Interview: David Brunson, Jaguar Cars Limited

What benefits are Jaguar enjoying through the use of Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) tools and techniques?
What selection criteria do you use for deploying a DFSS project?
How do you benchmark your processes, products and six sigma projects within the Premier Automotive Group (PAG)?
This survey was carried out in 2001. Do you think the results are representative of the most common tools and techniques used in Jaguar?
Which tools in Design For Six Sigma have you found drive the business the most?
Are there particular tools you want to focus on using more in the future?
How can you ensure that the right tools are being used in the right way?
Do you have a guideline on which tools to use within the project methodology timeline?
How do you ensure a customer driven approach, making sure that the tools that you’re using, and what you are analysing always relates back to the customer?

What benefits are Jaguar enjoying through the use of Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) tools and techniques?

I am not alone in Jaguar in believing that Engineering Design exerts 70-80% of the influence on customer satisfaction and quality. The tools and techniques used in Design For Six Sigma are very powerful and cross functional. They have the capacity, if used in the right way, to produce really superior end-results in both product and service development. We have found the methods we are using in DFSS can produce continuous improvements in the quality and reliability of our product, which in such a highly complex system as a car, is crucial. The engineering functions at Jaguar have the biggest opportunity to increase customer satisfaction, reduce quality problems, and to achieve this at low total costs. (FIG 1)

Figure 1: The leverage of DFSS, from Harry Schroeder's Six Sigma, the Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionising the World Top Corporations

The resource profile of managers’ spending is also much more expensive the closer you get to production (FIG 2).

Figure 2: The relative cost and/or difficulty to correct a problem through product development

I think the leverage of DFSS on the rest of the business can be even higher than the influence of DMAIC projects on the total manufacturing processes. That may just be because we are developing particularly well at the moment, but there are many of us within the company who are in violent agreement about putting our efforts into Design For Six Sigma. By eliminating defects at a very early design phase we have not only made the process more efficient, but we have already gained massive savings in both development and production through taking a very rigorous approach to product design.

Can you give an example?

Jaguar has made some substantial savings through using Robust Design methods. For instance, we predicted a very critical problem in that we would not be able to cast a particular component using the planned process and design. The analysis tools found this issue 9 months earlier than normal methods. It was a massive cost saving even though only prototypes were being ordered. Not only in the cost saved on prototype parts, but also the savings from not delaying the whole design process. It just made the whole process so much more efficient by working in a more rigorous way. We can routinely optimise the product and process prior to manufacture, rather than relying on the achievement of quality through inspection, and finding things out too late.

What selection criteria do you use for deploying a DFSS project?

We have a number of criteria we analyse before kicking off a DFSS project. We have a regular management meeting with the relevant people present to go through a weighted list of criteria (below) that need to be considered in detail. We score each one in terms of their influence and availability etc.

• Supplier Availability
• Supplier Capability
• Timeframes - Are they Manageable?
• Narrow Scope
• Customer Data Availability
• Critical to Customer Factors
• Metric Definition
• Transfer Function Identification
• Team Availability (core team extended as required)
• Previous projects at DCOV or DMAIC stage
• Support for Training Availability
• Design Led with Manufacturing Implications
• Benchmarking Data Availability
• Cross Programme Application
• Project Champion Availability
• Process Champion Availability
• Black Belt Availability
• Master Black Belt support Availability

On a simple horizontal graph with the X-axis showing a negative to positive rating on how confident we are about a particular issue.

Figure 3: Positive and negative ratings of Design for Six Sigma Pilot Issues

How do you benchmark your processes, products and six sigma projects within the Premier Automotive Group (PAG)?

We benchmark on our processes within PAG and the wider Ford organisation, and have always worked on best practice. Since I have been here we have been looking at processes in Ford and best practices all around the world. There is a lot of emphasis on trying to learn from others.

There's not so much benchmarking of products, although being in the group we have the advantage of looking at the larger picture and comparing the costs and efficiencies of systems.

