• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• 제8권3호
• /
• pp.173-187
• /
• 2007

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

• 한국품질경영학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국품질경영학회 2006년도 추계 학술대회
• /
• pp.381-388
• /
• 2006

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

• 한국품질경영학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국품질경영학회 2006년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.456-460
• /
• 2006

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

• 한국정밀공학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국정밀공학회 2011년도 춘계학술대회 논문집
• /
• pp.713-714
• /
• 2011

• 대한안전경영과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한안전경영과학회 2011년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.731-746
• /
• 2011

The successful and sustainable growth of SMEs depends on their ability of strengthen their competitiveness in quality and cost and service more than anything else as a fundamental of operation. Among these key competitive factors of SMEs, quality is the most critical factor in manufacturing business fields. Because quality strongly influence cost and service performance on this manufacturing business field. There are many different ways to improve the quality performance but it needs proper management decision to choose the best way what can maximize outputs with minimum inputs. And it needs effective measurement methods and some indicators to analysis the quality performance properly. The quality cost is one of the simplest key indicators to measure the quality performance and the effectiveness of quality related management decisions. The major purpose of this study is to diagnose the categorized current level of actual quality cost of local SMEs to maximize their quality management effectiveness through comparing their level with others what's expressed in early studies. In this study, through survey on local SMEs, we found that their average annual quality cost ratio versus turnover - Total amount of annual quality cost divided by annual turnover - is around 3.69% excluded some SME's performances what have different quality control measures with others. And we found some results what corresponded with the early studies on the correlations between those categorized quality costs factors and some discrepancies between some of the literature model and the early case study results as follows. There were negative correlations between the Prevention costs and the External failure costs, and the Appraisal costs and the External failure costs, and there was positive correlation between the Appraisal costs and Internal failure costs same as early studies. But, we couldn't found any strong negative correlations between the Cost of control - Preventive costs & Appraisal costs - and the Cost of Failure of control - Internal & External failure costs -. It reveals not only the lack of effectiveness on their preventive or appraisal activities but also it can reveal there were so many effective ways to prevent the failure costs properly such as some innovative investment on Factory automation includes Error Proofing and more preventive actions to improve the effectiveness of the typical management methods likes CE (Concurrent Engineering), APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning), FMEA (Failure Mode & Effect Analysis) etc.