Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de una licencia de uso y distribución CC BY-NC 4.0. Para ver
una copia de esta licencia visite http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 193
Application of Six Sigma Methodology for Enhancement of Soft Plastic
Extrusion Process
Aplicación de la metodología Seis Sigma para la mejora del proceso de extrusión
de plásticos blandos
Aplicação da Metodologia Seis Sigma para Aprimoramento do Processo de
Extrusão de Plástico Macio
Muhammad Mansoor Uz Zaman Siddiqui
1
(*), Adeel Tabassum
2
Recibido: 12/11/2024 Aceptado: 28/01/2025
Summary. - The gasket manufacturing process in “Company A faced significant challenges and inefficiencies
because of high rejection rates and variation in extrusion machine, magnetic insertion machine and welding machine’s
performance. All three machines were consistently generating major rejections on a daily basis including a high volume
of purging rejections from the PVC soft extrusion machine, excessive trimming of oversized magnets during the
magnetic insertion process, and significant rejection due to poor joint strength in the welding process of PVC profiles.
In order to address these underlying issues, Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)
methodology was employed in order to decrease rejection/waste, increase process efficiency and decrease defects of
all three machines. The study involved process mapping, cause and effect analysis, quality function deployment (QFD)
and statistical process tools such as ANOVA, regression and Cp/Cpk analysis. Root causes were identified and targeted
improvements based on the data were introduced including optimized production planning, machine parameter
optimization and standardization, improvement of production execution planning and storage availability, temperature
controls on welding machines and encoder wheel knurling for magnetic insertion machine. The main objectives were
to deal with problems including material waste, variance in magnetic strip size, issues in welding machines and
frequent machine stoppages caused by improper production scheduling because of improper availability of storage
space for batch production independent of door pre-assembly plan. Following implementation, results show a
considerable decrease in extrusion machine rejection %age from 12% to 4.06%, a reduction in purging waste from 17
kg/day to 6.9 kg/day and an increase in machine efficiency from 50.1% to 83.3%. Furthermore, welding machine
rejection %age fell from 7% to 3.7% as a result of enhanced temperature management and equipment maintenance.
Size variation issue in magnet insertion machine was resolved by knurling of encoder wheel. Overall, these changes
resulted in an annual cost savings of roughly 1.5 million PKR for the extrusion process and 1.2 million from magnet
insertion machine. The significance of this project originates from its potential to streamline the gasket production
process by reducing waste and faults while increasing machine efficiency. The results offer a replicable framework
that can be employed across wide range of manufacturing industries for quality improvement and cost optimization.
Keywords: Gasket manufacturing, DMAIC methodology, Six sigma, Process optimization, waste reduction,
sustainable production, ANOVA, Statistical process control.
Resumen. - El proceso de fabricación de juntas en la “Empresa A” se enfrentaba a importantes desafíos e ineficiencias
debido a las altas tasas de rechazo y a la variación en el rendimiento de las máquinas de extrusión, inserción
magnética y soldadura. Las tres máquinas generaban rechazos importantes a diario, incluyendo un alto volumen de
rechazos por purga de la máquina de extrusión blanda de PVC, un recorte excesivo de imanes de gran tamaño durante
el proceso de inserción magnética y un rechazo significativo debido a la baja resistencia de las uniones en el proceso
de soldadura de los perfiles de PVC. Para abordar estos problemas subyacentes, se empleó la metodología Six Sigma
DMAIC (Definir, Medir, Analizar, Mejorar, Controlar) con el fin de reducir el rechazo/desperdicio, aumentar la
(*) Corresponding author.
1
Master of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, NEDUET (Pakistan), 2023phdmnf1@student.uet.edu.pk,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8992-7601
2
Mechanical Engineer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NUST (Pakistan), adeeltabassum1@gmail.com,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9375-1090
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 194
eficiencia del proceso y disminuir los defectos en las tres máquinas. El estudio incluyó el mapeo de procesos, el análisis
de causa y efecto, el despliegue de la función de calidad (QFD) y herramientas estadísticas de proceso como ANOVA,
regresión y análisis Cp/Cpk. Se identificaron las causas raíz y se introdujeron mejoras específicas basadas en los
datos, incluyendo la planificación optimizada de la producción, la optimización y estandarización de los parámetros
de la máquina, la mejora de la planificación de la ejecución de la producción y la disponibilidad de almacenamiento,
los controles de temperatura en las quinas de soldar y el moleteado de la rueda del codificador para la máquina
de inserción magnética. Los principales objetivos fueron abordar problemas como el desperdicio de material, la
variación en el tamaño de la banda magnética, los problemas en las máquinas de soldar y las frecuentes paradas de
la máquina causadas por una programación de producción incorrecta debido a la disponibilidad inadecuada de
espacio de almacenamiento para la producción por lotes independientemente del plan de premontaje de la puerta.
Después de la implementación, los resultados muestran una disminución considerable en el porcentaje de rechazo de
la máquina de extrusión del 12% al 4,06%, una reducción en el desperdicio de purga de 17 kg/día a 6,9 kg/día y un
aumento en la eficiencia de la máquina del 50,1% al 83,3%. Además, el porcentaje de rechazo de la quina de soldar
disminuyó del 7% al 3,7% como resultado de una mejor gestión de la temperatura y el mantenimiento del equipo. El
problema de variación de tamaño en la máquina de inserción de imanes se resolvió mediante el moleteado de la rueda
del codificador. En general, estos cambios resultaron en un ahorro anual de aproximadamente 1,5 millones de rupias
pakistaníes (PKR) en el proceso de extrusión y 1,2 millones en la máquina de inserción de imanes. La importancia de
este proyecto radica en su potencial para optimizar el proceso de producción de juntas, reduciendo el desperdicio y
los fallos, a la vez que aumenta la eficiencia de la quina. Los resultados ofrecen un marco replicable que puede
emplearse en una amplia gama de industrias manufactureras para mejorar la calidad y optimizar los costes.
Palabras clave: Fabricación de juntas, metodología DMAIC, Six sigma, Optimización de procesos, reducción de
desperdicios, producción sustentable, ANOVA, Control estadístico de procesos.
Resumo. - O processo de fabricação de juntas na "Empresa A" enfrentou desafios e ineficiências significativos devido
às altas taxas de rejeição e à variação no desempenho da máquina de extrusão, da máquina de inserção magnética e
da máquina de solda. Todas as três máquinas geravam consistentemente grandes rejeições diariamente, incluindo um
alto volume de rejeições por purga da quina de extrusão de PVC macio, corte excessivo de ímãs
superdimensionados durante o processo de inserção magnética e rejeição significativa devido à baixa resistência da
junta no processo de soldagem de perfis de PVC. Para abordar essas questões subjacentes, a metodologia Six Sigma
DMAIC (Definir, Medir, Analisar, Melhorar, Controlar) foi empregada para diminuir a rejeição/desperdício,
aumentar a eficiência do processo e diminuir os defeitos das três máquinas. O estudo envolveu mapeamento de
processos, análise de causa e efeito, implantação da função de qualidade (QFD) e ferramentas estatísticas de
processo, como ANOVA, regressão e análise Cp/Cpk. As causas-raiz foram identificadas e melhorias direcionadas
com base nos dados foram introduzidas, incluindo planejamento de produção otimizado, otimização e padronização
dos parâmetros da máquina, melhoria do planejamento da execução da produção e disponibilidade de
armazenamento, controles de temperatura em máquinas de solda e recartilhamento da roda do encoder para máquina
de inserção magnética. Os principais objetivos eram lidar com problemas incluindo desperdício de material, variação
no tamanho da tira magnética, problemas em máquinas de solda e paradas frequentes de máquinas causadas por
programação de produção inadequada devido à disponibilidade inadequada de espaço de armazenamento para
produção em lote independente do plano de pré-montagem da porta. Após a implementação, os resultados mostram
uma redução considerável na porcentagem de rejeição da máquina de extrusão de 12% para 4,06%, uma redução no
desperdício de purga de 17 kg/dia para 6,9 kg/dia e um aumento na eficiência da máquina de 50,1% para 83,3%.
Além disso, a porcentagem de rejeição da máquina de solda caiu de 7% para 3,7% como resultado do gerenciamento
aprimorado de temperatura e manutenção do equipamento. O problema de variação de tamanho na máquina de
inserção magnética foi resolvido pelo recartilhamento da roda do codificador. No geral, essas mudanças resultaram
em uma economia de custos anual de aproximadamente 1,5 milhão de PKR para o processo de extrusão e 1,2 milhão
da máquina de inserção magnética. A importância deste projeto se origina de seu potencial para agilizar o processo
de produção de juntas, reduzindo desperdícios e falhas, enquanto aumenta a eficiência da máquina. Os resultados
oferecem uma estrutura replicável que pode ser empregada em uma ampla gama de indústrias de manufatura para
melhoria de qualidade e otimização de custos.
