U.S. patent application number 11/926635 was filed with the patent office on 2008-02-21 for method to improve requirements, design manufacturing, and transportation in mass manufacturing industries through analysis of defect data.
This patent application is currently assigned to International Business Machines Corporation. Invention is credited to Tim J. Kostyk, Theresa C. Kratschmer, Jeff R. Layton, Peter K. Malkin, Stephen G. Perun, Kenneth L. Pyra, Padmanabhan Santhanam, John C. Thomas, Scott W. Weller.
Application Number | 20080046300 11/926635 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 38233785 |
Filed Date | 2008-02-21 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080046300 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Kostyk; Tim J. ; et
al. |
February 21, 2008 |
METHOD TO IMPROVE REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN MANUFACTURING, AND
TRANSPORTATION IN MASS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES THROUGH ANALYSIS OF
DEFECT DATA
Abstract
A computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a
design, production and testing process in a mass manufacturing
process includes steps of: collecting error data relating to a
product at a plurality of points along its design, production, and
distribution chain; classifying the error data into categories of
errors to provide classifier error data; analyzing relationships
among the classified error data; producing an analysis report; and
recommending modifications to an end user for at least one of the
design, production, delivery, and testing process based on the
analysis report.
Inventors: |
Kostyk; Tim J.; (Louisville,
KY) ; Kratschmer; Theresa C.; (Yorktown Heights,
NY) ; Layton; Jeff R.; (New York, NY) ;
Malkin; Peter K.; (Ardsley, NY) ; Perun; Stephen
G.; (Evans, GA) ; Pyra; Kenneth L.; (Cave
Creek, AZ) ; Santhanam; Padmanabhan; (Yorktown
Heights, NY) ; Thomas; John C.; (Yorktown Heights,
NY) ; Weller; Scott W.; (Penfield, NY) |
Correspondence
Address: |
MICHAEL BUCHENHORNER, P.A.
8540 SW 83 STREET
SUITE 100
MIAMI
FL
33143
US
|
Assignee: |
International Business Machines
Corporation
Armonk
NY
|
Family ID: |
38233785 |
Appl. No.: |
11/926635 |
Filed: |
October 29, 2007 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11330823 |
Jan 12, 2006 |
7305325 |
|
|
11926635 |
Oct 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/7.41 ;
705/7.29 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/04 20130101;
G06Q 30/0201 20130101; G06Q 10/06395 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/007 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 10/00 20060101
G06Q010/00 |
Claims
1. A computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a
design, manufacturing, testing, and delivery process for a product
in a mass manufacturing process, the method comprising the steps
of: collecting error data relating to the product; classifying the
error data into categories of errors to provide classified error
data; and performing an analysis of aspects of the mass
manufacturing process and product, comprising at least one of:
evaluating testing effectiveness, evaluating mass manufacturing
processes, evaluating transportation process, identifying safety
concerns, comparing in-process with post sales problems.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising recommending
modifications to an end user based on the analysis performed.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the collecting, classifying,
performing and recommending steps are performed at scheduled
intervals.
4. A computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a
design, manufacturing, testing, and delivery process for a product
in a mass manufacturing process, the method comprising the steps
of: collecting error data relating to the product; classifying the
error data into categories of errors to provide classified error
data; and performing an analysis of aspects of the mass
manufacturing process and product, comprising at least one of:
evaluating testing effectiveness, evaluating mass manufacturing
processes, evaluating transportation process, identifying safety
concerns, comparing in-process with post sales problems; and
generating a plurality of graphical representations of the
classified error data.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein each graphical representation
includes at least one graphical interpretation, including text.
6. A computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a
design, manufacturing, testing, and delivery process for a product
in a mass manufacturing process, the method comprising the steps
of: collecting error data relating to the product; classifying the
error data into categories of errors to provide classified error
data; analyzing relationships among the classified error data;
producing an analysis report; recommending modifications to an end
user for at least one of the design, manufacturing, testing, and
delivery of the product; and enabling the end user to provide the
steps of collecting, classifying, analyzing, producing, and
recommending to a second user.
7. The method of claim 6 further enabling the end user to provide
the steps of collecting, classifying, analyzing, producing, and
recommending on a continuing basis to the second user.
