process improvement,
particularly within the context of glass manufacturing. It encompasses a systematic and strategic
approach aimed at altering input variables deliberately to gauge their subsequent impact on the output.
In the context of glass manufacturing, this could entail manipulating factors such as temperature,
pressure, raw material composition, or production line speed to observe their influence on product
quality, defect rates, and overall productivity.

By systematically varying these input variables, researchers can uncover valuable insights into the
manufacturing process, identifying optimal settings that maximize product quality and efficiency
while minimizing defects and waste. DOE thus serves as a powerful tool for experimentation and
optimization, allowing manufacturers to fine-tune their processes for enhanced performance and
competitiveness.

On the other hand, the DMAIC framework (Figure 2) provides a structured roadmap for continuous
improvement within the Six Sigma methodology. DMAIC stands for Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve, and Control, representing a sequential series of steps aimed at driving measurable
improvements in process performance.

In the context of glass manufacturing, the DMAIC framework offers a systematic approach to
addressing quality issues, production inefficiencies, and other process-related challenges.

Define: In this initial phase, the project goals, scope, and key stakeholders are identified, along with
a clear definition of the problem or opportunity for improvement within the manufacturing process.

Measure: The next step involves quantifying and assessing the current state of the process through
relevant metrics, data collection, and analysis. This phase aims to establish a baseline understanding
of process performance and identify key areas for improvement.

Analyze: Building upon the insights gained in the Measure phase, the Analyze phase involves a
deeper investigation into the root causes of process variation, defects, or inefficiencies. Statistical
tools and techniques are often employed to identify potential sources of variation and prioritize
improvement opportunities.

Page 12 of 50
 Improve: Armed with a comprehensive understanding of the underlying issues, the Improve phase
focuses on implementing targeted solutions and process enhancements aimed at addressing identified
root causes. These improvements are rigorously evaluated and validated to ensure their effectiveness
in driving desired outcomes.

Control: The final phase of the DMAIC framework involves establishing robust control mechanisms
to sustain the improvements achieved and prevent regression back to previous states. This includes
implementing monitoring systems, establishing standard operating procedures, and providing
ongoing training and support to ensure continued process stability and performance.

Figure 2: DMAIC framework

Together, DOE and the DMAIC framework provide a structured and systematic approach to process
improvement in glass manufacturing, enabling organizations to drive continuous enhancement in
quality, productivity, and overall operational excellence.

6.2. Tools and Software Utilization:

In the pursuit of enhancing quality and productivity in glass manufacturing, meticulous dataset
analysis is imperative. This analysis is fortified by the utilization of three indispensable software
tools: Microsoft Project, Excel, and Minitab.

Microsoft Project serves as the cornerstone for project management, orchestrating the intricate dance
of research phases with precision. Its versatile features enable the organization, scheduling, and
tracking of each stage of the research journey. From defining project objectives to allocating resources
and setting milestones, Microsoft Project empowers researchers to navigate the complexities of the
study with efficiency and clarity.

Page 13 of 50
 Excel emerges as a vital ally in the preliminary stages of dataset analysis, offering a robust platform
for data organization and cleansing. Its intuitive interface and powerful data manipulation capabilities
allow researchers to sift through vast datasets, identify inconsistencies, and rectify errors. Excel's
array of functions and formulas streamline the process of data cleaning, ensuring that the subsequent
analysis is built upon a solid foundation of accurate and reliable data.

At the heart of the dataset analysis lies Minitab, a statistical software program revered for its prowess
in uncovering insights hidden within data. Minitab's advanced analytical tools empower researchers
to delve deep into the dataset, uncovering patterns, trends, and relationships that might otherwise
remain elusive. From descriptive statistics to regression analysis, Minitab offers a comprehensive
suite of features designed to extract actionable intelligence from raw data. Its intuitive interface and
user-friendly design make it accessible to researchers of all levels, enabling them to derive meaningful
insights and inform data-driven decisions.

Together, Microsoft Project, Excel, and Minitab form a formidable trifecta, equipping researchers
with the tools they need to conduct thorough and rigorous dataset analysis. By harnessing the power
of these software solutions, researchers can unlock the full potential of their data, paving the way for
informed decision-making and transformative improvements in glass manufacturing processes.

6.3. Problem-Solving Programs:

During the intensive data collection phase, individual problem-solving initiatives were strategically
deployed to ensure thorough coverage of the manufacturing process. Each workstation underwent
meticulous scrutiny across shifts, with a focused effort on gathering data pertaining to defective parts.
This dedicated approach resulted in the accumulation of a substantial dataset, providing a
comprehensive foundation for further analysis.

The commitment to acquiring data extended beyond simply identifying defects; additional
deliverables, such as Cp/Cpk computations, were pursued with equal fervor. This demonstrated
dedication underscores an initiative-taking stance towards addressing manufacturing concerns at their
root. By meticulously documenting and analyzing data related to defects and process capabilities,
researchers not only gain a nuanced understanding of current challenges but also pave the way for
targeted interventions and process improvements.

The emphasis on individual problem-solving initiatives during data collection reflects a firsthand
approach to quality improvement. Rather than relying solely on aggregate metrics, this approach
enables researchers to delve into the intricacies of each workstation, identifying specific pain points

Page 14 of 50
 and opportunities for optimization. By harnessing the insights gleaned from intensive data collection,
organizations can devise targeted strategies to enhance productivity, minimize defects, and ultimately
elevate the overall quality of the manufacturing process.

6.4. Statistical Examination for Lean Six Sigma:

Applying Lean Six Sigma principles, the dataset undergoes a thorough statistical examination.
Descriptive analysis, utilizing metrics like mean, median, and mode, defines key process metrics.
Inferential analysis, employing statistical methods such as regression and hypothesis testing, explores
relationships and assesses the impact of novel manufacturing techniques. Process capability analysis
using Cp, Cpk, and Ppk metrics evaluates design specification compliance.