Palavras-chave: Fabricação de juntas, metodologia DMAIC, Seis sigma, otimização de processos, redução de
desperdícios, produção sustentável, ANOVA, controle estatístico de processos.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 195
1. Introduction. - The manufacturing sector constantly strives to minimize rejection and rework during production
while simultaneously enhancing production efficiency and product quality (A Paramasivam, 2022). Six sigma
methodology (Tjahjono, 2010) (Hill, 2017) (S. Reosekar) (Patel, 2021) in its essence was first introduced in 1986 by
Bill smith and Mikel harry, the two engineers from Motorola in 1986. The term "Six Sigma" originates from a statistical
concept that describes a process with no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities (Noori, 2018). Six sigma
methodology (Macias-Aguayo, Garcia-Castro, Barcia, McFarlane, & Abad-Moran, 2022) as evident from its name is
a six step-based data driven approach which aim to reduce the defects and variability in manufacturing process by
using statistical tools and techniques (Yang C-C, 2022). It is a systematic approach and since its implementation by
companies across various manufacturing fields, has shown that it is enhances the production process efficiency by
reduction in defects and optimization of manufacturing process and as a result of this it increases customer (internal
and external) satisfaction (McDermott, et al., 2022). Companies have been able to save huge amount of money by
reduction in defects in products and increase in efficiency of production process (Alarcón, Calero, Pérez-Huertas, &
Martín-Lara, 2023) (Ndrecaj, Mohamed Hashim, Mason-Jones, Ndou, & Tlemsani, 2023). The most common six
sigma methodology that is being used in manufacturing sector is DMAIC and it stands for define, measure, analyze,
improve and control (Monika Smętkowska B. M., 2018). It is a closed loop process in which impact of improvement
measures is evaluated and improved until the desired results are obtained. After achieving the desired results final
phase is control which is of utmost importance as continuous improvement is only possible if is sustainable over longer
durations. This DMAIC approach is applicable in broad range of industries including manufacturing, software, sales,
quality, service and marketing (LM, 2022).
Gaskets that are produced through extrusion process are very critical part of refrigerator product as they provide sealing
of freezer and refrigerator compartments from the atmosphere thus keeping the cooling inside the refrigerator. The
profile is made up of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Lewandowski & Skórczewska, 2022) material and it contains a magnet
that is inserted into the profile before the joining process at the welding station. The magnet ensures the door remains
securely locked and airtight due to its strong attraction to the paint-coated material (PCM) side panel. If any issues
arise with the magnet, such as being too short, broken, or wavy, or if the profile welding joint opens due to
transportation or poor welding, hot air can enter the freezer or refrigerator compartment. This results in poor insulation
from the surrounding atmosphere. Quality of the gasket has direct impact on energy efficiency, compressor life,
refrigerator’s performance and preservation of food.
1.1 Problem statement. - Refrigerator gasket manufacturing process in the company A (for confidentiality reason)
has been facing lots of challenges regarding rejection and rework issues during extrusion process for gasket profile
manufacturing from PVC material, size variation issue during magnet cutting and magnet insertion station and poor
PVC weld joints issue. These issues not only increase process waste at the gasket manufacturing station, leading to
significant costs for Company A, but also negatively impact the efficiency of the gasket manufacturing process.
1.2 Objectives. - Objectives of implementation of six sigma methodology on gasket extrusion process are as under:
1- Improve efficiency and productivity of the extrusion process of gasket profile manufacturing process
2- Reduction in rejection and rework of gaskets
3- Enhance the quality and consistency of the gasket profiles
4- Cost savings by waste minimization
5- Reduction in magnet wastage because of size variation issue
6- Reduction in rejection and rework at welding machine station
2. Literature review. - In recent years, global economic landscape is going through one of the toughest times because
of rising material costs, fluctuation in demand, more competition from emerging markets (Most. Asikha Aktar, 2021).
These issues lead to increase in manufacturing cost and reduction in profit margins as product prices can only be
increased up to a certain because purchasing power of general public is also going down (Bailey, 2016). So, in order
to make the business sustainable, increase profit margins and bring the cost of manufacturing down, more and more
companies from different fields are employing six sigma methodologies in their manufacturing setup (Muraliraj). Six
sigma offers a systematic, data driven framework that helps companies identify inefficiencies, rejection and rework
reasons, things impacting the quality of the product thereby enabling the company to take corrective measures to
resolve these issues leading to increase in cost savings and profit margins even in uncertain economic environment.
The application of Six Sigma has produced notable non-financial and financial benefits/results for numerous Fortune
500 firms (Wasage, 2016). Allied Signal, General Electric, Raytheon, Bank of America, Bechtel, Caterpillar and
Motorola are a few of these businesses. By applying the six-sigma methodology, these businesses have drastically
decreased their defect rates and multiplied their profits by many folds (T. Costa F. S., 2017). Numerous studies have
demonstrated the importance of Six Sigma and Lean techniques in driving quality improvements and minimizing
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 196
process variability. Smętkowska and Mrugalska (2018) successfully applied Six Sigma DMAIC to reduce rejection
rates in manufacturing operations (Monika Smętkowska B. M., 2018). Similarly, Macias-Aguayo et al. (2022) stressed
the use of Six Sigma and Industry 4.0 principles to improve operational efficiency (Jaime Macias-Aguayo, 2022).
T. Costa et al. (2017) used Six Sigma to optimize extrusion processes in tire manufacture, resulting in considerable
defect reduction, demonstrating the applicability of this methodology to extrusion-based industries such as gasket
production (T. Costa F. S., 2017). Furthermore, Hassan Araman et al. (2023) shed light on six sigma and gasket
materials’ performance, emphasizing the need of exact dimensional control and structural integrity in preserving
refrigerator insulation and energy efficiency (Araman, 2023).
This literature clearly establishes the applicability of Six Sigma in gasket extrusion processes, specifically for
identifying root causes of quality issues, improving dimensional accuracy and ensuring overall product integrity and
process stability. Six sigma methodologies can be applied across any manufacturing industry. Building upon these
insights, the current study applies Six Sigma principles to a real-time manufacturing process of soft plastic gaskets,
aiming for practical process enhancements and measurable outcomes.
There are several other key philosophies in the manufacturing industry, such as Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma.
Six Sigma is a data-driven methodology that utilizes statistical tools to minimize defects and reduce process variability.
Whereas Lean Manufacturing primarily focuses on eliminating waste and improving process flow. Lean practices
typically target Ohno’s seven types of waste to enhance production efficiency. Six sigma uses DMAIC methodology
in which multiple statistical tools are used during different phases in order to achieve the desired result. All those tools
will be discussed in the methodology section in detail. Six Sigma is a statistical term that represents a process in which
minimal defects occur. “Sigma" (σ) stands for a process's standard deviation in Six Sigma terminology. A process that
achieves a Six Sigma level is said to produce less than 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO), which is an
indication of almost perfect quality. This yield %age is equal to 99.9997% error-free output (Raman Sharma, 2018).
Sigma Level
DPMO
Yield
6
3.4
99.9997%
5.5
32
99.9987%
5
233
99.9770%
4.5
1350
99.8700%
4
6210
99.3800%
3.5
22750
97.7000%
3
66807
93.3000%
2.5
158655
84.1000%
2
308538
69.1000%
1.5
500005
50.0000%
1
691462
30.9000%
0.5
841345
15.9000%
Table 1 Sigma level and comparative values of DPMO and Yield %age
Values in Table 1 represents that as sigma level increases defects per million opportunities decreases and yield %age
(defect free units) increases. This means that if 1 million parts are produced, the DPMO (defects per million
opportunities) represents the number of defective parts out of those 1 million. The yield percentage indicates the %age
of the parts produced without any defects.
Figure I. Normal distribution curve or Bell curve
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 197
The X-bar line in Figure represents that normal data is distributed symmetrically around mean. A normal curve is
useful for determining the probability that a given data point in a population will fall within a certain range of the
distribution (Amaral, 2022).
