A presentation on Quality Circle by SSQCE

1. QUALITY CIRCLE
A presentation by
THE SOCIETY
OF
STATISTICAL QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEERS
BHOPAL

2. THE NEED FOR QUALITY CIRCLES
• Opportunity to people at “grass roots levels”
• Recognition and self-esteem to workmen
• Develops creativity and team spirit
• A way to tap workers potential
• A step towards TQM/CWQC
• Improvement in the quality of
products/services
• Improvement in productivity of the
organisation

3. Historical Background of Quality Circles
- Born out of re-construction of JAPAN (1945-1970)
- The first “QC Circle” was set up in Japan in 1962
- Dr. K. ISHIKAVA, on behalf of JUSE took the lead in
setting up Q-Circles.
Spread of Q-Circles:
Japan - Korea -> Taiwan -> China -> Europe
-> North America ->South America
Latest tally across the globe:
1.2 MILLION Q-Circles ( Approx.)
12 MILLION Q-Circle members ( Approx.)

4. WHAT IS QUALITY CIRCLE?
“A group of 5-15 people from the same work area
or performing similar work, who volunteer to meet
regularly to identify on-the-job problems and solve
them”.
SCOPE
- Quality improvement in products
- Quality improvement in services
- Productivity enhancement
- Cost reduction
- Safety
- Housekeeping

5. KEY ELEMENTS OF Q-CIRCLES
• It is a voluntary body
• It is a homogeneous group
• Membership is open only to
“grass roots” people
• Members have freedom to discuss on-the-
job problems and solve them
• Consensus approach
• Project – by – project approach

6. STEERING
COMMITTEE
AREA
CO-ORDINATORS
FACILITATORS
LEADER
QUALITY CIRCLE ORGANIZATION
Dy. LEADER
MEMBERS
QUALITY
CIRCLE

7. THE STRUCTURE OF QUALITY CIRCLE
STEERING COMMITTEE
AREA CO-ORDINATORS
FACILITATORS
QUALITY CIRCLE
Leader
Deputy Leader
Members

8. QUALITY – CIRCLE SUCCESS RECIPE
• Formal launching of Q-circles
(Initial presentation followed by 2-3
circles to start with)
• Training for Q-circle members,
Dy. Leaders and Leaders
• Visible Management support
• Motivated facilitator

9. GUARDING AGAINST PITFALLS
What should NOT be discussed in Quality Circle Meetings
a) Personal problems/frustrations
b) Industrial relations issues
c) Promotions/transfers
d) Merits/de-merits of individuals
Quality-Circle is NOT:
a) An advisory body to the management
b) Forum for discussing grievances
c) A multi-disciplinary committee or cross functional team
d) A tool of management to “unload” it’s problems.
e) A forum to discuss Quality problems alone.
f) A part of the administrative hierarchy
g) A committee whose members are nominated by the management

10. SIMPLE TOOLS (TECHNIQUES)
EMPLOYED BY
QUALITY- CIRCLES

11. 1 BRAINSTORMING
2 CAUSE AND EFFECT DIAGRAM
3 GRAPHS AND CHARTS
4 PARETO ANALYSIS
5 HISTOGRAM
6 SCATTER DIAGRAM
7 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

13. BRAINSTORMING
 A popular technique to:
- Identify problems
- List out causes of the problem
- Finding solutions
 Each member should speak in rotation
 There could be 2nd
round, 3rd
round of
brainstorming till all the ideas of the group
are exhausted.
 No idea should be rejected, criticised or ridiculed
 There should be no evaluation of ideas during
brainstorming
 No rigid formality to be observed
 Records to be kept for detailed discussion on each
idea

15. CAUSEEFFECTDIAGRAM- EXAMPLE- 1
POOR ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE
TEACHER
ENVIRONMENT
STUDENT
TEACHING METHOD
Qualification
Attentiveness
IQ
Furniture
Audio Visual Aids
Experience
Lecture /Tutorial
Class Layout
Decor