Cause-and-effect Analysis: The study originates from market problems and customer complaints,
serving as a foundation for the Lean Six Sigma project. Cause-and-effect analysis, conducted through
Ishikawa or Fishbone diagrams, untangles the complex network of issues influencing customer
satisfaction. This methodical backtracking procedure establishes cause-and-effect relationships by
identifying the underlying causes of reported flaws and dissatisfaction.

Enhanced Analytical Framework for Glass Manufacturing Process Improvement: In pursuit of

a comprehensive research methodology for enhancing quality and productivity in glass
manufacturing, an expanded analytical framework is devised. This framework incorporates a range
of sophisticated statistical techniques and tools to deepen the understanding of process dynamics and
identify areas for improvement.

Pareto Analysis: Pareto Analysis, named after economist Vilfredo Pareto, is employed to prioritize,
and focus efforts on the most significant factors affecting quality and productivity in glass
manufacturing. By identifying the vital few from the trivial many, Pareto Analysis enables researchers
to allocate resources effectively, targeting key areas for intervention and optimization.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA): ANOVA, a powerful statistical technique, is utilized to analyze the
variance within and between groups of data. In the context of glass manufacturing, ANOVA enables
researchers to discern whether differences in process parameters or conditions significantly impact
product quality and productivity. By dissecting the sources of variation, ANOVA provides valuable
insights into the factors driving process performance and guides decision-making for process
improvement initiatives.

Attribute Agreement Analysis: Attribute Agreement Analysis offers a systematic approach to assess
the consistency and reliability of qualitative data, such as visual inspections or subjective evaluations

Page 15 of 50
of product quality. By quantifying agreement among inspectors or evaluators, this method ensures the
validity of qualitative assessments and enhances the credibility of quality control processes in glass
manufacturing.

Control Charts: Control Charts are graphical tools used in statistical process control (SPC) to
monitor the stability and performance of a process over time. They are essential for quality control in
manufacturing settings, including glass manufacturing, as they provide a visual representation of
process variation and help identify any deviations from desired quality standards.

The primary purpose of control charts is to distinguish between two types of variation: common cause
variation and special cause variation. Common cause variation, also known as random variation, is
inherent to the process and expected to occur naturally. Special cause variation, on the other hand,
results from specific, identifiable factors that are not part of the normal process. These could include
equipment malfunctions, material defects, or operator errors.

Control charts typically consist of a central line representing the process mean and upper and lower
control limits, which are calculated based on the process data. The data points are plotted on the chart
over time, with new data added as the process continues. If the data points fall within the control
limits and show a random pattern, the process is considered stable, indicating that variations are due
to common causes. However, if data points fall outside the control limits or exhibit non-random
patterns, it suggests the presence of special causes of variation. This signals that the process is out of
control and requires investigation and corrective action to address the underlying issues and restore
stability.

Control charts come in distinct types, depending on the nature of the data being monitored. The most
common types include:

1. Individuals or X-Bar Charts: Used to monitor the central tendency (mean) of a process.

2. Range or R-Charts: Monitor the process variability (range) over time.

3. Attribute Charts: Used for monitoring categorical data, such as defect counts or pass/fail outcomes.

In addition to detecting out-of-control conditions, control charts also serve as initiative-taking tools
for process improvement. By analyzing the patterns and trends in the data, researchers can identify
opportunities for optimization and implement preventive measures to maintain process consistency
and product quality. Overall, control charts provide a systematic approach to process monitoring and

Page 16 of 50
 quality assurance, enabling manufacturers to achieve continuous improvement and meet customer
expectations effectively.

6.5. Evaluating Process Capabilities:

Process Capability Analysis, encompassing metrics such as Cp, Cpk, and Ppk, provides a quantitative
assessment of a manufacturing process's ability to meet specified quality requirements. By comparing
process variability to predefined tolerance limits, researchers can gauge the degree to which the
process is capable of consistently producing quality products. This analysis informs decision-making
regarding process optimization and quality assurance strategies.

Incorporating these advanced analytical techniques into the research methodology elevates the rigor
and depth of the investigation into glass manufacturing process improvement. By leveraging Pareto
Analysis, ANOVA, Attribute Agreement Analysis, Control Charts, and Process Capability Evaluation,
researchers can gain actionable insights, drive informed decision-making, and ultimately foster
continuous enhancement in quality and productivity.

6.6. Ethical Considerations:

Confidentiality is paramount in this study. Protect the privacy of the participating glass manufacturing
organization, specific information, including its name, remains private. Informed consent, when
applicable, is sought to ensure ethical standards in using the organization's data for research. This
commitment to ethical considerations underscores the integrity of the research process.

7. Define:

The Define phase initiates with the creation of a project charter encompassing components such as the
problem statement, goal statement, input, output, customer, and team formation. In the Six Sigma
methodology, the initial step in addressing a problem involves establishing a team associated with the
process. Additionally, the formation of a cross-functional team is crucial for analysing various facets of the
identified problem.

Problem Statement:

The laminated plant experienced a gross yield ranging from 75-90 % between November and December
2023, depending on the model. This fell short of the management target of 80-95 % for each model, leading
to losses in yield, power, productivity, and increased rejections, ultimately impacting plant profitability. A
detailed examination revealed that the HY-Alzr model exhibited the lowest yield. However, when
considering volume, this model accounted for 3155 units. On the contrary, the HY-Cr model exhibited a

Page 17 of 50
defect rate of 30% across all defects, leading to the imperative decision to address and reduce defects in
HY-Cr to attain the desired yield of 95%. This document delineates the utilization of the DMAIC
methodology for the purpose of minimizing defects within the laminated glass manufacturing process.

Upon analyzing historical data spanning the last two months (November to December 2023) for laminated
models, it became evident that the MS-SPre model recorded the lowest gross yield, amounting to around
6,000 pieces per month. In contrast, the HY-Cr model displayed a monthly volume of approximately 36,000
pieces but was marked by a high defect ratio. As a result, attention was redirected towards improving the
process and throughput yield of the HY-Cr model.