8. The method of claim 6 further enabling the end user to update
the steps or analysis techniques or both.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a continuation of commonly-owned,
co-pending U.S application Ser. No. 11/330,823 filed Jan. 12, 2006,
which is incorporated by reference herein.
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED-RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
[0002] None.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT
DISC
[0003] None.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0004] The invention relates generally to the use of information
technology in industrial processes and more specifically to mass
manufacturing processes.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0005] Minimizing costs and improving product quality is a goal of
any product development company. To the manufacturer one of the
most costly aspects in a product's life cycle is servicing product
defects after the product has left manufacturing. Present methods
use quality control tests on a manufactured item that are done by a
single department such as a quality control department. Such tests
are expensive to perform and it is also expensive and difficult to
use the results. One present technology is Orthogonal Defect
Classification (ODC) which addresses software defects found during
development and by customers, but only software, not hardware and
only defects found during development. Another known method is
Orthogonal Problem Classification (OPC), which addresses software
problems reported by customers, but does not address mass
manufacturing industry, it only addresses software.
[0006] Another technology, Warranty Management Solutions (WMS)
facilitates handling by management of warranty related data but
provides no feedback to modify production. Quality Control testing
products before product release provide no feedback mechanism back
to production and design facilities.
[0007] Therefore, there is a need for a solution that overcomes the
deficiencies of the prior art.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0008] Briefly, according to an embodiment of the invention, a
computer-implemented method of optimizing at least one of a design,
production and testing process in a mass manufacturing process
includes steps of: collecting error data relating to a product at a
plurality of points along its design, production, and distribution
chain; classifying the error data into categories of errors to
provide classifier error data; analyzing relationships among the
classified error data; producing an analysis report; and
recommending modifications to an end user for at least one of the
design, production, delivery, and testing process based on the
analysis report.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] To describe the foregoing and other exemplary purposes,
aspects, and advantages, we use the following detailed description
of an exemplary embodiment of the invention with reference to the
drawings, in which:
[0010] FIG. 1 is a simplified illustrative block diagram of a
mass-manufactured product handled by a method according to one
embodiment of the invention;
[0011] FIG. 2 is an illustrative flow diagram of the mass
manufacturing industry's production, testing, and delivery
processes according to one embodiment of the invention;
[0012] FIG. 3 is an illustrative schematic diagram of a network
architecture for one embodiment of the invention;
[0013] FIG. 4 is an illustrative block diagram of a PSEC Server
according to one embodiment of the invention;
[0014] FIG. 5 is an illustrative flow diagram of the operation of a
PSEC Server according to one embodiment of the invention; and
[0015] FIG. 6 is an illustrative flow diagram of the operation of
the PSEC Method according to one embodiment of the invention.
[0016] While the invention as claimed can be modified into
alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way of
example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It
should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed
description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the
particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to
cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling
within the scope of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0017] We describe a computer-implemented method for optimizing the
production and testing of products produced by a mass manufacturer,
i.e. where many (virtually) identical copies of a given product are
produced in exactly the same way. This is in contrast to cases
where heroic, unique methods are used each time. The preferred
embodiment will describe how the current invention is used to
optimize the production and testing processes of a mass
manufacturing plant 3010, whose products 1000 are sold by a product
dealer 3020 and repaired by a product service provider 3030 (as
will be described in detail with references to FIGS. 1-5).
[0018] FIG. 1 is a component block diagram of an example of the
product 1000 produced, sold and serviced in the preferred
embodiment. As shown, the product 1000 includes a subsystem 1010,
which includes apart 1020. Although only a single subsystem 1010
and a single part 1020 are shown, the current invention is also
applicable to products 1000 that include two or more subsystems
1010 and subsystems 1010 that include two or more parts 1020. An
example of such a product is a personal computer (product), a
communication subsystem (the subsystem), and a chipset (port)
according to a protocol such as the Ethernet.
[0019] FIG. 2 is an illustrative flow diagram of the mass
manufacturing industry's production, testing, and delivery
processes 2000 according to an embodiment of the invention. As
shown, the overall process 2000 begins at step 2010 where the
design of the product 1000 is created. Next, in step 2020, the
design is reviewed, and, if any errors (defects) are identified,
control continues at step 2010, where the identified design error
is corrected. Otherwise, in step 2030, an instance of the part 1020
is built, followed by step 2040 where the instance of the part 1020
is tested. If an error is identified, then step 2050 checks whether
it is a part error. If so, control continues at step 2030 where the
error is corrected.
