Six Sigma usage in F1?

[alelanza]

Is six sigma used at all within F1 teams? i'm guessing that for the likes of toyota it was, but in general do you know if teams use it, or any of its subsets?

[safeaschuck]

If it was in use at Toyota I've never seen a better Advert for ISO 9000 et al.

Just done a bit of revision (thank you Wikipedia) and it seems more suited to mass production type stuff with a large semi skilled workforce. Wouldn't you have more people developing and implementing the strategies than you would carrying them out in an F1 team?

[Belatti]

arrrgghhhhh

My firt job was at a company that was implementing six sigma.

The president wanted 6S in everything and no one understood a damn thing. I hate 6S since then.

I use some 6S tools when I need them, but the whole methodology sucks.

[Tim.Wright]

I doubt any F1 team uses 6S, mainly because the sample size would be too small. Pretty much everything they make is a prototype. They do have quality departments which check parts dimensionally and with NDT etc, but I dont think they would use the 6S technique.

6S is good for process monitoring and control of mass produced articles, where over a large number of parts you can see drifts in average measurements which could mean a tool is wearing or a mould is losing form.

Actually I doubt any F1 teams are even ISO19001 (since it was mentioned). It is not efficient enough for a race team.

I would say they would have their own methods of measuring quality in a way that doesnt adversely affect the required throughput speed. This is actually a more difficult task than most would think. I worked on a quality management system for a year and a half and swore never again. But even I would like to have a look at an F1 teams quality manual.

Tim

[marcush.]

I doubt any F1 team uses 6S, mainly because the sample size would be too small. Pretty much everything they make is a prototype. They do have quality departments which check parts dimensionally and with NDT etc, but I dont think they would use the 6S technique.

6S is good for process monitoring and control of mass produced articles, where over a large number of parts you can see drifts in average measurements which could mean a tool is wearing or a mould is losing form.

Actually I doubt any F1 teams are even ISO19001 (since it was mentioned). It is not efficient enough for a race team.

I would say they would have their own methods of measuring quality in a way that doesnt adversely affect the required throughput speed. This is actually a more difficult task than most would think. I worked on a quality management system for a year and a half and swore never again. But even I would like to have a look at an F1 teams quality manual.

Tim

On one side I´m pretty sure they have living FMEAs and process interlock and full documentation .....especially on outsourced parts you really need the traceability.
but I had some insight into a small F1 supplier just last year and I have to say that this company was relying on experience and expertise but it was not certified nor did they apply any automotive methods for qualitycontrol. Still all major F1 teams ,a lot of lmp teams ,big works racecar constructors rely on their products and expertise with sucess.

[noname]

The president wanted 6S in everything and no one understood a damn thing. I hate 6S since then.

I use some 6S tools when I need them, but the whole methodology sucks.

that's the problem with big companies. 6S could be quite a useful tool in some applications but too often it becomes a religion.

from the time I've been working for the world biggest jet engines manufacturer (proud to be a "6S company") I remember discussion with one of the suppliers.

- you, as our supplier, have to implement 6S.
- are you sure ? you are using 6S but how many defects per 1000 (just example) do you have ?
- (I can not recall the number)
- we have 3-4 (if I recall correctly) times less. so why should we implement methodology making our process worse ?

[Tim.Wright]

On one side I´m pretty sure they have living FMEAs and process interlock and full documentation .....especially on outsourced parts you really need the traceability.
but I had some insight into a small F1 supplier just last year and I have to say that this company was relying on experience and expertise but it was not certified nor did they apply any automotive methods for qualitycontrol. Still all major F1 teams ,a lot of lmp teams ,big works racecar constructors rely on their products and expertise with sucess.

My thoughts exactly. If you have a lot of good people who really know their stuff, then you can get rid of a lot of the redundant checks and balances in a normal quality system which really slow things down. Theres no way you could get such a system ISO certified but as an F1 team, you dont need to.

Tim

[xpensive]

To my xperience, "ISO 9000", "Y2k-secure", "Six sigma" and what not, are mostly money-making consultant inventions.

[ESPImperium]

To my xperience, "ISO 9000", "Millennium", "Six sigma" and what not, are mostly money-making consultant inventions.

Not to mention a total waste of time and money for the person ot persons implementing them.

On a small scale it works, but when you put it to the big guys, the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Arguably the downfall of Toyota pre 2008 & 2009 when the Toyota Way wasnt implemented to the way it was from 2003 or 2004-2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000

the only way ot have certifyable results in F1 is to have results on track, by scoring points regularly, or achinving good consistant wins for your team or drivers championship standing.

[czt]

that's the problem with big companies. 6S could be quite a useful tool in some applications but too often it becomes a religion.

This sums things up for me.