The X-bar line in Figure represents the mean and normal data is formed symmetrically around it. A normal curve is
useful for determining the chance that a given data point in a population will fall within a certain range of the
distribution. Red arrow covers ±1σ from mean and = standard deviation) represents that 68.26% of all data points
falls within this range. Blue arrow covers ±2σ from mean and it represents that 95.46% of all data points falls within
this range. The purple arrow covers ±3σ from mean and it represents that 99.7% of data points fall in this range. In a
perfect bell curve mean median and mode of the data set are same and located at the peak of the curve. The ends of
normal distribution curve are known as tails, and these represents extreme values in a data set. In six sigma defects
normally fall in these tails. Six sigma practitioners can determine the process capability (Cp & Cpk) which shows how
well the process is performing relative to specification limits.
Gasket is an integral part of refrigerator product (Guoqiang Liu, A review of refrigerator gasket: Development trend,
heat and mass transfer characteristics, structure and material optimization, 2021) which help keep the refrigerator
freezer and refrigerator compartment insulated from environment. Gasket profile is manufactured from the polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) material through the extrusion process. Extrusion process is a manufacturing technique in which a
material is heated according to the required specifications in a barrel which is then forced through a die to achieve the
required profile (Guoqiang Liu, Research on test method of heat transfer coefficient for refrigerator gasket, 2020).
After exiting of PVC profile from die it is shifted to cooling station through conveyors where it is cooled down through
water jets. These profiles are then shifted to cutting station where they are cut to desired length as per requirement.
These profiles are then later on moved to stock area and then as per requirement to magnet insertion machine area
where magnets are inserted into the profile as per the required length. After this step all these profiles are moved from
magnet insertion machine to welding area where these profiles are inserted into the die, joined by heating them up to
required temperature and then die is closed resulting in a joint formation. All these processes are very critical with
many potential modes of failures which will be discussed in later part of the paper (Tianyang Zhao, 2024).
2.1 Research gap. - The revenue generated by refrigerator manufacturing industry worldwide is estimated to 121
billion USD. Being a billion-dollar industry, no research has been conducted on combined optimization of extrusion,
magnet insertion and welding process. In this project six sigma methodology will be systematically applied in order to
identify the key problems in the whole gasket manufacturing process. These defects/problems will then be later
addressed by using six sigma DMAIC methodology.
2.2 Significance of the study. - Implementing Six Sigma in optimizing the gasket manufacturing process is highly
significant, especially in the context of current economic challenges where high manufacturing costs and price
increases are unsustainable. This optimization will enhance process efficiency, reduce rejections & rework thus
lowering the overall manufacturing cost of the gaskets. Additionally, it will lead to a reduction in defects, both
internally and at the customer end. Furthermore, this project will set a benchmark for the refrigerator manufacturing
industry, demonstrating the value of applying Six Sigma methodology not only in gasket production but potentially
across all manufacturing processes.
3. Methodology. - In order to carry out this research work, six sigma DMAIC methodology was adopted. DMAIC is
a systematic problem-based and customer centric data/target-oriented approach consisting of five basic steps. Those
steps/phases are defined phase, measure phase, analyze phase, improve phase and control phase. Define was started
by making a project charter in which objective of the project, goals, deliverables and problem statement were defined.
Whole gasket extrusion manufacturing process was mapped by using SIPOC diagram (Supplier, Inputs, Process,
Outputs, Customer). VOC (voice of customer) vs VOB (voice of business) analysis was done in order to list down the
common requirements of customer (internal) and business. FMEA (Failure mode effect analysis) was conducted to
identify initial potential failures, evaluate and prioritize risks and suggesting potential solutions/action plan for
prevention of those failures in gasket extrusion manufacturing process. Re FMEA will be done at a later stage again in
order to evaluate the performance of the project. In second measure phase, data of extrusion machine production,
magnetic strip rejection/scrap and welding machines rejection and rework was gathered in order to measure the current
process performance and set the baseline for improvements in coming phase. In the third phase i.e., the analysis phase,
analysis of top problems was conducted and for this purpose detailed cause and effect diagram were made, and top
five problems were prioritized by performing pareto analysis. Quality function deployment (QFD) tool was used to
prioritize customer requirements and to their relationship with functional requirement for better finished product.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 198
3.1 Define Phase. - Define phase is one of the first steps in DMAIC methodology. This phase focused on gathering
insights from various stakeholders specifically customer, process owner (production team). This helped in identifying
critical issues in the gasket manufacturing area. First step in define phase to make a project charter in which objectives,
goals, project deliverables, in-scope, out-scope and problem statement were defined.
3.2 Problem Statement. - In the Year 2023, 27,283 gaskets rejected out of 2,84,477 gaskets produced at Gasket
Manufacturing Area. Out of these 27,283 rejected gaskets, 7267 gaskets were crushed, and 20,016 gaskets were
scrapped. The rejection ratio stands at 9.57% and by 15 kg of average value of purging waste for 287 days, this costed
company 3.5 million rupees. As 1.95” magnetic strips get rejected per each profile leading to further cost of 0.96
million rupees. If these issues persist, this could result in a potential loss of 4.5 million rupees to the company in 2024.
Now in order to assist planning and keep the track of project during its various phases, a Gantt chart was setup with
deadlines of the project phase wise. Gantt chart is available in Figure .
Figure II. Gantt chart with project milestones and deadlines.
Understanding the voice of customer and voice of business was absolutely necessary in order to identify the most
important things related to gasket manufacturing process from customer and management point of view. VOB vs VOC
was prepared, and intersection points were considered as goals of the projects. VOB vs VOC is shown in Figure .
Figure III. Voice of business (VOB) vs Voice of Customer (VOC).
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 199
In this comparison of VOB (Voice of the Business) and VOC (Voice of the Customer), common goals were identified
that were important to both the immediate customer, the door assembly line and management. Key objectives included
cost savings, improving production efficiency, optimizing machine energy consumption, controlling waste,
minimizing defects passed to the customer and reducing variations in the sizes of PVC profiles and magnetic strips.
After that a SIPOC (supplier-input-process-output-customer) was plotted in order to identify all the suppliers (internal
and external), inputs, process mapping, outputs and customer (internal). SIPOC is used to understand the process
components and relevance as it is a simple tool. This was developed through brainstorming session with the project
team and process owner (production team). SIPOC diagram is available in Figure .
Figure IV. SIPOC of gasket manufacturing process.
In the SIPOC, the process was clearly outlined, with both internal and external suppliers and all process inputs
identified. The outcomes, including the finished product and scrap, were also defined, along with the customer, Door
Pre-Assembly. This tool enables a comprehensive understanding of all aspects related to the process and helps in
identifying critical elements. It provides a foundation for process improvement and acts as a starting point for more
detailed analysis in the later stages of the DMAIC methodology.
Visually representing each stage of the gasket manufacturing process, from the input of raw materials to the output of
the finished product, is known as process mapping. This involves mapping the extrusion of PVC profiles to inserting
magnetic strips in PVC profiles and then welding of these gasket profiles. This process map makes it easy to see how
steps in manufacturing link to one another. Now in order to get the clear representation of the workflow and for
identification of bottlenecks and inefficiencies, process map was developed and can be seen in Figure .
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 200
Figure V. Process map of gasket manufacturing process.