Table 1: Six Sigma Phases

Figure 3: Pareto Charts of defectives for Models

As illustrated in the chart (Figure 3), the defective model "HY-Cr" stands out with the highest defect count
of 13504, representing approximately 34.5% of the total defects. Following closely behind is the model
"MS-Br" with 6561 defects, contributing to about 52.9% of the total defects. These two models, "HY-Cr"
and "MS-Br," emerge as the most significant contributors to the defects, highlighting areas that require
immediate attention and improvement efforts within the manufacturing process.

Page 18 of 50
 Figure 4: Pareto Charts of Model wise Defects
The chart categorizes (Figure 4) defects across various glass models, presenting a visual representation of
their distribution and relative impact on the overall manufacturing process. Notably, the HY-CR model
emerges as the primary contributor, accounting for 30% of defects. Following closely is the MS-BR model,
contributing 20%. The cumulative %age reveals that the top two models, HY-CR and MS-BR, together
constitute half of the total defects. Other significant contributors include MS-WA and TA-PU, each
contributing 16.7%. The Pareto chart highlights the critical areas demanding immediate attention and
underscores the importance of targeted improvement efforts in these specific models to optimize the glass
manufacturing process.

Figure 5: Pareto Chart for Process Wise Defects Contribution

The analysis of process-wise defect (Figure 5) contributions reveals significant insights into the areas of
the glass manufacturing process that require immediate attention for improvement. The Bending process
emerges as the predominant contributor to defects, with a defect count of 19939.

Page 19 of 50
This suggests that the Bending phase plays a crucial role in overall product quality, warranting a focused
examination of the processes involved and potential root causes for defects. Following Bending, the
Printing process is the next significant contributor, with a defect count of 10312. This shows that issues
within the Printing phase substantially affect the final product quality. The Preprocess phase also
demonstrates notable defect occurrences, with a count of 5165, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing
and optimizing activities during the pre-processing stage.

Table 2: Project Charter

8. Measure:

An analysis of attribute agreement focuses on appraiser agreement and appraiser versus standard. A total of
50 parts underwent attribute agreement analysis (Figure 6), with 45 deemed acceptable (OK) and 5
categorized as completely not good (NG). With a Kappa value exceeding 70 %, the measurement system
analysis is deemed acceptable for Pre-processing. Process capability analysis was also conducted for the
glass’s size and grinding flow of water.

During Pre-processing, two glasses are concurrently cut as inner and outer glass. The process capability
(Figure 7) for the glass size is illustrated, with the black dotted curve representing the overall population
spread and the red curve depicting the data range. A process capability exceeding 1.33 deems the system
acceptable; otherwise, improvements are required. In this instance, the Cp value for the glass size is 0.69,
indicating a lack of centering on the mean value and poor control over process input parameters.

Page 20 of 50
Figure 6: Attribute Agreement Analysis for Pre-process

Page 21 of 50
 Figure 7: Process Capability for the Size of Glasses (Preprocess)

Likewise, information pertaining to the printing, bending, and layup processes was gathered for an
assessment of the current status of each process. Process-specific and rolled throughput yield calculations
were conducted to pinpoint sub-processes deviating from established parameters. In the Pre-processing
stage, the breaking off and grinding of glass indicated a lower first-time yield. Maximum rejections during
the printing process were noted during print cut. Within the bending process, rejection %ages were
identified in the receiving of inner and outer glass carts, along with spot distortion, as other processes remain
obscured outside the furnace, with defects becoming apparent during glass inspection.

Following data collection, a Pareto chart (Figure 8) was employed to prioritize the contributions of each
process. In the Pareto chart, the "%" denotes the contribution % age of each category to the total
occurrences, illustrating the relative significance of each category in terms of overall impact. The pre-
processing phase in glass manufacturing showcases a spectrum of defects, with the Pareto chart spotlighting
key contributors (Figure 9).

Page 22 of 50
 Figure 8: Pre-Process Defect Pareto

Figure 9: Process Flow Diagram for Preprocess

Among these, scratches were identified as the most frequent issue, occurring 1278 times. The breaking off
chips was another notable concern, with 2956 instances recorded. Grinding breakage, sizing discrepancies,
and washing breakage also made significant contributions to the defects in this phase. The occurrences of
cutting not meeting standards were observed 213 times. Among these defects Breaking of chips and
grinding chips generates the highest % of importance in terms of overall impact. The presence of these
defects during the pre-processing stage suggests potential problems such as abrasive materials, mechanical
stress, and equipment malfunctions.

Page 23 of 50
 Figure 10: Printing Process Defect Pareto

Moving to the Print-process (Figure 10), the Pareto chart clearly displays the widespread occurrence of
various issues in the glass manufacturing stage. Print cut defects are at the top, happening a remarkable
5078 times, closely trailed by in-process breakage at 2765 times. The combination of Print Cut and In-
process Breakage stands out as the most substantial, generating the highest %ages among the identified
defects. Water spot defects also trail closely behind, numbering 1789 instances. The significance of Print
Cut and In-process Breakage highlights their utmost importance compared to other issues.

Furthermore, the chart points out problems like print dust, print spots, and edge gaps. These defects in the
print process indicate potential challenges related to blade sharpness, dust in the printing environment, and
maintaining a consistent print quality.

Figure 11: Pareto for Binding Process Defects

Page 24 of 50
 Figure 12: Process Flow Diagram (PFD) of Binding Process

In the process of Bending, the 80-20 chart (Figure 11), underscores breakage as the most prevalent defect,
occurring 8209 times. Spot distortion and cross-curvature not meeting specifications followed with 6013
and 4235 instances, respectively. Scratch defects at 2267 occurrences and edge bends at 2098 times also
significantly contributed. Here Breakage and spot distortion generates the most % ages among all defects
in the Bending process. The high frequencies in these bending-process defects point towards potential issues
like excessive pressure, uneven heating, and material weaknesses.