For historic reasons Jaguar has more experience in six sigma deployment, and now one person is responsible for the whole of the Jaguar and Land Rover six sigma projects. I am also looking after all the Design For Six Sigma projects for the two businesses. At the moment it's definitely more about the less experienced learning from the more experienced in the projects. We share black belts and their knowledge which is really helpful. We use scorecards that contain information on both the Jaguar and Land Rover projects. You can see how many projects there are, their potential value, the allocated resources (including green belts) and their stage of completion. It's a good idea to have that cross-functional perspective and we are very positive about sharing ideas and experience.

Land Rover also has a slightly different set up as it has it's Engineering at Gaydon and one large Manufacturing plant at Solihull. Jaguar on the other hand has it's Engineering HQ in Whitley, Coventry, with production plants in Coventry, Birmingham and Liverpool. So it's a slightly different set up and way of operating. There are therefore geographical issues as well as slightly different cultures. Given that those differences are there, there's still quite a bit of crossover. So there are a lot of comparisons made between the two businesses. Both Jaguar and Land Rover have best practices and people are learning from each other all the time. Not only in six sigma projects, but with other initiatives too. As best practice, we try very much to avoid re-inventing the wheel.

This survey was carried out in 2001. Do you think the results are representative of the most common tools and techniques used in Jaguar?

Figure 4: Results of a postal survey in 2001.

The survey was sent to over 300 large organisations with over 1000 employees. Results contributed by the University of Warwick, UK

We use all of these tools but I think it's important to ask a few questions.
Firstly who answered this survey?If you ask an Engineering manager about what tools are being used, and a commercial manager, they would give completely different answers. Generally, surveys like this often end up with quality managers who may be the only people who have heard of all these tools and know somewhere in the organisation that uses them.

Also what was the question? If the question was “Which of these tools do you use?” Then my answer would be “all of them, 99%of the time”, but if you ask me “Which of these tools do the company use, and how much of the business is driven by those tools?” then, you'd get a completely different answer.

Which tools in Design For Six Sigma have you found drive the business the most?

The tools we spend most time using and those we find most useful in Design for Six Sigma are:

• Design FMEA with robustness linkages
• Consumer Insight Techniques: surveys, interviews, observation
• Gage repeatability & reproducibility (R&R)
• Design Verification Planning and Tracking Process control plans
• Process FMEA
• Error prevention, compensation, eliminate noise Factor Management
• Test correlation to customer usage
• Noise factor Management
• Dimensional Variation Analysis (e.g. VSA)

Are there particular tools you want to focus on using more in the future?

Yes, it's very important to focus on the tools you are getting the most value from, and try to apply them to as many areas as possible. There are tools that we want to be using more in the future:

• Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
• Modeling using design of experiments (DOE), including design selection & Analysis
• Design FMEA with robustness linkages
• Reliability / Robustness Demonstration
• Kano Analysis
• Dimensional Variation Analysis (e.g. VSA)
• Parameter Diagram Noise Factor Management
• Consumers Insight Techniques; surveys, Interviews, Observation
• Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
• Multiple Regression and
• Noise Factor Management

How can you ensure that the right tools are being used in the right way?

Tools are only going to be valuable when they are applied correctly. Before looking at HOW the tool is being applied however, it is important to ask WHY a particular tool is being used in the first place.

If a team or individual is saying "we do it because our customer tells us we've got to" rather than "We know we should use this tool and what the benefits are", then it makes me wonder how effectively you're really going to use it. If your team do not understand whether the tools they're using are right for the situation at hand, then there's a large chance the wrong tools are being used. I have heard in the past - I've got to do an FMEA. It says so in my plan. I don't know why, but I've got to use one. These people were doing it after the fact and so not getting the benefits. In this case there's no value in it, and it's only going to help you to make an improvement for the next design or process iteration, but it will not affect the quality or reliability of the current product. So we shouldn't expect it to.

By understanding the process, and ensuring that you communicate that process with everybody very explicitly, the team will have a better idea of what they are trying to achieve, and this will help in the selection of tools. It’s a good idea to then provide a good training program that captures how you would or could apply the available tools in the design world.

It is very dangerous to think of six sigma as a set of tools, as if a company does not understand their processes properly, then they can not expect six sigma to save them money through the application of tools.
Definition of what is going on at each stage of the process is much more important than the tools being used. We use this model where there are no specific tools mentioned here deliberately. You could fit this in with DCOV too, it’s very similar.