[0020] If the error is not a part error, then it must be design
error and so control continues at step 2010 where the design is
corrected to overcome the error. If no part error is found in step
2040, then control continues at step 2060 where an instance of the
subsystem 1010 is built. Next, the instance of the subsystem 1010
is tested in step 2070. If an error is detected, then in step 2080
the error is checked to determine if it one with the subsystem. If
so, control continues at step 2060 where the subsystem error is
corrected. If the detected error is not one with the subsystem,
then control continues at step 2050, which determines how the
detected error, either a part or design error, is handled, as
described above.
[0021] If step 2070 does not detect any errors, then step 2090 is
executed, where an instance of the product 1000 is built, following
which the product 1000 instance is tested in step 2100. If an error
is detected, then in step 2110 the error is checked to determine if
it one with the product. If so, control continues at step 2090
where the product error is corrected. If the detected error is not
one with the product, then control continues at step 2080, which
determines how the detected error, either a subsystem, part or
design error, is handled, as described above.
[0022] If step 2100 does not detect any errors, then step 2120 is
executed, where an instance of the mass manufactured product 1000
is created using the mass manufacturing process (e.g., including
but not limited to an assembly line, and robotics), following which
the mass manufactured product 1000 instance is tested in step 2130.
If an error is detected, then in step 2140 the error is checked to
determine if it is an error within the mass manufacturing process
(e.g., the bolts that attach the wheels are not being sufficiently
tightened). If so, control continues at step 2120 where the mass
manufacturing process error is corrected (e.g., wheel bolts are
screwed on more tightly). If the detected error is not an error
within the mass manufacturing process, then control continues at
step 2110, which determines how the detected error, either a
product, subsystem, part or design error, is handled, as described
above.
[0023] If step 2130 does not detect any errors, then step 2120 is
executed, where the instance of the mass manufactured product 1000
is transported to the Product Dealer 3020 (described in detail with
reference to FIG. 3). Once delivered, mass manufactured product
1000 instance is tested in step 2160. If an error is detected, then
in step 2170 the error is checked to determine if it one with the
transportation process (e.g., the product's paint scratched by the
vehicles that carry the product to the Product Dealer 3020). If the
error is one with the transportation process, control continues at
step 2150 where the transportation process error is corrected
(e.g., the products are covered with a protective wrap before being
shipped). If the detected error is not one with the transportation
process, then control continues at step 2140, which determines how
the detected error, whether it is a mass manufacturing process,
product, subsystem, part or design error is handled, as described
above.
[0024] Skilled artisans will appreciate that any of test processes
other than Design Review 2020 (i.e., Part Test 2040, Subsystem Test
2070, Product Test 2100, Mass Manufacturing Test 2130 and
Transportation Test 2160) could include stress testing (i.e.,
operating a given component [i.e., part, subsystem or product] up
to or beyond one or more of its specified maximum limits) and
environmental testing (i.e., testing a given component in one or
more of is specified maximally adverse conditions). So, for
example, the Part Test 2040 for tires could include running the
inflated tires repeatedly of a series of bumps (for stress
testing). Similarly for environmental testing, the Manufacturing
Test 2130 could include driving each car (cars being the product)
through 110 degree (Fahrenheit) heat.
[0025] FIG. 3 depicts a network topology 3000 providing an
execution environment implementing the functionality of a system
for the current embodiment. The network topology 3000 includes: a
Mass Manufacturing Plant 3010; a Product Dealer 3020; a Product
Service Provider 3080; a Client D 3130, and a PSEC Server 3050. The
Mass Manufacturing Plant 3010 comprises a location, including, but
not limited to a building, or set of buildings, co-located or
geographically distributed, wherein a Client A 3100 and an instance
of mass manufactured product 1000 (MMP1 3060) is located. This
location 3010 is where instances of the mass manufactured product
1000 are created.
[0026] The Product Dealer 3020 comprises a location, including, but
not limited to a building, or set of buildings, co-located or
geographically distributed, wherein a Client B 3110 and an instance
of mass manufactured product 1000 (MMP2 3070) is located. This
location 3020 is where instances of the mass manufactured product
1000 are sold.