Figure 13: Pareto Chart for Lay-up Process Defects

Lastly, In the layup process (Figure 13), a variety of defects is evident, with dust-related issues being the
most common, occurring 3468 times. Significant contributions also come from chip defects, lint, and peg

Page 25 of 50
breakage. Notably, dust alone accounts for a substantial 72%, far surpassing the second most common
defect, chip, which represents only 7.3%.

These layup-process defects point to potential challenges such as improper cleaning, impacts during
handling, and material impurities. The thorough examination of these four processes using Pareto charts
and the subsequent descriptions forms a foundational understanding of the major defects impacting the
glass manufacturing industry. This sets the stage for the subsequent phases of the Lean Six Sigma
methodology.

9. Analzse:

In the Analyze phase, An Ishikawa Diagram is one of the visual tools used in quality management or
problem-solving processes to establish causes which may likely contribute towards a certain issue. The
figure represents a fishbone-shaped chart where the problem or issue is indicated at each end of the tail with
various potential causes spreading out like bones. Such a formatted presentation promotes detailed and
methodical analysis of all potential factors influencing the process or result.

Within the manufacturing process described above, an Ishikawa Diagram was helpful in identifying the
root causes of defects reported at various stages. The diagram’s development was a collaboration that
involved brainstorming sessions with members and the owner of the process. The nature of output from the
Ishikawa Diagram heavily depends on the quality as well as creativity used in brainstorming.

The team discussed with process personnel deepening the cause data that may be associated with potential
sources thereby developing a full cause and effect analysis. With a clear picture of what data was available,
the team asked advice from Master Black Belt about which analysis would be appropriate for these causes.

The Ishikawa Diagram was used as a guide for further research. It pinpointed variables like cut bed level,
pressure variation cutting, breaking-off pressure variance, break-off stopper height and green belt harm as
potential causes of defects in the manufacturing process. Validation techniques to examine the validity of
these factors included checklists.

The Ishikawa Diagram, in the quest of constant perfection, was instrumental for prioritizing as well as
verifying probable causes. This tool allowed visualizing the interrelated factors influencing the
manufacturing process and provided a structured way forward for root cause analysis with targeted
intervention strategies aimed at improving quality and productivity.

As per the parameters, in-process yield and rolled throughput yield are calculated and where there is gap
against the set parameter was gotten from input‒output sheet to find sub processes. In Pre-process steps,

Page 26 of 50
there is a low first-time yield of breaking off grinding centring after it has been ground by the inspected
glass. In glass loading and spraying of coils, rejection occurs in the drying process. During the bending
process, the chances of defects are rejection %age because other processes cannot be seen outside but can
be found out during inspection and quality control. Standard requirements in the layup, a product containing
bent glass and a washing machine rejected 0.33 % of unacceptable first-time yields. An Ishikawa diagram
was drawn utilizing the process owner and the team members brainstorming session. The main factor that
affects the product of a CED is highly influenced by the overall effectiveness and originality of creativity,
which has been achieved using a minor brainstorming process. shows the flow chart-based cause and effect
analysis that was done as an outcome of the brainstorming process.

To identify probable reasons that fall under the purview of an Ishikawa Diagram, the team convened for a
brainstorming session. A thorough comprehension of the appropriate analysis for these indicated reasons
was established. Through statistical research, certain reasons were discovered as possibilities for
affirmation, including "cutting pressure variation," "breaking of pressure not ok," and "stopper height is set
off". A plan for statistical analysis was developed for the remaining factors, and the results were carefully
documented. Similar to this, an Ishikawa Diagram was suggested to handle flaws pertaining to grind chips,
breakage that occurs during processing, and breakage that occurs during the pre-processing stage. Five
reasons were chosen once the Ishikawa Diagram was identified to confirm the underlying cause. The causes,
their types, and the specifications for validation are presented in Figure 14. Four factors were found to be
pertinent to the issue of breaking off chips. The Ishikawa Diagram illustrating the breaking-off chips defect
is presented below.

Figure 14: Ishikawa Diagram for Breaking off Chips.

Page 27 of 50
 Figure 15: Final Cause Validation

Likewise, an examination of the Grinding chips defect was conducted using an Ishikawa Diagram,
uncovering significant potential causes. Elements including Grinding table level NG, insufficient flow of
water, elevated Grinding table speed, and incorrect depth of Grinding were pinpointed. When these factors
are not adequately managed, they can contribute to the formation of chips during the grinding process. The
Ishikawa Diagram illustrating the grinding chips defect is depicted below.

Figure 16: Ishikawa Diagram of Grinding Chips

Figure 17: Final Cause Validation

Following the Pre-processing stage in glass manufacturing, the inner glass undergoes a crucial printing
process utilizing black ceramic ink. This ink serves dual purposes, enhancing the visual appeal of the glass
and acting as a protective barrier for the sealant applied during the placement of glass fragments on a car's
body part, guarding against the impact of UV rays. Ensuring the longevity and efficiency of laminated glass,
this printing stage is of paramount importance. Identified through an Ishikawa Diagram, potential causes
for the print cut defect include factors such as the Thickness of wet film, Temperature of the Drier, and

Page 28 of 50
Speed of the Drier. These parameters, when not controlled effectively, can lead to print cut issues,
necessitating a meticulous approach to address and prevent this defect in the manufacturing process of the
automobile glass industry. The Ishikawa Diagram of the print cut defect is shown below.

Figure 18: Ishikawa Diagram of Print Cut

Figure 19: Final Cause Validation

Advancing through the production line, interleaving powder aligns the inner and outer glasses, which are
subsequently bent within a furnace. This furnace process holds paramount importance, involving a gradual
temperature increase from room temperature to 620°C. The consistently slow temperature ascent, coupled
with the mold's shape, governs the glass-blowing process, ensuring the glass conforms to the desired curve.
This stage plays a pivotal role in shaping the structural integrity and optical clarity of laminated glass,
underscoring the necessity for precision and uniformity in the glass manufacturing process.