3.3 Measure Phase. - Measuring the process's current performance is the main goal of the DMAIC Measure phase.
Data is gathered during this phase to measure important metrics about rejection, cycle time, production rates and other
important parameters, as well as to provide a baseline for the process. Data was collected from quality inspection
reports, production monitoring reports, operator check sheets and from machine logs. In order to ensure the integrity
of the analysis and remove any biases in the data, several statistical tools were employed. These tools will be discussed
in detail in later section of ANOVA. Prior to making any modifications, it is important to know how the process is
working in order to enable more accurate analysis in later phases. In the measure phase, data of gasket manufacturing
process was gathered in order to set the baseline of the gasket manufacturing process and identify all the issues and
inefficiencies by analyzing the data gathered through check sheets. Gasket manufacturing process was divided into
three processes; extrusion of soft PVC (polyvinyl chloride) material in order to make gasket profiles, magnet insertion
station and welding station of PVC profiles. For all these three processes, data on machine actual production, rejection
reasons, loss time in hours, machine efficiency and parameters monitoring were collected. Extrusion machine
efficiency monitoring report is available in Table
Sr. No
Date
Standard
Working time
Total Actual
Production
(kg)
Efficiency
1
10th July, 2024
11
51
10%
2
12th July, 2024
16
341
47%
3
13th July, 2024
19
348
41%
4
15th July, 2024
16
416
58%
5
16th July, 2024
22
487
49%
6
19th July, 2024
19
402
47%
7
20th July, 2024
19
477
56%
8
21st July, 2024
19
516
60%
9
22nd July, 2024
19
436
51%
10
23rd July, 2024
19
298
35%
11
24th July, 2024
19
454
53%
12
26th July, 2024
19
434
51%
13
27th July, 2024
22
471
48%
Start Raw material
addition in
hopper
Heating of
material
Extrusion
(Material passing
through die to attain
the required shape)
Water jets for
cooling of PVC
profile
Punching of
holes in gaskets
for air
Cutting of
gasket profiles
PVC profile
stock area
Magnetic strip
insertion
machine
Welding
machines for
joining PVC
profiles
Over size
Magnetic strip
manual cutting
Inspection of
gaskets
Inspection of
PVC profiles
Stock area/hangers
Ok
Not
ok
Crusher
Ok
Not
ok
Magnet
recovery area
Manual
insertion of
magnetic strip
into PVC
profiles
End
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 201
14
28th July, 2024
16
350
49%
15
29th July, 2024
19
340
40%
16
30th July, 2024
19
390
46%
17
31st July, 2024
16
415
58%
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
550
56%
19
2nd Aug, 2024
16
570
79%
20
3rd Aug, 2024
16
520
72%
21
4th Aug, 2024
16
400
56%
22
5th Aug, 2024
19
391
46%
23
6th Aug, 2024
19
371
43%
24
7th Aug, 2024
19
250
29%
25
8th Aug, 2024
19
378
44%
26
9th Aug, 2024
16
421
58%
27
10th Aug, 2024
16
413
57%
28
11th Aug, 2024
16
401
56%
29
12th Aug, 2024
16
397
55%
30
13th Aug, 2024
16
386
54%
Table II. Extrusion machine efficiency monitoring report.
Extrusion machine rejection data is mentioned in the Table .
Sr. No
Date
Standard
Working
time
(hours)
Total
Standard
Production
(kg)
Total Actual
Production
(kg)
Rejection
%age
Total
Rejection
(kg)
1
10th July, 2024
11
495
51
88%
45
2
12th July, 2024
16
720
341
12%
40
3
13th July, 2024
19
855
348
13%
44
4
15th July, 2024
16
720
416
12%
48
5
16th July, 2024
22
990
487
12%
57
6
19th July, 2024
19
855
402
9%
37
7
20th July, 2024
19
855
477
6%
30
8
21st July, 2024
19
855
516
11%
58
9
22nd July, 2024
19
855
436
12%
52
10
23rd July, 2024
19
855
298
18%
54
11
24th July, 2024
19
855
454
12%
54
12
26th July, 2024
19
855
434
6%
27
13
27th July, 2024
22
990
471
9%
42
14
28th July, 2024
16
720
350
13%
45
15
29th July, 2024
19
855
340
12%
41
16
30th July, 2024
19
855
390
11%
43
17
31st July, 2024
16
720
415
12%
49
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
990
550
7%
38
19
2nd Aug, 2024
16
720
570
12%
70
20
3rd Aug, 2024
16
720
520
15%
78
21
4th Aug, 2024
16
720
400
14%
54
22
5th Aug, 2024
19
855
391
9%
35
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 202
23
6th Aug, 2024
19
855
371
12%
46
24
7th Aug, 2024
19
855
250
16%
41
25
8th Aug, 2024
19
855
378
11%
42
26
9th Aug, 2024
16
720
421
11%
45
27
10th Aug, 2024
16
720
413
8%
35
28
11th Aug, 2024
16
720
401
10%
39
29
12th Aug, 2024
16
720
397
13%
53
30
13th Aug, 2024
16
720
386
15%
56
Grand Total
12076
11.6%
1398
Table III. Extrusion machine rejection data
Welding machines efficiency monitoring report is mentioned in the Table .
Sr.
No
Date
Standard
Working hours
(hrs.)
Total No.
of
Machines
Total
UPH
Actual
Production
Standard
Production
Efficiency
1
10th July, 2024
11
5
200
1255
2200
57%
2
12th July, 2024
11
5
200
970
2200
44%
3
13th July, 2024
22
10
400
1610
4400
37%
4
15th July, 2024
22
8
320
1848
3520
53%
5
16th July, 2024
8
4
160
1004
1280
78%
6
19th July, 2024
22
8
320
2053
3520
58%
7
20th July, 2024
19
9
360
2485
3360
74%
8
21st July, 2024
22
8
320
2270
3520
64%
9
22nd July, 2024
11
3
120
1046
1320
79%
10
23rd July, 2024
22
7
280
2085
3080
68%
11
24th July, 2024
22
7
280
1764
3080
57%
12
26th July, 2024
22
7
280
2078
3080
67%
13
27th July, 2024
22
7
280
1626
3080
53%
14
28th July, 2024
19
7
280
1416
2720
52%
15
29th July, 2024
22
7
280
1676
3080
54%
16
30th July, 2024
11
4
160
1004
1760
57%
17
31st July, 2024
22
7
280
2376
3080
77%
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
6
240
1790
2640
68%
19
2nd Aug, 2024
11
4
160
1108
1760
63%
20
3rd Aug, 2024
11
4
160
986
1760
56%
21
4th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
1120
1760
64%
22
5th Aug, 2024
11
5
200
385
2200
18%
23
6th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
419
1760
24%
24
7th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
944
1760
54%
25
8th Aug, 2024
11
5
200
1222
2200
56%
26
9th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
328
1760
19%
27
10th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
525
1760
30%
28
11th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
929
1760
53%
29
12th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
885
1760
50%
30
13th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
508
1760
29%
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 203
Table
Sr.
No
Date
Standard
Working hours
(hrs.)
Total No.
of
Machines
Total
UPH
Actual
Production
Standard
Production
Efficiency
1
10th July, 2024
11
5
200
1255
2200
57%
2
12th July, 2024
11
5
200
970
2200
44%
3
13th July, 2024
22
10
400
1610
4400
37%
4
15th July, 2024
22
8
320
1848
3520
53%
5
16th July, 2024
8
4
160
1004
1280
78%
6
19th July, 2024
22
8
320
2053
3520
58%
7
20th July, 2024
19
9
360
2485
3360
74%
8
21st July, 2024
22
8
320
2270
3520
64%
9
22nd July, 2024
11
3
120
1046
1320
79%
10
23rd July, 2024
22
7
280
2085
3080
68%
11
24th July, 2024
22
7
280
1764
3080
57%
12
26th July, 2024
22
7
280
2078
3080
67%
13
27th July, 2024
22
7
280
1626
3080
53%
14
28th July, 2024
19
7
280
1416
2720
52%
15
29th July, 2024
22
7
280
1676
3080
54%
16
30th July, 2024
11
4
160
1004
1760
57%
17
31st July, 2024
22
7
280
2376
3080
77%
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
6
240
1790
2640
68%
19
2nd Aug, 2024
11
4
160
1108
1760
63%
20
3rd Aug, 2024
11
4
160
986
1760
56%
21
4th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
1120
1760
64%
22
5th Aug, 2024
11
5
200
385
2200
18%
23
6th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
419
1760
24%
24
7th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
944
1760
54%
25
8th Aug, 2024
11
5
200
1222
2200
56%
26
9th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
328
1760
19%
27
10th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
525
1760
30%
28
11th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
929
1760
53%
29
12th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
885
1760
50%
30
13th Aug, 2024
11
4
160
508
1760
29%
Table IV. Welding machine efficiency monitoring report.
Welding machines rejection data is attached in Table .
Sr. No
Date
Standard
Working
hours
(hours)
Actual
Production
(Nos)
Standard
Production
(Nos)
Rejection
Quantity
Rejection
%age
1
10th July, 2024
11
1255
2200
90
7%
2
12th July, 2024
11
970
2200
80
8%
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 204
3
13th July, 2024
22
1610
4400
70
4%
4
15th July, 2024
22
1848
3520
85
5%
5
16th July, 2024
8
1004
1280
101
10%
6
19th July, 2024
22
2053
3520
109
5%
7
20th July, 2024
19
2485
3360
105
4%
8
21st July, 2024
22
2270
3520
95
4%
9
22nd July, 2024
11
1046
1320
87
8%
10
23rd July, 2024
22
2085
3080
115
6%
11
24th July, 2024
22
1764
3080
111
6%
12
26th July, 2024
22
2078
3080
102
5%
13
27th July, 2024
22
1626
3080
104
6%
14
28th July, 2024
19
1416
2720
110
8%
15
29th July, 2024
22
1676
3080
95
6%
16
30th July, 2024
11
1004
1760
90
9%
17
31st July, 2024
22
2376
3080
89
4%
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
1790
2640
112
6%
19
2nd Aug, 2024
11
1108
1760
120
11%
20
3rd Aug, 2024
11
986
1760
131
13%
21
4th Aug, 2024
11
1120
1760
87
8%
22
5th Aug, 2024
11
385
2200
55
14%
23
6th Aug, 2024
11
419
1760
41
10%
24
7th Aug, 2024
11
944
1760
31
3%
25
8th Aug, 2024
11
1222
2200
59
5%
26
9th Aug, 2024
11
328
1760
67
20%
27
10th Aug, 2024
11
525
1760
61
12%
28
11th Aug, 2024
11
929
1760
80
9%
29
12th Aug, 2024
11
885
1760
71
8%
30
13th Aug, 2024
11
508
1760
51
10%
Table V. Welding m/c's rejection data.