16. CAUSEEFFECTDIAGRAM- EXAMPLE- 2
SHOP
REJECTION /
REWORK
Material
METHOD
MAN
MACHINE
Grade
Training
Maintenance
Source
Capability
Type
Validation
Experience

18. EXAMPLE – PIE CHART
[ COST BREAK-UP OF A PRODUCT ]
COST HEAD AMOUNT IN Rs. % CONTRIBUTION
Material Cost 50,000 50%
Labour Cost 25,000 25%
Overheads 15,000 15%
Profit 10,000 10%

20. EXAMPLE – BAR CHART
[ Comparison of Annual sales of five
manufacturing units ]
MANUFACTURING ANNUAL SALES
UNIT IN CRORE Rs.
A 150
B 380
C 75
D 450
E 250

22. EXAMPLE – LINE GRAPH
[ TREND OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ]
MONTH NO. OF COMPLAINTS
Apr 25
May 21
June 26
July 18
Aug 12
Sept. 10

25. PARETO ANALYSIS
A USEFUL TECHNIQUE TO SEGREGATE VITAL FEW FROM TRIVIAL MANY
EXAMPLE:
(PARETO ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY SHOP REWORK-CAUSE WISE)
DATA TABLE
C B D A C
C A C C A
C E C E D
C C B C B
C D C D C
C C C C C
B A B A B
C C C B C
C E C C D
C B B A C
LEGEND:
A: MACHINE PROBLEM
B: OPERATOR ERROR
C: MATERIAL/COMPONENT DEFECT
D: DRAWING ERROR
E: AY OTHER REASON

26. [ FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE ]
REWORK
CODE
FREQUENCY PERCENT
CONTRIBUTION
A
B
C
D
E
6
9
27
5
3
12%
18%
54%
10%
6%
TOTAL 50 100%

27. [ PARETO ANALYSIS – TABLE]
REWORK
CODE
PERCENT
CONTRIBUTION
CUMULATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
C
B
A
D
E
54%
18%
12%
10%
6%
54%
72%
84%
94%
100%

30. HISTOGRAM : EXAMPLE -1
TEST SCORE OF 50 STUDENTS (RAW DATA)
MAXIMUM MARKS = 100
46 68 22 78 65 89 59 69 70
78
64 75 92 80 73 75 64 82 25
68
71 17 65 59 74 38 71 25 90
76
63 58 86 73 96 67 72 64 32
90

31. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE OF TEST SCORES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS FREQUENCY
INTERVAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 – 10 NIL
10 – 20 1
20 – 30 4
30 – 40 2
40 – 50 1
50 - 60 5
60 - 70 14
70 - 80 15
80 - 90 6
90 - 100 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35. HISTOGRAM: EXAMPLE -2
RAW DATA
Length of Cast Bars in mm
26, 28, 35, 42, 49, 63, 70, 77, 86, 30, 37,
43, 50, 57, 64, 71, 80, 34, 40, 44, 51, 58,
65, 72, 40, 45, 52, 59, 66, 72, 41, 46, 53,
60, 67, 41, 47, 54, 61, 69, 35, 48, 55, 54,
62, 46, 53, 60, 53, 58
TOTAL OBSERVATIONS = 50
SPECIFIED LENGTH = 65 +/- 10MM
OBJECTIVE:
To construct Histogram and draw conclusions regarding
the casting process.

36. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS FREQUENCY
INTERVAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 – 27 1
27 – 34 3
34 – 41 7
41 – 48 8
48 – 55 10
55 – 62 8
62 – 69 6
69 – 76 4
76 – 83 2
83 – 90 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. SCATTER DIAGRAM
A SIMPLE TECHNIQUE TO ASSESS CO-RELATION
BETWEEN TWO VARIABLES
EXAMPLE: HEIGHT – WEIGHT
HARDNESS – TENSILE STRENGTH
TEMPERATURE – VISCOSITY
ALTITUDE - PRESSURE
ADVANTAGES:
1) Destructive testing can be avoided
2) Reduced inspection cost
3) Making predictions easier

40. SCATTER DIAGRAM – EXAMPLE
HARDNESS (X) TENSILE STRENGTH (Y)
144 70.00
146 71.90
150 71.00
153 74.65
155 72.90
157 75.40
158 80.80
160 80.25
160 75.75
162 79.65
163 81.10
164 81.10
164 83.45
165 88.80
166 78.00
167 77.25
168 80.60
168 85.75
169 82.25
170 83.10

45. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS – EXAMPLE
PROJECT: Development of fixture to eliminate
rejection of end plates due to wrong
drilling.
CALCULATION OF COST:
Cost of fixture = Cost of Material + fabrication and
machining charges
(Design by members)
= Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 8000
= Rs. 28,000

46. CALCULATION OF BENEFITS:
i) DUE TO QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
- Rejection level reduced from 10% to NIL
- Monthly saving by eliminating rejection =
(10% of No. of pieces produced during the month)
x (Cost per piece – Scrap value)
= 5x(Rs.6000 – Rs.1000)
= Rs.25,000
ii) DUE TO PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT
- Production increased from 50 pieces/month to 60
pieces per month
- Monthly gains = (60-50) x profit per piece
= 10 x Rs 2000 = Rs.20,000
TOTAL SAVING PER MONTH = Rs.25000 + Rs.20000
= Rs.45000

47. CASE STUDY

48. CASE STUDY
QUALITY CIRCLE IN A HOSPITAL
Section: Pharmacy
OBJECTIVES
1 - To improve the quality of service.
2 - To reduce stress and fatigue of staff
3 - To simplify the work
4 - To improve work environment
5 - To make work a pleasure

49. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED THROUGH
BRAINSTORMING:
1 Patients have to wait for too long a period in the
queue for getting medicines. Patients, therefore,
get irritated.
2 Too many brands of the same drug.
3 No action on slow moving drugs
4 Daily register for receipts and issues too elaborate
and filling up is time consuming.
5 Disease code number on prescription not mentioned
always.
6 Children and gynaecology cases not given special
attention and they are clubbed with the common
queue
7 Pharmacists are subjected to stress and fatigue.
8 Manpower not commensurate with increased load.
9 No attention to control costly drugs.

50. ISHIKAVA DIAGRAM
Waiting time of
patients more
leading to frustration
Dispensing windows
No data on fast moving drugs
Difficulty of movement
Packing
Only one window
for males
Have to get up every
time to pack drugs
Only one window
for ladies and
children
Straight back
chairs
Straight pigeon hole racks
for medicines
Disease codes not always
filled up
To be manually
packed every time

51. BRAIN STORMING FOR SOLUTIONS
The following solutions emerged by consensus:
1 Open two more windows for dispensing.
2 Segregate children and gynaecology cases from the general queue.
3 Data collected show more patients in shift I than in Shift II. Shift I to be
strengthened by withdrawing one person from shift II.
4 Straight back chairs to be replaced by revolving chairs to reduce
fatigue to pharmacists.
5 Semi circular tables with racks should be provided for keeping drugs for
quicker dispensing of drugs and less fatigue to pharmacists.
6 If disease codes are always mentioned, data can be collected and fast
moving drugs can be kept nearer. Also, it will help plan preventive
health care.
7 Pre-packing of drugs for common ailments could be considered.
Members can make packets in spare time.

52. RESULTS OF Q-CIRCLE PROJECT
BEFORE:
- Longer waiting time for patients (30- 45 minutes
average) leading to frustration and displeasure.
- Pharmacists strained due to fatigue
AFTER:
- Waiting time reduced to 10-15 minutes per patient (one
third of original waiting time). Patients are happy.
- Pharmacists’ strain eliminated. They are happy and they
offer their services more efficiently.