During the bending operation, potential causes for breakage defects were identified utilizing an Ishikawa
Diagram. These include issues such as Mold cloth being ripped or detached, the absence of a corner stopper,
a gap between the corner stopper and mold corner, and the utilization of boron nitride paste for creating
sharp corners. Each of these factors, if not expertly addressed, has the potential to contribute to breakage
during the bending operation, necessitating careful consideration and the implementation of control
measures. The Ishikawa Diagram illustrating the breakage defect during the bending operation is presented
below.

Page 29 of 50
 Figure 20: Ishikawa Diagram of Breakage

Figure 21: Final Cause Validation

Additionally, potential causes for defects such as cross curvature not meeting specifications and spot
distortion during the bending operation were identified. Mixing process errors and temperature increases
caused by operating under no load were identified as potential causes for cross curvature not meeting
specifications. The Ishikawa Diagram of cross curvature not good defect during bending operation is shown
below.

Figure 22: Ishikawa Diagram for Cross Curveture Not Good

Page 30 of 50
 Figure 23: Final Cause Validation

Presence of lumps in the powder, inconsistency in the glass-making mixture, and imbalance in heating
conditions between the ceiling and floor were potential causes for spot distortion during bending. The
Ishikawa Diagram of spot distortion defect during bending operation is shown below.

Figure 24: Ishikawa Diagram of Spot Distortion

Figure 25: Final Cause Validation

After bending, the curved glass undergoes de-pairing and an extensive final cleaning process, critical for
the homogeneous constitution of laminated glass. During the Layup stage, potential causes for defects
include the presence of black particles from the black I-top conveyor, the formation of white marks on the
glass inside the layup room, dusty water lines appearing on the glass inside the layup room, inadequate
washing of glass due to low water temperature, and inappropriate high-pressure washing methods.
Diligence in these processes is essential to avoid imperfections or inconsistencies in the laminated glass,
ensuring it meets safety standards. The Ishikawa Diagram of Lay Up dust defect during bending operation
is shown below.

Page 31 of 50
 Figure 26: Ishikawa Diagram of Lay-up dust

Figure 27: Final Cause Validation

10. Improve:

In the Six Sigma DMAIC approach, the Improve phase plays a pivotal role in identifying and implementing
solutions for the root causes identified during the Analyze phase. This phase is crucial for driving
improvements in the manufacturing process and achieving the desired levels of efficiency and quality. In
our glass manufacturing project, the Improve phase was meticulously executed through the utilization of
Design of Experiments (DOE) to optimize key process parameters and address the identified root causes of
defects.

Begin with, potential causes identified in the Preprocess stage were subjected to thorough validation, and
subsequent statistical analyses were conducted to analyze their impact. The team engaged in discussions to
determine the type of data that could be collected for each potential cause. Based on these deliberations, a
trial and DOE were executed to uncover the root causes of defects, aiming to refine and enhance the cutting
and shaping processes within the Preprocess stage.

For the cutting process, the first potential cause investigated was the variation in cutting bed level. This
factor was found to affect the scoring of glass during the cutting process, leading to uneven bed levels and,
consequently, defects. The data collected with the assistance of the mechanical maintenance team. This data

Page 32 of 50
was instrumental in highlighting the significance of cutting bed level variation as a potential root cause for
defects in the cutting process.

Further, a three-factor, two-level DOE was planned for Breaking-off chips in the Preprocess stage, focusing
on factors such as cutting pressure, breaking off pressure, and stopper height. The analysis of variance
(ANOVA) revealed breaking off pressure, stopper height, and the interaction between breaking off pressure
and stopper height to be significant factors affecting the occurrence of breaking off chips. The residual
analysis and the scatter chart confirmed the absence of special variations, validating the reliability of the
experimental results. The response optimizer output provided optimized values for these factors, enabling
the achievement of a minimum of 0.085 % breaking off chips.

Table 3: Limits for Design of Experiment (DOE)

Table 4: ANOVA Table

Page 33 of 50
Table 5: Residual Plots

Page 34 of 50
 Figure 28: Response optimizer

Similarly, the Improve phase extended to the Grinding process, where a three-factor DOE was conducted
to optimize flow of water, grind depth, and grind table speed. The ANOVA table identified these factors
and the interaction between flow of water and grind depth as significant contributors to grind chips. The
response optimizer output provided optimized values for these factors, enabling the achievement of a
minimum of 0.12% grinding chips.

Table 6: Limits for Design of Experiment (DOE)

Table 7: ANOVA Table

Page 35 of 50
Table 8: Residual Plots

Page 36 of 50
 Figure 29: Response optimizer

During the Printing stage, the Improvement phase incorporated a three-factor Design of Experiments (DOE)
to enhance the optimization of WFT, dryer temperature, and dryer speed. An analysis using a 80-20 chart
identified WFT, dryer temperature, and dryer speed as pivotal factors influencing print cut defects. The
output from the response optimizer directed the achievement of a minimal 0.27% occurrence of print cut
defects at the specified values of these factors.

Table 9: Limits for Design of Experiment (DOE)

Page 37 of 50
Table 10: ANOVA Table

Page 38 of 50
 Table 11: Residual Plots

Figure 30: Response optimizer

Page 39 of 50
The implementation of solutions derived from the DOE findings was conducted within a specified time
limit of ten days. All proposed solutions were executed as planned, and the results were closely monitored.
The comprehensive utilization of statistical tools, ANOVA, and response optimization facilitated a
systematic and data-driven approach to address and optimize critical factors influencing the manufacturing
processes. This phase not only led to a reduction in defects but also underscored the importance of a
structured methodology in driving continuous improvement in glass manufacturing.

11. Control:

Probabilistic instruments called control charts are used to monitor an operation throughout a period of time
to identify any distinct causes of variation. After process improvement, an evaluation of the process
capability for glass size is made easier with the help of appropriate control chart installation, which allows
for continuous process monitoring for assignable reasons.

Figure 31: Process Capability of Glass Size (After Improvement)

Page 40 of 50
 Figure 32: X-R Bar Chart of Heating Zone

During the control phase, we keep an eye on the process parameters determined by DOE and further
analysis.