Magnet that is inserted into PVC profile before welding is one of the most critical stations as far as oversized magnet
strip rejection per profile is concerned. Its data is gathered and is present in the Table .
Sr.
No
Date
Standard
Working
hours
(hours)
Actual
Production
(Nos)
Rejection
per profile
(m)
Rejection
per gasket
(m)
Total
rejection
of magnet
per day
(m)
Total
rejection
magnet
per day
(kg)
1
10th July, 2024
11
1255
0.044
0.176
221
13
2
12th July, 2024
11
970
0.044
0.176
171
10
3
13th July, 2024
22
1610
0.044
0.176
283
17
4
15th July, 2024
22
1848
0.044
0.176
325
20
5
16th July, 2024
8
1004
0.044
0.176
177
11
6
19th July, 2024
22
2053
0.044
0.176
361
22
7
20th July, 2024
19
2485
0.044
0.176
437
26
8
21st July, 2024
22
2270
0.044
0.176
400
24
9
22nd July, 2024
11
1046
0.044
0.176
184
11
10
23rd July, 2024
22
2085
0.044
0.176
367
22
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 205
11
24th July, 2024
22
1764
0.044
0.176
310
19
12
26th July, 2024
22
2078
0.044
0.176
366
22
13
27th July, 2024
22
1626
0.044
0.176
286
17
14
28th July, 2024
19
1416
0.044
0.176
249
15
15
29th July, 2024
22
1676
0.044
0.176
295
18
16
30th July, 2024
11
1004
0.044
0.176
177
11
17
31st July, 2024
22
2376
0.044
0.176
418
25
18
1st Aug, 2024
22
1790
0.044
0.176
315
19
19
2nd Aug, 2024
11
1108
0.044
0.176
195
12
20
3rd Aug, 2024
11
986
0.044
0.176
174
10
21
4th Aug, 2024
11
1120
0.044
0.176
197
12
22
5th Aug, 2024
11
385
0.044
0.176
68
4
23
6th Aug, 2024
11
419
0.044
0.176
74
4
24
7th Aug, 2024
11
944
0.044
0.176
166
10
25
8th Aug, 2024
11
1222
0.044
0.176
215
13
26
9th Aug, 2024
11
328
0.044
0.176
58
3
27
10th Aug, 2024
11
525
0.044
0.176
92
6
28
11th Aug, 2024
11
929
0.044
0.176
164
10
29
12th Aug, 2024
11
885
0.044
0.176
156
9
30
13th Aug, 2024
11
508
0.044
0.176
89
5
*Every gasket has 4 profiles
*1-meter magnet = 60 gm
Table VI. Magnet insertion machine data
3.4 Analyze Phase. - FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) is a tool used in the Six Sigma methodology to
identify probable failure modes in the production process and evaluate their impact on product quality. FMEA helps
in the identification of potential flaws such as size variances, joining problems or material issues by examining crucial
steps including PVC extrusion, magnetic strip insertion and welding of gasket profiles. For this gasket manufacturing
process, a detailed FMEA was developed in which teams prioritized process improvements by using the risk priority
number (RPN) that was assigned on factors including severity, occurrence and detection. This is in line with Six
Sigma's objective of reducing variances and improving quality by ensuring defect reduction, process optimization and
overall product reliability. FMEA is available in Figure
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 206
Figure VI. Failure modes and effect analysis
Objective of cause-and-effect diagram was to determine the root causes of the problems as well as sources of
inefficiencies and variations in the manufacturing process. After analyzing the data collected in the measure phase and
potential causes and failure modes in FMEA, fishbone diagram of complete gasket manufacturing process was
developed. Fishbone or cause and effect diagram is mentioned in the Figure below.
Figure VII. Cause-and-effect diagram.
Sr.
No Process steps Potential failure mode Potential effects Severity Failure causes Occurrence Current controls Detection
Risk Profile Number
RPN
Recommended actions
1 Pre-Heating in Oven
Improper heating
Moisture Issue
Warpage
Crack formation
Bubble formation
5
Thermocouple issue
Heater issue
Un even temperature distribution
3 Temperature monitoring 4 60
1- Thermoregulator should be present for
temperature control
2- Uniform heating should be present
2
Material (PVC) loading in
hopper
Improper heater temp set at Feed
zone
Accumulation of PVC material in
the hopper base
8
Premature heating in Feed zone
temperatures
2
Training of machine operators 3 48 Training of machine operators
3 Extrusion - Feed zone
Material clogging
Poor material melting
In consistent flow of material 7
1- Improper temperature settings
2- Heater malfunction
6
1- Regular cleaning of hopper
2- Temperature monitoring and
visual inspection of gasket
3126
1- Monitoring of temperature and Gasket
2 Regular cleaning
4
Extrusion - Compression
zone
1- Uneven compression
2- Over heating
1- In consistent gasket thickness
2- Burnt section of gasket
7
1- In correct temperature settings
2- Excessive friction between screw
and barrel
3- Material quality issue
3
1- Regular maintenance
2- Temperature monitoring
363
1- Machine health review (screw, heaters, pressures
etc)
5 Extrusion - metering zone
1- Flow inconsistencies
2- Die Swell
1- Dimensional inaccuracy
2- Excessive material expansion
7
1- Variations in screw speed or partial
blockage
2- Material properties issue
3
1- Reguar maintenance
2- Material quality check
484
1- Reguar maintenance
2- Material quality check
6Cooling
Slow cooling of gasket because of
higher temp of water
Warpage, shrinkage 6
1- Improper cooling rate
2- Water temperature too high
2
Chiller water temperature
monitoring
336 1- Adjust chiller temperature
7 Profile Formation at Die
1- Improper profile of gasket
2- Bubble formation in gasket profile
1- Material waprapage
2- Bubble formation on gasket
7
1- Improper cooling rate
2- Moisture issue
3
1- Chiller water temperature
monitoring
2- Pre-heating of material
363
1- Adjust chiller temperature
2- Pre-heating of material
8Cutting
Un even cutting Improper joints formation 8 1- Blade wear
2- Blade misalignment 4
Visual inspection of gasket and
blades
396
1- Regular maintenance of cutting assembly (blade
checks, alignment etc)
9 Magnet insertion
1- Magnet cutting size variation
2- Magnet manual cutting issue
Manual cutting of magnet - Loss
in productivity and improper
joints during welding
8
1- Machine settings issue 4 Visual inspection 2 64 Preventive machine maintenance
10
Manual cutting of magnet Un even cutting Improper joints formation 8
1- Variation in magnet cutting
machine
2- Manual cutting of magnet by
worker
6 Visual inspection 3 144 Preventive machine maintenance
11 Welding
Weak weld joints
Gasket joint overlap
Gasket joint hole
1- Gasket joint tear
2- Imrproper fitting
8
1- In correct weld temperatures
2- Alignement issues during welding
7
1- Temperature checks
2- Alignment checks
4224
1- Implement precise temperature control
2- Alignment fixtures
12 Storage
Waviness issue because of improper
storage
Gaps and waviness issue after
assembly
10
Storage/stacking on floor 7 1- Storage on hangers 3 210
1- Enhanced monitoring
2- Training of production workers
3-Design new hangers for storage
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 207
In the gasket manufacturing process, several key factors contributing to high rejection rates were identified. These
included improper storage and transportation systems, issues with welding dies and heaters, inaccurate cutting of the
magnetic strip, poor quality PVC material and frequent color changes during gasket profile production. Together, these
issues were leading to inefficiencies and increased rejection rates during the gasket manufacturing process.
Now cause and effect matrix was developed in order to prioritize the identified causes based on their impact on critical
customer requirements. It can be seen in Figure .
Figure VIII. Cause-and-Effects Matrix
In cause-and-effect matrix, critical causes were prioritized based on their impact on critical customer requirements.
Critical causes that were identified were production scheduling issue, magnet strip cutting machine variation issue,
welding machine heaters and dies health issue, improper storage for gaskets and PVC profiles issue and PVC material
quality issue that impacts on the final product quality.