I think there are plenty of ideas that can be taken from the likes of six sigma or iso9000, however organisations seem to get drawn into slavishly applying such methods while forgetting the purpose behind them.

I don't recall encountering any motorsport organisation who have seriously applied such methods, nor do I think they will be of much benefit anyway. Teams tend to be very lean, focussed operations where the good ones will have just enough process in place to maintain quality as required.

[safeaschuck]

Actually I doubt any F1 teams are even ISO19001 (since it was mentioned). It is not efficient enough for a race team.

I think it is in use in F1. I have been present when 2 suppliers have implemented it (a happy time for all the workforce , and a particularly good time not to be Q.C. manager!) although I think this was more for gearing up to be eligible for aerospace and military contracts.

What they tend to do with ISO, and one of the reasons for it's success, is not tie themselves in knots and obligate themselves to do any more work than they already do (or are supposed to be doing).

When inspecting a part for instance you measure fine tolerances with appropriatle fine measuring instruments, you write these figures on this particular sheet and store it in this folder. Not only does everyone, including new starters know exactly whats required of them, but management can reasnobly expect to find the records when things have gone wrong and it's time to bust some heads.
If things are failing too often and changes need to be made you amend your procedures.

I've heard ISO is a bit of cartel and as such they are very overpriced for the time THEY actually spend looking at your systems, but at least they are not some mickey mouse outfit who overlook certain problems to keep the subscriptions coming in.

Most firms designate an employee of their own to unravel the gobledegook of the requirements and oversee the implementation and it is usually the quality manager. Q.C. manager is one of the most stressfull and overloaded job roles on the shop-floor and they somtimes contract a specialist to assist, sometimes they even take this step before the poor guy has a nervous breakdown!
After weeks and months of bitching, postulating, resisting and power gaming by almost the entire workforce over the requirement to fill in 1 extra line on a sheet of paper the audit date looms and people are told in no uncertain terms that it will be done this way or they can walk. Periodic re-inpsections ensure compliance and certification can be removed. In situations like this the cost of achieving certification can almost be justified as a sufficient deterrent to loosing it!

As has been mentioned before just because you have been certified by this or that organisation dosen't make your product any better; the bigger the workforce the more usefull it can be. If you haven't used a companies products before and have no way of sampling the product before ordering it is a nice reassurance, and as such becomes a marketing tool as well.

[Jersey Tom]

Being efficient and lean with time, resource, and waste management is prevalent in most top-level engineering teams.. whether they advertise it as "six sigma" or not.

[Tim.Wright]

Actually I doubt any F1 teams are even ISO19001 (since it was mentioned). It is not efficient enough for a race team.

I think it is in use in F1. I have been present when 2 suppliers have implemented it (a happy time for all the workforce , and a particularly good time not to be Q.C. manager!) although I think this was more for gearing up to be eligible for aerospace and military contracts.

A lot of motorsport suppliers are AS9100 which is an aerospace version of 9001. If you are supplying parts to the aerospace industry, AS9100 is a must. The teams themselves would probably avoid, primarily due to what you oulined in your next paragraph...

Most firms designate an employee of their own to unravel the gobledegook of the requirements and oversee the implementation and it is usually the quality manager. Q.C. manager is one of the most stressfull and overloaded job roles on the shop-floor and they somtimes contract a specialist to assist, sometimes they even take this step before the poor guy has a nervous breakdown!
After weeks and months of bitching, postulating, resisting and power gaming by almost the entire workforce over the requirement to fill in 1 extra line on a sheet of paper the audit date looms and people are told in no uncertain terms that it will be done this way or they can walk. Periodic re-inpsections ensure compliance and certification can be removed. In situations like this the cost of achieving certification can almost be justified as a sufficient deterrent to loosing it!

Hahaha this is so true! I've been through an AS9100 accreditiation and all that crap is exactly why I think every F1 team would avoid it. They might mandate their suppliers carry it because then you're sure that what you buy is what is written on the tin. But to go through all of the above for no reason other than to avoid suspension of your license is a waste of time.

Tim

[The FOZ]

As already mentioned, much of Six Sigma is better applied toward eliminating variance in mass production situations. The sixth level of the Six Sigma quality chart represents .00034% defects...nothing, NOTHING in F1 gets repeated enough times for even Five Sigma (.023% defects), to be relevant, in my view.

However, on the subject of Toyota, they did employ Kaizen-type principles, which may have led to not realizing their potential, since cycle times are terribly short, and even abbreviated in F1.

[Belatti]

Being efficient and lean with time, resource, and waste management is prevalent in most top-level engineering teams.. whether they advertise it as "six sigma" or not.

I still remember and wonder about what that "goony" guy mentioned regarding McLaren and its CF composites.