As a result, we have decided to consistently follow the procedure guidelines for further evaluations. The
group came to the conclusion that the best instruments for keeping an eye on the characteristics of the
bending process would be X and R charts. Important process parameters are being continuously monitored;
the X-R Chart has detailed information on the monitoring of spot distortion.

12. Results and Discussions:

The laminated glass manufacturing industry in India has witnessed a significant surge in the adoption of
Six Sigma methodologies to improve processes and boost productivity. By achieving six standard
deviations from the arithmetic mean level, corresponding to a defect rate of 3.4 parts per million (ppm),
organizations aim to enhance overall efficiency and profitability. In an industrial context, the Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework has proven to be more effective, given the
existing knowledge and skill levels within the industry. Critical success factors encompassing major
framework constructs have been identified and implemented, with the addition of new elements to ensure
ongoing strategic relevance.

The problem addressed in this research paper revolves around the laminated glass plant's gross yield, which
ranged from 75-90 % between November and December 2023, falling short of the management target of
80-95 % for each model. This shortfall led to losses in yield, power, productivity, increased rejections, and
ultimately impacted the plant's profitability. The HY-Alzr model exhibited the lowest yield, prompting a
detailed examination. In contrast, the HY-Cr model faced a defect rate of 30 % among all defects,
necessitating a focused effort to mitigate defects and achieve the targeted yield of 95 %.

The implementation of the DMAIC methodology effectively addressed the identified issues. After the
solution was applied, yield data from three critical processes—Preprocess, Printing, and Bending—were

Page 41 of 50
collected to assess the impact of the intervention. The yield trend data over the past 10 days for each process
demonstrated substantial improvements.

The yield trend in the Preprocess stage of the glass manufacturing process demonstrated a notable
improvement over the observation period. On Day 1, the yield stood at 96.12%, and by Day 10, it had
increased to an impressive 98.46%. This upward trajectory indicates a substantial enhancement in the
efficiency of the Preprocess stage, showcasing the positive impact of the implemented improvements.

Figure 33: HY-Cr Preprocess Yield (After Improvement)

Similarly, the Printing stage of the manufacturing process also exhibited positive trends in yield over the
10-day period. Starting at 95.40% on Day 1, the yield showed a commendable increase, reaching 97.64%
by Day 10. This improvement underscores the successful implementation of measures to address defects
and enhance the printing process.

Figure 34: HY-Cr Printing Process Yield (After Improvement)

In the Bending stage, the yield trend showcased a substantial improvement from Day 1 to Day 10. Starting
at 86.07%, the yield increased progressively, reaching 93.64% by the end of the observation period. This
significant enhancement in yield %ages reflect the successful application of the DMAIC methodology in
optimizing the bending process. The Bending stage, which influences the structural integrity and optical

Page 42 of 50
clarity of laminated glass, benefitted from the implemented improvements, leading to a more precise and
uniform production.

Figure 35: Figure 34: HY-Cr Bending Process Yield (After Improvement)

The upward trajectory in yield % ages signify the successful implementation of process improvements,
validating the effectiveness of the DMAIC methodology in enhancing the manufacturing processes.
Preprocess, Printing, and Bending exhibited consistent improvements over the observation period,
showcasing the robustness of the applied Six Sigma approach.

Furthermore, the profitability of the laminated glass manufacturing process was significantly bolstered by
reducing defects in the HY-Cr model. With an initial monthly volume of approximately 36,000 pieces and
7,726 pieces being rejected during the bending operation, the defects were reduced to 2,252 pieces. This
reduction not only improved product quality but also resulted in cost savings by reducing variable costs,
consumables, and workforce costs per month. The study not only achieved its primary objective of defect
reduction but also emphasized the crucial role of statistical tools in problem-solving. The successful
application of Six Sigma tools in the glass manufacturing processes highlights the versatility of the
approach, indicating its potential application across diverse industries where the relationship between inputs
and outputs is critical for optimizing processes.

The decision to implement Lean Six Sigma (LSS) at the sites was facilitated by the engagement of the
management team, who underwent high-quality LSS training programs externally. This engagement
underscores the importance of leadership involvement in driving continuous improvement initiatives within
an organization. The successful outcomes of this research contribute to the growing body of evidence
supporting the efficacy of Six Sigma methodologies in addressing complex manufacturing challenges and
optimizing processes for enhanced productivity and profitability. The lessons learned from this study

Page 43 of 50
provide valuable insights for other industries seeking to deploy Six Sigma methodologies to achieve
operational excellence and meet their strategic objectives.

13. Conclusion and Recommendation:

Six Sigma proves to be a valuable methodology for minimizing defects, reducing variation, and boosting
profitability across organizational domains. Given the multitude of frameworks found in the literature,
selecting the appropriate set of tools and constructs for implementation poses a challenge. It turns out,
though, that DMAIC is the most popular and effective framework for Lean Six Sigma applications in the
production, maintenance, and medical industries. Since DMAIC is well-versed in by practitioners and
consultants, it is the recommended method for problem-solving initiatives. The goal of this study is to
pinpoint and carefully examine the underlying source of a problem in the auto glass production sector. Once
the issue statement has been clearly stated, the Six Sigma approach is applied to reduce process flaws. The
DMAIC phases encompass defining process-related gaps, establishing targets, gathering quantifiable data,
pinpointing causes through cause-and-effect analysis, channelling causes via matrices and testing,
implementing process-centric Design of Experiments (DOE) for optimal parameter configurations,
standardizing inputs, and formulating a process-centric control plan. Statistical process control is
subsequently applied during the control phase, overseeing the process for three months. The distinctive
findings of this study have the potential to provide valuable insights for manufacturing industries,
underscoring the pivotal importance of quality in production lines.