After that QFD was developed based on the cause-and-effect diagram and cause and effect matrix in order to link
customer requirements with technical requirements that need improvement. QFD is available in Figure .
Figure IX. Quality function deployment (QFD)
After analyzing the data from the previous year (2023) using the Pareto principle, the results are illustrated in the
Figure , Figure and Table below.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 208
Figure X. Gasket production and rejection data of 2023.
Figure XI. Pareto analysis of the data of 2023.
Problem
Quantity
%age
Cause of the defect
GASKET JOINT HOLE
8000
29%
Welding M/C
GASKET JOINT OVER LAP
7721
28%
GASKET PROFILE WRONG
4893
18%
Extrusion Machine
BLACK SPOTS
2530
9%
Material
SIZE VARIATION
2373
9%
Extrusion Machine
Table VII. Cause of defect identification based on 2023 data.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
9961 10990
19068
37176 38980 38482
35686
38974
28192 26968
1833 948 1743 2354 2514 2393 4657 4862 2820 3063
18% 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 13% 12% 10% 11%
Gasket Production (2023)
Total Produced Defected Percentage
8000 7721
2530 2373
34.9% 33.7% 11.1% 10.4%
34.9%
68.7% 79.7%
90.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
GASKET JOINT HOLE GASKET JOINT OVER LAP BLACK SPOTS SIZE VARIATION
Pareto Chart
Quanity %age Share
80/20 Rule
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 209
Summary of the data that was gathered in measure phase is mentioned in Table , Table and Table .
PVC Extrusion M/c Data
Sr. No
Total Production
(kg)
Efficiency
Rejection Qty.
(kg)
Rejection %age
1
12076
50%
1398
12%
Table VIII. Summary of PVC Extrusion machine data.
Welding M/c's Data
Sr. No
Total Production
Efficiency
Rejection Qty.
Rejection %age
1
39,715
54%
2604
7%
Table IX. Summary of welding machine's data.
Magnet insertion m/c data
Sr. No
Total Production of
gaskets
Total Rejection of magnet
(kg)
Average Rejection per day
(kg)
1
39,715
419
14
Table X. Summary of magnet insertion m/c data.
3.5 ANOVA. - ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is used on the data collected during the measure phase of the gasket
manufacturing process to evaluate whether there are statistically significant differences between the means of various
groups or factors that may be impacting the process. In the measure phase data was gathered in order to better
understand the variability in the gasket production process, such as differences in total rejection, purging rejection,
machine parameter settings, variation in production plan and machine efficiency. ANOVA allows manufacturers to
determine which factors have a major impact on the quality or performance of their gaskets. This analysis aids in
identifying sources of variation that must be addressed during the improve phase of the process.
The "Total Rejection" data's normality was thoroughly tested in this study using four statistical tests: the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction, the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Anderson-Darling
test. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test produced a statistic of 0.09 and a p-value of 0.982, suggesting no significant
departure from a normal distribution. Similarly, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction, which
accounts for small sample sizes, yielded a statistic of 0.09 and a p-value of 1, providing additional support for the
normality assumption. The Shapiro-Wilk test, which is known for being effective with small to intermediate sample
sizes, yielded a statistic of 0.97 and a p-value of 0.606, supporting the conclusion of normality. Finally, the Anderson-
Darling test, which is especially sensitive to tail deviations, returned a statistic of 0.24 and a p-value of 0.779,
suggesting no significant departure from normalcy. Collectively, these tests provide strong evidence that the "Total
Rejection" data follows a normal distribution, supporting the use of parametric statistical approaches in following
investigations. Data is mentioned in Table
Normality tests
Statistics
p
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
0.09
0.982
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(Lilliefors Corr.)
0.09
1
Shapiro-Wilk
0.97
0.606
Anderson-Darling
0.24
0.779
Table XI. Tests for normal distribution of Total Rejection.
The Durbin-Watson test was used to determine whether the regression model's residuals had autocorrelation. The test
produced a statistic of 2.37, which is near to the ideal value of two, indicating no significant first-order autocorrelation.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 210
The corresponding p-value of 0.348, which is greater than the conventional significance level of 0.05, supports this
result by indicating that the null hypothesis of no autocorrelation cannot be discarded. The autocorrelation coefficient
of -0.24 suggests a small negative connection between residuals, although it is not statistically significant. Overall, the
results indicate that the residuals are independent, and the regression model meets the requirement of no
autocorrelation. This discovery improves the trustworthiness of the regression analysis and its conclusions and is
mentioned in Table
Autocorrelation
Statistics
p
-0.24
2.37
0.348
Table XII. Durbin-Watson-Test
Now multicollinearity test was performed. It is used to confirm that the regression model is reliable and valid by
determining whether the predictor variables were significantly linked with one another. Multicollinearity can generate
a number of problems in regression analysis, including exaggerated standard errors of coefficient estimates, incorrect
significance tests, and difficulties evaluating each predictor's unique contributions. Multicollinearity, which happens
when predictor variables in a regression model are highly correlated, can impair model dependability by increasing the
variance of coefficient estimates and making it harder to analyze each predictor's individual effect. To diagnose
multicollinearity, two crucial metrics are commonly used: tolerance and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Tolerance
levels less than 0.10 or VIF values greater than 10 are typically regarded indicators of problematic multicollinearity.
In this analysis, the Tolerance and VIF values for all predictors, such as "purging rejection" (Tolerance = 0.81, VIF =
1.23), "Gasket size variation issue" (Tolerance = 0.88, VIF = 1.14), and "machine stop for lunch break" (Tolerance =
0.63, VIF = 1.58), are well within acceptable ranges. None of the predictors have Tolerance values less than 0.10 or
VIF values greater than 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not a major concern in this model. This implies that the
predictors are sufficiently independent, and the regression analysis can proceed without concern for multicollinearity
influencing the results. Results are available in Table .
Model
Tolerance
VIF
Purging rejection
0.81
1.23
Gasket size variation issue
0.88
1.14
Color changeover rejection
0.68
1.47
Pre-heating
0.58
1.73
Machine parameter setting
0.7
1.44
Machine stop - No plan
0.67
1.49
Machine stop - Gasket color change
0.49
2.02
Machine stop for lunch break
0.63
1.58
Table XIII. Multicollinearity test.
Now model summary and ANOVA table were prepared from regression analysis in order to evaluate the performance
of the model. The regression analysis showed a robust association between predictors and the dependent variable (R =
0.91 and R² = 0.84), accounting for 84% of the variation. The improved R² (0.76) verified the model's robustness, and
the standard error of 5.9 indicated acceptable prediction accuracy. The ANOVA findings (F = 10.86, p <.001) showed
the model's overall significance. This investigation confirmed the model's fit and predictive capability, indicating its
suitability for evaluating variable relationships. It confirmed that the predictors together had a significant effect on the
dependent variable. Above mentioned values are available in Table 2 and Table.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 211
R
R2
Adjusted R2
Standard error
of the estimate
0.91
0.84
0.76
5.9
Table 2 Model summary
Model
df
F
p
Regression
8
10.86
<.001
Table XV. ANOVA.
Now Pareto diagram was prepared in order to identify and prioritize the most significant factors that results in the
instability of the process leading it to deviate from mean and perform erratically. This pareto diagram (Figure ) will
also validate the significant factors diagnosed in the previous mentioned tools like cause-and-effect diagram, cause
and effect matrix, quality function deployment and FMEA.
Figure XII. Pareto diagram of standardized effects.
In this pareto diagram, factors such as gasket size variation issue, pre-heating, machine parameter setting, color
changeover rejection, machine stop no plan, purging rejection were evaluated and then ranked for their impact. This
highlights the ones that require immediate attention and will yield maximum results with optimized allocation of
resources.
3.6 Improve Phase. - The goal of improve phase is to implement the solutions of the problems/causes that were
identified in the analyze phase. This involves designing and testing the suggested improvements of the problems to
enhance efficiency, reduce defects and variations in the manufacturing process. Detailed solutions to each cause
identified in analyze phase are given below in Table .
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 212
Sr.