[0027] The Product Service Provider 3030 depicts a location,
including, but not limited to a building, or set of buildings,
co-located or geographically distributed, wherein a Client C 3120
and an instance of mass manufactured product 1000, MMP3 3080 are
located. This location 3030 is where instances of the mass
manufactured product 1000 are repaired or serviced.
[0028] Each of Clients A-D 3100-3130 and the PSEC Server 3050 are
able to communicate with each other via a network 3090. The network
3090 comprises: the Internet, an internal intranet, or a public or
private wireless or wired telecommunication network.
[0029] Skilled artisans will appreciate that although only one each
of the Mass Manufacturing Plant 3010, the Product Dealer 3020 and
the Product Service Provider 3030 are depicted in FIG. 2, other
embodiments are also applicable to cases where there are a greater
number of one or more of these entities 3010-1030. Skilled artisans
will also appreciate that other embodiments are also applicable to
cases where the three entities 3010-3030 are co-located.
[0030] Each of Clients A-D 3100-3130 enable an authorized user to
interact with the PSEC Server 3050 (as will be discussed in further
detail below) with reference to FIGS. 3-5. An example of a platform
that supports the Clients A-D 3100-3130 includes any computing node
that can act as web client (i.e., runs a web browser application
and can communicate with the PSEC Server 3050 via the network
3090). Such software comprises Microsoft's Internet Explorer.TM..
Still another example of a platform that supports the Clients A-D
3100-3130 includes, but is not limited to: an IBM ThinkPad.TM.
running on a Windows based operating system such as Windows XP, or
like operating system. Other contemplated operating systems include
Linux, UNIX, and the like.
[0031] Clients A-D 3100-3130 may also include network-connectable
mobile (i.e., portable) devices such as some cellular telephones
(i.e., devices which function as a cellular telephone and execute
network applications, like web browsers).
[0032] Although only four Clients A-D 3100-3130 are shown in FIG.
1, the current invention is also applicable to any number of client
nodes greater than or equal to 1.
[0033] Further, while the preferred embodiment includes a Web-based
(i.e., HTTP) client 3100-3130, other forms of network communication
are also applicable, such as a sockets-based client/server
architecture, e.g., implementing secure sockets layer (SSL) or like
network communications protocols.
[0034] Skilled artisans will appreciate that the current invention
is also applicable to cases where there is only a single client
node, which resides on the same machine as the PSEC Server 3050,
thereby eliminating the need for any network communication at
all.
[0035] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of the PSEC Server 4050. The PSEC
Server 4050 is a computing node that acts as an HTTP server. The
PSEC Server 4050 includes a CPU 4000, a network interface 4010, and
a storage device 4020 such as a disk or data access storage device
(DASD), and memory 4030, such as RAM. The network interface 4010
allows the PSEC Server 4050 to communicate with other network
connected nodes via the network 4090. Such interfaces include, but
are limited to: Ethernet, and wireless IP (Internet Protocol, e.g.,
LEAP, CDMA or WAP).
[0036] In the present embodiment, the PSEC Server 4050 also
includes PSEC Server logic 4040, which is embodied as computer
executable code that is loaded into memory 4030 (for execution by
CPU 4000) from a remote source (e.g., over the network 4090 via the
network interface 4010), local permanent optical (CD-ROM), or from
the storage device 4020 (e.g. disk or DASD).
[0037] The PSEC Server logic 4040 stored in the memory 4030
includes an HTTP Server Handler 4050, which includes a PSEC Client
Applet 4060 and a PSEC Client Interface Servlet 4070. The PSEC
Server logic 4040 further includes a Defect Data Collection Handler
4080, a Defect Data Classification Handler 4090, an Analysis
Handler 4100, a Suggested Actions Report Handler 4110, and a PSEC
Server Database 3120.
[0038] The HTTP Server Handler 4050 is an application that can
respond to HTTP communications, comprising: the WebSphere.TM.
product sold by IBM.
[0039] The PSEC Client Applet 4060 and PSEC Client Interface
Servlet 4070 together enable an authorized end-user to communicate
with the Defect Data Collection Handler 4080, Defect Data
Classification Handler 4090, Analysis Handler 4100, and Suggested
Actions Report Handler 4110. When the end-user wants to interact
with the PSEC Server 4050, the end-user first downloads the PSEC
Client Applet 4060 to a web browser running on their client,
Clients A-D 4100-4130. To download the PSEC Client Applet 4060, the
end-user must provide sufficient credentials (e.g., user ID and
password).