Figure 5: The DfSS process Map used at Jaguar PowerTrain

We’ve enhanced it with some additional tools now. The emphasis is on making sure everybody’s aware of what the process is first, and then it’s important to call it something that’s appropriate for your business; something captures people’s attention. Only when you understand your overall process, can you fit in the available tools accordingly.

Do you have a guideline on which tools to use within the project methodology timeline?

In our business, it’s surprising how similar a lot of the project management timing advice is. Rather than following an actual programme we use a sort of template.

Figure 6: Project Management Template

I’ve seen quite a few of these now from quite a few companies and they are very similar with regards to which tools you use at a high level.

I think the overall message is that there are some new things here that we need to all be aware of and keep our eyes open. You don’t just chuck a tool at something because you’ve heard of it. Understand what you need to do and what you are trying to do, and then you will understand the value (if any) of each particular tool.

How do you ensure a customer driven approach, making sure that the tools that you’re using, and what you are analysing always relates back to the customer?

That is the most difficult part of design for six sigma in our business. We have 7 different sources of customer data. Understanding it all is the biggest challenge because every area has such detailed data and terminology that the customer will not understand what, for example, a “torque curve or shift pattern" is, let alone how changing it is going to add any value for them. And rightfully so, but that is what the engineers are working on. So feeding real customer data and translating it into engineering speak, is one of the biggest challenges.
We ensure that we demand specific customer driven goals, and use metrics to track progress towards achieving them. We make sure that we understand what is important to the customer and through the Y= f (x) cascade, we make sure that what we analyse and change is appropriate and relevant. It's not just about reducing defects and variation but about improving customer satisfaction. It's a full time effort for every Black belt and you need to understand the Y’s in order to manage the Xs. We use the following guide:

• Select customer driven Product or Process Key Characteristic(s); e.g.… Customer Y
• Define Performance standards for Y
• Validate the Measurements System for Y
• Establish Process Capability of Crating Y
• Define Improvement Objectives for Y
• Identify Variation sources in Y
• Screen potential causes for change in Y and Identify Vital Few Xs
• Discover Variable relationships between the Vital Few Xs
• Validate the Measurement system for Xs
• Determine Ability to Control Vital Few Xs
• Implement Process Control System on Vital Few Xs

Project selection that makes an impact to the bottom line of the business as well as using dynamic risk management tools are also essential.

What's Next?

The growth of black belts and Master Black Belt numbers and projects is going well.. Jaguar has also successfully achieved re-accreditation from the institute of Mechanical Engineers (ImechE) for their support of employee’s professional development.
A group of engineers have recently formed an Industrial Liaison’s Officer’s (ILO) team, which provides advice and valuable contacts for potential members, so things are really positive right now.
Everyone is convinced that the process is working, and in some respect there’s a pull on the black belts – everyone wants them working on their plant or process. The desire to have Black Belts working in different areas has also driven us into other behaviours. Instead of there being competition for Black belt resource, we are using data driven methods to give us a total view of the whole quality situation; for every plant, every vehicle line and every commodity area. We can then resource accordingly. So if all our problems or all our opportunities are in one car line, or one commodity area of all car lines (electrical, powertrain etc) then that’s where we can put the resource. Six sigma here is getting better, and it’s getting a higher profile. It’s getting more obvious to everybody that it’s not just one metric that drives it but a whole process.
We have gone through a storming phase where everyone has their own opinion, and everything’s rather chaotic. Every team I think goes through that sort of phase, and so it’s inevitable that a company does the same to some extent when changing rapidly. We’ve only really started training black belts in earnest last year at Landrover, and already this year is definitely seeing benefits. There’s a lot of exciting stuff going on now and into the future, I’m looking forward to it.
Overall, I think that we need to remember that while quality is definitely defined by the customer, it is the output of a total product realisation process. Well before the customer is aware of our output the quality is being determined by the designs we utilise which must be deliverable by manufacturing. Using the most appropriate tools is important to all three stages but it is the understanding, commitment, and effort applied by all the people using them at every stage that will determine the final outcome.