No
Problem
Root cause
Suggestions for improvement
1
Purging
Waste
&
Wrong
profile issue
Excessive changeover
issue
1- Gasket manufacturing plan should be independent from
DPA plan
2- Gasket production planning should be done as per stock area
3- Stock area for PVC profiles should be designed in such a
way that extrusion machine must not be used for production
every single day. Batch production planning should be done
2
Magnetic
Strip cutting
Waste
Cutting machine sensors
not ok
1-In first step, knurling of encoder wheel as grooves on the
wheel are practically eliminated
2- If problem of size variation is not resolved then secondly will
remove the mechanical delay between the rocker arm and limit
switch
3- In case the problem is still not resolved then will replace the
existing the encoder with rotary increment encoder
Manual Cutting
4- For a temporary solution, manual cutting should be done as
we are already performing this process at later stage
3
Welding
Joints
Welding Dies health issue
1-Repairing of Dies
Uncontrolled heaters
temperatures for welding
2- Usage of K type thermocouples with microsensor to control
the temperature
3- Replacing the existing filament type electric heaters with
tube type electric heaters
Storage issue for finished
gasket
4-Use trollies or hangers for transportation
5-Improve design of Hangers
4
Black spots
Dust in Crush
1-Use less crush or no crush
Foreign particles mixing
in virgin material
2- Supplier material evaluation should be done
Table XVI. Suggestions for improvements for gasket manufacturing process.
Detailed feasibility analysis of the improvements mentioned in Table was performed. Cost of these improvements is
mentioned in Table , Table and Table .
Item
Price
(PKR)
Price of Thermocouple
2500
Price of MAX6675
2350
Price of Arduino UNO
2000
Cost of single setup
6850
Total No. of welding Machines
8
Total Cost
54,800
Table XVII. Welding machine heaters temperature controller.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 213
Item
Quantity
Number of coils on each hanger
50
Cost of improvement on each hanger
50
(scrap metal will be used - Cost is of labor and
welding)
50
Total Cost
75000
Table XVIII. Redesigning of hangers for gasket storage.
Item
Quantity with 1 m/c production
(PKR)
Cost of each box (PKR)
5,000
Total Cost (PKR)
90,000
Table XIX. Construction of wooden boxes for PVC profile storage.
3.7 Control phase. - After the implementation of improvement suggestions that were mentioned in improve phase,
control phase in the gasket manufacturing process focuses on sustaining the improvements made in previous stages to
guarantee consistent product quality with little variance. Control mechanisms are put in place during this phase to keep
an eye on important process variables like material wastage control by controlled production scheduling, controlling
of defects related to welding machines, controlling the defects related to storage of gaskets and PVC profiles, extrusion
machine parameters and magnetic strip insertion precision. Control charts are used to monitor these variables over 30
days of time in order to identify any deviations. Remapping of process was done in order to improve the existing setup.
Summary of extrusion machine data is available in the Table below.
PVC Extrusion M/c Data (After Improvement) Date = 20th Aug, 2024 10th Sep, 2024
Sr. No
Total Actual Production
(kg)
Efficiency
%age
Total Rejection
(kg)
Rejection %age
1
13200
83.2%
536
4.06%
PVC Extrusion M/c Data (Before Improvement)
Sr. No
Total Production
Efficiency
Rejection Qty.
Rejection %age
(kg)
(kg)
1
12076
50%
1398
12%
Table XX. Summary of extrusion m/c data (Before vs After Improvement).
In this research, Cp and Cpk (Statistical Process Control metrics) were used to evaluate the process's capability before
and after making modifications to the gasket manufacturing process. These indices were used for studying how
modifications affected production efficiency, rejection %age, and purge rejection. Cp assesses the process's potential
capability by comparing its spread to the specification limitations, whereas Cpk accounts for process centering,
providing information about how well the process mean aligns with the target. Before improvement, the process had
low Cp and negative Cpk values, indicating inadequate capability and a considerable variation from the target values.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 214
The findings show that effectiveness of the improvement steps taken on manufacturing line in increasing production
efficiency, lowering rejection rates, and reducing purge rejection, resulted in a more capable and stable manufacturing
process that revolves around.
Cp and Cpk calculation of before and after improvements are mentioned in Table and Table.
Parameters
Production Efficiency
Rejection %age
Purging rejection
Target
80%
4.0%
7
+ Tol
20%
0.5%
3
- Tol
5%
0.5%
3
USL
100%
4.5%
10
LSL
75%
3.5%
4
AVE
48%
13.1%
14
MAX
61%
88.4%
21
MIN
10%
4.6%
4
USL-LSL
25%
1.0%
6
s
9.7%
15.4%
4
CpU
1.785
-0.19
-0.40
CpL
-0.926
0.21
0.94
Cp
0.429
0.01
0.27
Cpk
-0.926
-0.19
-0.40
Table XXI. Cp & Cpk calculations of gasket manufacturing process - Before improvement.
Parameters
Production Efficiency
Rejection %age
Purging rejection
Target
80%
4%
7.000
+ Tol
20%
0.5%
3.000
- Tol
5%
0.5%
3.000
USL
100%
4.5%
10.000
LSL
75%
3.5%
4.000
AVE
83%
4.1%
6.852
MAX
90%
4.3%
8.000
MIN
78%
3.7%
5.000
USL-LSL
25%
1.0%
6.000
s
2.8%
0.1%
0.972
CpU
1.996
1.023
1.080
CpL
0.975
1.290
0.979
Cp
1.486
1.157
1.029
Cpk
0.975
1.023
0.979
Table XX. Cp & Cpk calculations of gasket manufacturing process - After improvement.
I-MR control chart of production efficiency, rejection %age and purging rejection are given below and explained in
detail.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 215
Figure XIII. I-MR control chart of purging rejection after improvement.
Figure XIV. I-MR control chart of purging rejection before improvement
As it can be seen in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. that average
rejection reduced from 17 kg/day to 6.9 kg/day. Average rejection per day dropped from 47 kg to 24 kg just because
of improving production planning and storage area for PVC profiles. Cost of PVC material per kg is 395 PKR including
energy consumption and labor cost per day. This results in a saving of 5,135 PKR per day just from extrusion machine.
This amounts to 1.5 million PKR per year from one extrusion machine only.
81%83%84%85%83%86%88%82%82%80%78%
90%89%79%82%82%82%85%81%82%83%83%81%82%85%86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Production Efficiency - After Improvement
Value avg USL LSL
10%
47%41%
58%
49%47%
56%60%
51%
35%
53%51%48%
38%
53%55%54%61%
50%43%45%51%51%
44%47%50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Production Efficiency - Before Improvement
Value USL LSL Mean
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 216
Figure XV. I-MR chart of date vs rejection %age after improvement.
Figure XVI. I-MR control chart of date vs rejection %age before improvement.
The graphs in Figure and Figure show a significant reduction in the average rejection %age, dropping from 12% to
4.06%. This substantial decline in rejection %age is primarily due to increased productivity. The boost in production
and decrease in stoppage times led to a reduction in purging rejection and machine setup rejection, ultimately
contributing to the overall decrease in the rejection %age.
4.10%
4.15%
4.30%
4.10%
3.80%
3.90%
3.97%
3.98%
4.10%
4.19%
4.13%
4.30%
4.20%
4.15%
3.99%
3.92%
3.82%
3.73%
4.01%
4.12%
3.97%
3.96%
4.11%
4.15%
4.14%
4.21%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Rejection %age - After Improvement
Value avg USL LSL
88%
12%13%12%12%9% 6%
11%12%
18%
12%
6% 9%11%11% 9% 7% 5% 7% 8% 13%
5%
15%12%9%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Rejection %age - Before Improvement
Value avg USL LSL
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 217
Figure XVII. I-MR control chart of efficiency after improvement.
Figure XVIII. I-MR control chart of production efficiency before improvement.
It can be seen from the Figure and Figure that efficiency of extrusion machine increased from 50.1% to 83.3% which
is a huge change. This was only possible by reducing the number of changeovers and stoppage times.
Rejection because of size variation in magnet cutting machine issue was resolved after the knurling of encoder wheel.
Average value of magnetic strip rejection per day was 14 kg. At a cost of 17 PKR/meter and 1 meter of magnet weighs
60 gm. This saves company almost 1.2 million PKR in 1 year (300 working days).
81%83%84%85%83%86%88%82%82%80%78%
90%89%79%82%82%82%85%81%82%83%83%81%82%85%86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Production Efficiency - After Improvement
Value avg USL LSL
10%
47%41%
58%
49%47%
56%60%
51%
35%
53%51%48%
38%
53%55%54%61%
50%43%45%51%51%
44%47%50%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
I-MR Chart of Production Efficiency - Before Improvement
Value USL LSL Mean
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 218
Figure XIX. I-MR control chart of welding m/c's rejection before improvement.
Figure XX. I-MR control chart of welding m/c's rejection after improvement.