[0040] After the PSEC Client Applet 4060 has been downloaded and
enabled, the PSEC Client Applet 4060 communicates directly with the
PSEC Client Interface Servlet 4070, which is executing in the HTTP
Server Handler 4050. The HTTP Server Handler 4050, in turn,
communicates locally with the other handlers 4090-4110 executing on
the server 4050. Skilled artisans will recognize that this
applet/servlet paring is well known in the art (e.g., see Jason
Hunter with William Crawford, Java Servlet Programming (Sebastopol,
Calif: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1988), pp. 277-337).
Skilled artisans will also appreciate that the communication
between the Clients A-D 4100-4130 and the handlers 4090-4110, in
other embodiments can be implemented using other socket-based
applications.
[0041] The PSEC Server Database 4120 allows the PSEC Server 4050 to
store, modify, and delete data related to misinformation, usage
patterns, users, and online community servers. A detailed
description of the information maintained by the PSEC Server
Database 4120 is given below. The PSEC Server Database 4120 can be
implemented using database tools such as the DB/2 product sold by
IBM, and like database platforms. One with skill in the art will
appreciate that in other embodiments, the PSEC Server Database 4120
can be a service that runs on another server and is accessed by the
PSEC Server 4050 via the network 4090.
[0042] The Defect Data Collection Handler 4080 enables the current
invention to gather a set of defect data regarding the mass
manufactured product 1000 and the processes of its production,
testing and delivery 2000. This data includes but is not limited
to: Defects founds during product 1000 development, such as design
defects discovered during the design review 2020, Defects found in
instances of the product 1000 after manufacturing 2110, but before
delivery, such as cases where the mass manufacturing process 2120
has failed to tighten the bolts that hold the wheels on. Defects
that occur as a result of the transportation process 2150, such as
paint being chipped during shipping due insufficient secure
restraints in the delivery vehicle, and Defects found at the
Product Service Provider 3030, such as a case where an unreliable
tire is identified by the fact that many instances of the product
1000 are brought in where one or more of the tires has burst during
operation. Note that this data comes from in-process and post
delivery. All such data is stored in the PSEC Server Database
4120.
[0043] The Defect Data Classification Handler 4090 takes all of the
stored defects and either types or adds types to each defect,
storing results in the PSEC Server Database 4120. This set of
attributes categories and associated values is called the PSEC
scheme. It is it uses some of the categories and values of the ODC
scheme, as well as adding new categories and new values.
[0044] In the current invention there are two types of defect
attributes: opener data, that which is known when the defect is
first discovered, and closer data, which is only available after a
given defect has been resolved. In the current invention, the
opener data associated with each that is stored in the PSEC Server
Database 4120 comprises:
[0045] Unique ID, which can be used to distinguish one defect from
all others.
[0046] VIN (Vehicle Identification Number), which, in the preferred
embodiment is the unique encoded alphanumeric string that every
automobile has assigned to, this string not only including a unique
ID (serial number) for the car, but also indication the car's make,
model, and manufacturing plant (for details, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIN).
[0047] Ownership Duration indicates long the product was owned
before the defect occurred. In one embodiment of the current
invention these revealing conditions include, but are not limited
to (note that they are listed in order of shortest to longest):
[0048] Short--Year or less, [0049] Medium--1 to 5 years, [0050]
Long--5 years to disposal.
[0051] One skilled in the art will appreciate that the current
invention also includes embodiments in which the Ownership Duration
attribute has more or less than 3 values, and in which the values
differ from those above (values applicable for the automotive
industry). Such alternatives are needed for other mass
manufacturing industries, such as the aeronautics industry, whose
product: planes are owned and used for well over 5 years, on
average. Thus the Long value would have to be greater than 5. Such
values are also necessary because different industries have
warranty periods of different length.
[0052] In the current embodiment, the closer data associated with
each that is stored in the PSEC Server Database 4120. In addition
to openers and closers, there are mapped attributes whose values
for a given defect are computed from other attributes for the given
defects. There are also derived attributes whose values for a given
defect can only be computed when all of the defects and all other
attributes have been computed # Units Affected, indicates the total
number of product instances that have suffered from this same
defect. It is derived by counting the number of defects that
identical part # and corrective action value.