14. References:

1. Albliwi, S. A., Antony, J., & Lim, S. a. H. (2015). A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the
manufacturing industry. Business Process Management Journal, 21(3), 665–691.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-03-2014-0019

2. Alexander, P., Antony, J., & Rodgers, B. (2019). Lean Six Sigma for small- and medium-sized
manufacturing enterprises: a systematic review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 36(3), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-03-2018-0074

3. Alhuraish, I., Robledo, C., & Kobi, A. (2016). Assessment of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma
operation with Decision Making Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. IFAC-PapersOnLine,
49(12), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.550

4. Andersson, R., Eriksson, H., & Torstensson, H. (2006). Similarities and differences between TQM,
six sigma and lean. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), 282–296.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610660004

Page 44 of 50
5. Antony, J. (2004). Some pros and cons of six sigma: an academic perspective. The TQM Magazine,
16(4), 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410541945

6. Antony, J. (2006). Six sigma for service processes. Business Process Management Journal, 12(2),
234–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610657558

7. Antony, J., & Fergusson, C. (2004). Six Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot study.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(8), 1025–1032. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900410557926

8. Antony, J., Gijo, E., Kumar, V., & Ghadge, A. (2016). A multiple case study analysis of Six Sigma
practices in Indian manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 33(8), 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-10-2014-0157

9. Antony, J., Kumar, M., & Labib, A. (2008). Gearing Six Sigma into UK manufacturing SMEs:
results from a pilot study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(4), 482–493.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602437

10. Antony, J., Snee, R. D., & Hoerl, R. W. (2017). Lean Six Sigma: yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 34(7), 1073–1093.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-03-2016-0035

11. Antony, J., Sony, M., Dempsey, M., Brennan, A., Farrington, T., & Cudney, E. A. (2019). An
evaluation into the limitations and emerging trends of Six Sigma: an empirical study. The Tqm
Journal, 31(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-12-2018-0191

12. Bhargava, M., & Gaur, S. (2021). Process improvement using Six-Sigma (DMAIC process) in
bearing manufacturing industry: a case study. IOP Conference Series, 1017(1), 012034.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1017/1/012034

13. Bhat, S., Gijo, E., Rego, A. M., & Bhat, V. S. (2020). Lean Six Sigma competitiveness for micro,
small and medium enterprises (MSME): action research in the Indian context. The Tqm Journal,
33(2), 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-04-2020-0079

14. Chakrabarty, A., & Tan, K. C. (2007). The current state of six sigma application in services.
Managing Service Quality, 17(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520710735191

15. Chiarini, A. (2013). Differences between Six Sigma applications in manufacturing and the service
industry. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 12(3), 345.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpqm.2013.056163

16. Citybabu, G., & Yamini, S. (2022). The implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework in the Indian
context: a review and suggestions for future research. The Tqm Journal, 34(6), 1823–1859.
https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-10-2021-0291

17. Daniyan, I., Adeodu, A., Mpofu, K., Maladzhi, R. W., & Katumba, M. G. K. (2022). Application of
lean Six Sigma methodology using DMAIC approach for the improvement of bogie assembly process
in the railcar industry. Heliyon, 8(3), e09043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09043
Page 45 of 50
18. Ertürk, M., Tuerdi, M., & Wujiabudula, A. (2016). The effects of six Sigma approach on business
performance: A study of white goods (Home appliances) sector in Turkey. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 229, 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.154

19. George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: combining Six Sigma quality with lean speed.
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA58722773

20. Gijo, E., & Scaria, J. (2013). Process improvement through Six Sigma with Beta correction: a case
study of manufacturing company. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
71(1–4), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5483-y

21. Gijo, E., Antony, J., & Sunder, M. V. (2019). Application of Lean Six Sigma in IT support services –
a case study. The Tqm Journal, 31(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-11-2018-0168

22. Gijo, E., Scaria, J., & Antony, J. (2011). Application of six sigma methodology to reduce defects of a
grinding process. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 27(8), 1221–1234.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1212

23. Global White Goods Market – Industry Trends. (2023, July). Data Bridge Market Research.
https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-white-goods-market

24. Goh, T. N. (2002). A strategic assessment of six sigma. Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, 18(5), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.491

25. Goldsby, T. J., & Martichenko, R. (2005). Lean Six Sigma Logistics: Strategic development to
Operational success. https://openlibrary.telkomuniversity.ac.id/pustaka/173900/lean-six-sigma-
logistics-strategic-development-to-operational-success.html

26. Guleria, P., Pathania, A., Bhatti, H., Rojhe, K. C., & Mahto, D. G. (2021). Leveraging Lean Six
Sigma: Reducing defects and rejections in filter manufacturing industry. Materials Today:
Proceedings, 46, 8532–8539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.03.535

27. Gupta, V., Jain, R., Meena, M., & Dangayach, G. (2017). Six-sigma application in tire-manufacturing
company: a case study. Journal of Industrial Engineering, International, 14(3), 511–520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-017-0234-6

28. Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2009). Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean
manufacturing implementation. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(2), 274–308.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910948268

29. Hagemeyer, C., Gershenson, J. K., & Johnson, D. M. (2006). Classification and application of
problem-solving quality tools. The TQM Magazine, 18(5), 455–483.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610685458

30. Hassan, M. K. (2019). Applying lean six Sigma for waste reduction in a manufacturing environment.
American Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1(2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajie-1-2-4

Page 46 of 50
31. Hoerl, R. W. (2004). One perspective on the future of Six-Sigma. International Journal of Six Sigma
and Competitive Advantage, 1(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssca.2004.005281

32. Holtz, R. D., & Campbell, P. (2003). Six Sigma: Its implementation in Ford’s facility management
and maintenance functions. Journal of Facilities Management, 2(4), 320–329.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960410808285

33. India White Goods Market – Industry Trends. (2022, November). Data Bridge Market Research.
https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/india-white-goods-market

34. Indrawati, S., & Ridwansyah, M. (2015). Manufacturing Continuous Improvement using Lean Six
Sigma: An Iron Ores Industry case application. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 528–534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.072

35. Jeyaraman, K., & Teo, L. K. (2010). A conceptual framework for critical success factors of lean Six
Sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3), 191–215.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075008

36. Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2005). Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain
management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), 153–
162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.012

37. Kaushik, P., Khanduja, D., Mittal, K., & Jaglan, P. (2012). A case studies. The Tqm Journal, 24(1),
4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731211191186

38. Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2011). Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs – a
roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18),
5449–5467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

39. Liang, K., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Study on the Organizational Structured Problem solving on Total
Quality Management. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n10p178

40. Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2002). Six Sigma: a goal‐theoretic
perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-
6963(02)00087-6

41. Ma, Y., Gang, Y., Li‐lin, W., & Ree, S. (2008). The critical success factors of six Sigma in China
manufacturing industry. Asian Journal on Quality, 9(2), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1108/15982688200800016

42. Motwani, J., Kumar, A., & Antony, J. (2004). A business process change framework for examining
the implementation of six sigma: a case study of Dow Chemicals. The TQM Magazine, 16(4), 273–
283. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410541927

Page 47 of 50
43. Murmura, F., Bravi, L., Musso, F., & Mosciszko, A. (2021). Lean Six Sigma for the improvement of
company processes: the Schnell S.p.A. case study. The Tqm Journal, 33(7), 351–376.
https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-06-2021-0196

44. Nalwaya, C. (2023, September 23). What are white goods? TATAnexarc.
https://blog.tatanexarc.com/logistics/white-goods/

45. Narottam, Y., Mathiyazhagan, K., & Kumar, K. D. (2019). Application of Six Sigma to minimize the
defects in glass manufacturing industry. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 16(4), 594–
624. https://doi.org/10.1108/jamr-11-2018-0102

46. Nayak, T. K., Vij, R., Bruhova, I., Shandilya, J., & Auerbach, A. (2019). Efficiency measures the
conversion of agonist binding energy into receptor conformational change. The Journal of General
Physiology, 151(4), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201812215

47. Nonthaleerak, P., & Hendry, L. (2007). Six Sigma action research in Thailand: a comparative study.
International Journal of Services Technology and Management.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijstm.2007.013944

48. Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale production.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429273018

49. Olanrewaju, F., Uzorh, A. C., & Nnanna, I. (2019). Lean Six Sigma Methodology and its Application
in the manufacturing industry – a review. American Journal of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, 4(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajmie.20190403.11

50. Patel, M. T., & Desai, D. A. (2018). Critical review and analysis of measuring the success of Six
Sigma implementation in manufacturing sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 35(8), 1519–1545. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijqrm-04-2017-0081

51. Prashar, A. (2014). Adoption of Six Sigma DMAIC to reduce cost of poor quality. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(1), 103–126.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-01-2013-0018

52. Proudlove, N., Moxham, C., & Boaden, R. (2010). Lessons for lean in healthcare from using six
sigma in the NHS. Public Money & Management, 28(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9302.2008.00615.x

53. Rathi, R., Singh, M., Verma, A., Gurjar, R. S., Singh, A., & Samantha, B. (2022). Identification of
Lean Six Sigma barriers in automobile part manufacturing industry. Materials Today: Proceedings,
50, 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.221

54. Romdhane, T. B., Badreddine, A., & Sansa, M. (2016). A new model to implement Six Sigma in
small- and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 55(15), 4319–
4340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1249430

Page 48 of 50
55. Sabet, E., Adams, E., & Yazdani, B. (2014). Quality management in heavy duty manufacturing
industry: TQM vs. Six Sigma. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(1–2), 215–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.972626

56. Sachin, S., & Dileeplal, J. (2017). Six SIGMA Methodology for improving manufacturing process in
a foundry industry. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 4(5),
237172. https://ijaers.com/detail/six-sigma-methodology-for-improving-manufacturing-process-in-a-
foundry-industry/

57. Chakravorty, S. (2009). Six Sigma Implementation in a Regional Network Provider: A Case Study.
*Quality Management Journal, 16*(4), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2009.11918292

58. Chaurasia, N., et al. (2019). Improving First-Time Yield and Reducing Scrap in the Automobile
Industry Using DMAIC: A Case Study. *International Journal of Production Research, 57*(12),
3694-3713.https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1573743

59. Firka, L. (2010). Six Sigma as a Top Management-Driven Technique for Chronic Problem
Reduction. *Management and Production Engineering Review, 1*(1), 42-
50. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10270-009-0004-8

60. Holtz, B., & Campbell, R. (2003). Six Sigma in Maintenance Activities: A Case Study at Ford Motor
Company. *International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20*(2), 222-235.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310466686

61. Kaushik, A., et al. (2012). Six Sigma Implementation in a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise: A
Case Study in Bicycle Chain Manufacturing. *International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 29*(2), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711211196024

62. Lee-Mortimer, A. (2007). Six Sigma in CNC Machine Tool and CMM Manufacturing: A Case Study
in the UK and Ireland. *International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 3*(4), 309-
324. https://doi.org/10.1108/14757700710831515

63. Prashar, S. (2014). Six Sigma: A Business Process Improvement Methodology. *International
Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6*(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n2p1

64. Raval, M., & Kant, R. (2017). A Framework for Six Sigma Implementation: A Literature Review.
*Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24*(1), 181-205.https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2014-
0039

65. Yadav, G., et al. (2017). Critical Success Factors for Six Sigma Implementation: A Review.
*International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66*(2), 179-204.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0096

66. Banuelas, R., et al. (2005). Six Sigma Application in Waste Reduction: A Case Study in Coating
Process. *International Journal of Production Economics, 92*(2), 173-
185.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.06.008

Page 49 of 50
67. Adikorley, E., et al. (2017). Six Sigma Implementation in the Textile Industry: A Case Study. Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21*(4), 528-545.https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2016-
0076

68. Holtz, B., & Campbell, R. (2003). Six Sigma in Maintenance Activities: A Case Study at Ford Motor
Company. *International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20*(2), 222-235.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710310466686

Page 50 of 50