[0053] Every defect is classified with each of the attributes above
with all of the data stored in the PSEC Server Database 4120. Note
that the PSEC Scheme includes data concerning not only software,
but hardware and electronics as well (e.g., in the Parts
Hierarchy). Further, note that the PSEC Scheme also includes data
and analysis techniques targeting mass manufacturing production
processes (e.g., Test Type: Manufacturing Test and Phase of Defect
Injection: Manufacturing).
[0054] As is described in detail with reference to FIG. 6, the
Analysis Handler 4100 uses the classified defect data stored in the
PSEC Server Database 4120 to provide data for and answers to
questions related to the production and testing process of the mass
manufacturer.
[0055] As is described in detail with reference to FIG. 6, the
Suggested Actions Reports handler 4110 compiles the charts and text
results stored in the PSEC Server Database 4120 to generate a
report containing suggested modification to one or more production
or testing processes in the mass manufacturing industry's
production, testing, and delivery processes. Such suggestions can
include, but are not limited to the addition of a new test phase,
or an indication of whether or not a given product is ready for
public sale. In addition to textually described suggestions, the
report can also include graphical charts justifying the given
suggestions, often more than two or more such graphical charts per
suggestion.
[0056] A skilled artisan will appreciate that the current invention
also includes a PSEC scheme that includes the service context in
which a given defect was found as an attribute, with values
including but not limited to: scheduled maintenance, nonscheduled
maintenance, and product recall.
[0057] A skilled artisan will further appreciate that the current
invention also includes a PSEC scheme that includes the attributes
that indicate the complexity level--e.g., indicated numerically--of
other attributes. Examples include, but not limited to Condition
Revealing Defect Complexity: 1 for Single Function 2 for Single
Function with Option 3 for Interaction and Sequencing 4 for
Workload/Stress, Recovery/Exception, Startup/Restart,
Environmental, and Stress.
[0058] FIG. 5 is a detailed flow diagram of the operation of the
PSEC Server logic 4040. In step 5010, the HTTP Server Handler 4050
awaits an HTTP request. When such a request arrives, step 5020
checks whether it is a request for the Defect Data Collection
Handler 4080. If so, this handler 4080 is invoked following which
control continues at step 5010.
[0059] If the request is not for the Defect Data Collection Handler
4080, then step 5040 checks whether it is a request for the Defect
Data Classification Handler 4090. If so, this handler 4090 is
invoked following which control continues at step 5010. If the
request is not for the Defect Data Classification Handler 4090,
then step 5050 checks whether it is a request for the Analysis
Handler 4100. If so, this handler 4100 is invoked following which
control continues at step 5010. If the request is not for the
Analysis Handler 4100, then step 5040 checks whether it is a
request for the Suggested Actions Report Handler 4110. If so, this
handler 4110 is invoked following which control continues at step
5010. If the request is not for the Actions Report Handler 4110,
then a miscellaneous handler, beyond the scope of the current
invention, is called in step 5070, following which control
continues at step 5010.
[0060] Referring to FIG. 6, a flow diagram 5000 of the operation of
the current embodiment is shown. In particular, a case involving an
automobile manufacturer is given. First, in step 6010 all defect
data for a particular make (e.g., Ford) and model (e.g., Corvette)
of car is collected by the Defect Data Collection Handler 4080 from
any of Clients A-D 3100-3130 via the PSEC Client Applet 4060.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that any additions could be made
manually (i.e. by a human typing information into a computer
running the PSEC Client Applet 4060 via a web browser, or by an
automatic data collection program, also which communicates with the
PSEC server 3050 via the PSEC Client Applet 4060).
[0061] Thus, the current embodiment allows a given mass
manufacturing industry to automate its defect data collection.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that this defect data includes
in-process production data (e.g., data from the Mass Manufacturing
Plant 3010), as well as post-sales, service data (e.g., from the
Product Dealer 3020, or the Product Service Provider 3030).
[0062] Next, in step 6020, the defect data is classified using the
Defect Data Classification Handler 4090, again via accesses from
Clients A-D 3100-3130. Skilled artisans will appreciate that
although the classifications may be made by employees of the
manufacturing organization (e.g., Ford), including but not limited
to domain experts, a service organization could also provide one or
more of the classifications.
[0063] A skilled artisan will appreciate that if a given mass
manufacturing organization obtained its parts 120 or subsystems
1010 from another given component supplier, and if that given
component supplier used to current invention to analyze its
defects, then the mass manufacturing organization could use the
PSEC scheme-based classified defect data for its own defect
analysis.
[0064] Next, in step 6030, using the Analysis Handler 4100,
relationships amongst the classified data are sought to answer
questions relevant to the mass manufacturer (e.g., which production
process(es) is(are) producing the defects that drive the majority
of the warranty costs?). This research can also provide indications
of salient problems. For example, suppose that a chart displaying
the number of defects that escape from (i.e., are not caught by)
each of the test processes 2020, 2040, 2070, 2100, 2130 and 2160
shows that vast majority come from the Part testing phase 2040.
[0065] Then, if the goal of the given mass manufacturer is to save
money, more attention and/or resources (e.g., time, and personnel)
should be spent on Part testing 2040, so as to keep these defects
from escaping to the later stages where they are more expensive to
overcome.
[0066] The Analysis Handler 4100 also includes rules that test the
classified data to answer specific questions. Skilled artisans will
appreciate that one or more of these rules can be provided when the
current invention is first provided to a given organization (e.g.,
mass manufacturer). An example of such a rule would be one that
reviews the Product Impact of the defects and then specifies the
given product's reliability: e.g., "high" returned if none of the
defects made the product inoperable, "average" if only a few did,
and "low" if most defects did.
[0067] Finally, in step 6040, the current invention compiles a
chart and results into a report using the Suggested Actions Report
Handler 4110. Skilled artisans will appreciate that the Suggested
Actions Report Handler 4110 could implement either of following
methods: Automatic compilation of all charts and results generated
by the Analysis Handler 4100 and stored in the PSEC Server Database
4120, or Allowing an end-user to select the charts and results they
wish to include and then compiling only entities into the final
report. A skilled artisan will appreciate that one or more members
of a service organization could provide the chart and result
selection described above instead of an employee of the mass
manufacturer,
[0068] A skilled artisan will also appreciate that the current
invention could be executed multiple times by a given organization,
e.g., periodically, say once a year, or to every new version of a
given product. By doing this and comparing the results of each
execution (e.g., comparing the reports produced in step 6040) the
benefits realized by the given organization could include:
Verifying that they are overcoming problem indicated in earlier
reports, e.g., by checking the previous problems either vanish or
are less severe in later reports.; Verifying that their product are
becoming more stable, reliable, or safe, e.g., by comparing the
respective levels of stability, reliability, and safety between
reports; or Verifying that are maintaining a sufficient level of
production and testing quality, e.g., by verifying that no new or
higher severity problems are reported in later reports.
[0069] A skilled artisan will further appreciate that PSEC analysis
reports from different organizations could be compared so as to
judge the strengths and weaknesses of the organizations.
[0070] A skilled artisan will also appreciate that by using the
both Charge Type attribute (i.e., whether or not the defect's
repair was covered by warranty) and the Repair Cost attributes, the
analysis provided by the Analysis Handler 4100 and reported by the
Suggested Actions Report Handler could include consideration of
each defect's warranty cost. Thus, a given organization interested
in reducing their warranty-related costs could use the current
invention to indicate relevant problems and to suggest corrective
modifications to their production and testing processes.
[0071] A skilled artisan will also appreciate that by comparing and
analyzing the classified defects data, especially using the
In-Process attribute, the current embodiment can be used to compare
defects that escaped (i.e., were created and yet not caught) the
product's development and production to those that occurred out in
the field.
[0072] A skilled artisan will finally appreciate that the current
embodiment could be provided as a service by a service organization
to the mass manufacturer. This service could include the service
organization collecting the defects, classifying the defects,
analyzing the classified defects and generating the report
summarizing the analysis. This service could be offered on a
continuing basis, e.g., the service organization could analyze and
provide an analysis report to the mass manufacturer each year. The
service could also include modifications and updates to the PSEC
scheme used to analyze the given mass manufacturer.
[0073] A skilled artisan will further appreciate that variations,
modifications, and other implementations of what is described
herein may occur to those of ordinary skill in the art without
departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly,
the invention is defined by the following claims and not to be
defined only by the preceding illustrative description.
* * * * *
References