It can be seen in Figure and Figure that average welding rejection was reduced from 7% to 3.7%. This happened
because of implementing temperature controller for heaters and repairing of dies. Efficiency monitoring report was not
prepared for welding m/c’s as their plan is dependent upon door pre-assembly and production on welding machines
start and stop based on the requirement of door pre-assembly.
4. Conclusion. - The six-sigma project, based on DMAIC methodology, for gasket manufacturing process has resulted
in significant improvement in gasket manufacturing process resulting in increase in efficiency, waste reduction, process
improvement thus improving the overall product quality.
4.1 PVC extrusion machine. - The overall rejection %age of the extrusion machine decreased significantly from 12%
to 4.06%. The average purging rejection per day was reduced from 17 kg to 6.9 kg and the total daily rejection dropped
from 47 kg to 24 kg. This reduction translates into a savings of 5,135 PKR per day, amounting to 1.5 million PKR
annually (based on 300 working days). Additionally, the efficiency of the extrusion machine improved from 50.1% to
83.3%, marking a substantial increase in productivity. Also, next month plan was completed in 20 days thus saving a
considerable amount of energy cost, labour cost and other costs associated with it.
4.2 Magnet insertion m/c. - There was loss of 14 kg of magnet per day and as 1-meter magnet weighs 60 gm so there
was a loss of 233.3 meters of magnet per day. This loss was reduced to zero by knurling of encoder wheel thus saving
company 1.2 million rupees in one year (300 working days) at a cost of 17 PKR/meter.
4.3 Welding m/c’s. - Since the welding machines operate based on the requirements of the door pre-assembly process,
the rejection %age of the welding machines was monitored after the improvements were implemented. The rejection
7.0%
18.0%
7% 8% 4% 5%10%5% 4% 4% 8% 6% 6% 5% 6% 8% 6% 9% 4% 6%11%
13%8%
14%
10%
3% 5%
20%
12%9% 8%10%
10th July,…
12th July,…
13th July,…
15th July,…
16th July,…
19th July,…
20th July,…
21st July,…
22nd July,…
23rd July,…
24th July,…
26th July,…
27th July,…
28th July,…
29th July,…
30th July,…
31st July,…
1st Aug,…
2nd Aug,…
3rd Aug,…
4th Aug,…
5th Aug,…
6th Aug,…
7th Aug,…
8th Aug,…
9th Aug,…
10th Aug,…
11th Aug,…
12th Aug,…
13th Aug,…
I-MR control chart of welding m/c's rejection before
improvement
Avergage UCL LCL Rejection %age
1.5% 1.6% 2.7% 3.1% 4.0% 4.2% 4.5% 4.8% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 5.2% 4.6%
3.2% 3.3% 3.4%
3.7%
7%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10th
Aug,
2024
12th
Aug,
2024
13th
Aug,
2024
15th
Aug,
2024
16th
Aug,
2024
19th
Aug,
2024
20th
Aug,
2024
21st
Aug,
2024
22nd
Aug,
2024
23rd
Aug,
2024
24th
Aug,
2024
26th
Aug,
2024
27th
Aug,
2024
28th
Aug,
2024
29th
Aug,
2024
30th
Aug,
2024
I-MR control chart of welding m/c's rejection after
improvement
Welding m/c rejection %age Average UCL LCL
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 219
rate dropped from 7% to 3.7%, primarily due to enhancements in the temperature control of the welding heaters and
repairs to the dies, which contributed to better overall performance and reduced defects.
In conclusion this six-sigma project not only achieved significant improvements in gasket manufacturing process by
optimizing the production process and production scheduling by developing the storage area of gasket profiles in order
to smoothen the production of extrusion machine and remove it dependency on door pre-assembly plan because of
absence of storage space. Also, a significant problem was resolved by knurling of encoder wheel at magnet insertion
station by improving the threading of encoder wheel so that it can accurately read the length of magnet during
production. Major issues of welding machines were resolved by adding a temperature controller for heater and
repairing of dies. In addition to these changes, comprehensive operator training sessions were conducted, and Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) were established to guide production execution and quality inspection processes. As a
result of this final product is improved significantly along with process. By continuing to monitor and control these
improvements can be sustained as there is not ample time available for preventive maintenance because of extrusion
m/c production plan completion before time with at least 10 days to spare.
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 220
References
[1] A Paramasivam, P. V. (2022). Manufacturing process rejection analysis of heavy duty gear reduction starter motor.
Materials Today: Proceedings, 59(2), 1295-1300. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.520
[2] Alarcón, F., Calero, M., Pérez-Huertas, S., & Martín-Lara, M. (2023). State of the Art of Lean Six Sigma and Its
Implementation in Chemical Manufacturing Industry Using a Bibliometric Perspective. applied sciences, 13(12).
doi:doi.org/10.3390/app13127022
[3] Amaral, M. T. (2022). Growth curves with multivariate θ generalized normal distribution for cardiac dysfunction
in rats. Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications, 6(2), 615-627.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2020.1752848
[4] Araman, H. a. (2023). A case study on implementing Lean Six Sigma: DMAIC methodology in aluminum profiles
extrusion process. The TQM Journal, 35(2), 337-365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-05-2021-0154
[5] Bailey, D. C.-L. (2016). Challenging the age of austerity: Disruptive agency after the global economic crisis.
Comparative European Politics, 16, 9-31. doi:doi.org/10.1057/s41295-016-0072-8
[6] Guoqiang Liu, G. Y. (2020). Research on test method of heat transfer coefficient for refrigerator gasket.
International Journal of Refrigeration, 110, 106-120. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.11.007
[7] Guoqiang Liu, G. Y. (2021). A review of refrigerator gasket: Development trend, heat and mass transfer
characteristics, structure and material optimization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144.
doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110975
[8] Hill, J. T.-J.-K. (2017). The implementation of a Lean Six Sigma framework to enhance operational performance
in an MRO facility. Production &amp; Manufacturing Research, 6(1), 26-48.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2017.1417179
[9] Jaime Macias-Aguayo, L. G.-C. (2022). Industry 4.0 and Lean Six Sigma Integration: A Systematic Review of
Barriers and Enablers. Applied sciences, 12(22). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211321
[10] Lewandowski, K., & Skórczewska, K. (2022). A Brief Review of Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Recycling.
polymers, 14(15). doi:doi.org/10.3390/polym14153035
[11] LM, M. (2022). Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) Methodology as a Roadmap in Quality
Improvement. Global Journal on Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 5(2), 44-46. doi:doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-22-X2
[12] Macias-Aguayo, J., Garcia-Castro, L., Barcia, K., McFarlane, D., & Abad-Moran, J. (2022). Industry 4.0 and Lean
Six Sigma Integration: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers. applied sciences, 12(22).
doi:doi.org/10.3390/app122211321
[13] McDermott, O., Antony, J., Bhat, S., Jayaraman, R., Rosa, A., Marolla, G., & Parida, R. (2022). Lean Six Sigma
in Healthcare: A Systematic Literature Review on Challenges, Organisational Readiness and Critical Success Factors.
processes, 10(10). doi:doi.org/10.3390/pr10101945
[14] Monika Smętkowska, B. M. (2018). Using Six Sigma DMAIC to Improve the Quality of the Production Process:
A Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 590-596. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.04.039
[15] Monika Smętkowska, B. M. (2018). Using Six Sigma DMAIC to Improve the Quality of the Production Process:
A Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 590-596.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.04.039
[16] Most. Asikha Aktar, M. M.-A. (2021). Global economic crisis, energy use, CO2 emissions, and policy roadmap
amid COVID-19. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 770-781. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.029
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 221
[17] Muraliraj, J. Z. (n.d.). Annotated methodological review of Lean Six Sigma. International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, 9(1), 2-49. doi:doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2017-0028
[18] Ndrecaj, V., Mohamed Hashim, M., Mason-Jones, R., Ndou, V., & Tlemsani, I. (2023). Exploring Lean Six Sigma
as Dynamic Capability to Enable Sustainable Performance Optimisation in Times of Uncertainty. sustainability,
15(23). doi:doi.org/10.3390/su152316542
[19] Noori, B. a. (2018). Development of Six Sigma methodology to improve grinding processes: A change
management approach. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 9(1), 50-63. doi:doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-11-2016-
0074
[20] Patel, A. a. (2021). Critical review of literature on Lean Six Sigma methodology. International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, 12(3), 627-674. doi:doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2020-0043
[21] Raman Sharma, P. G. (2018). SIX SIGMA DMAIC METHODOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION IN
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: A CASE STUDY. Journal of manufacturing engineering, 13(1), 42-50.
[22] S. Reosekar, R. a. (n.d.). Six Sigma methodology: a structured review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
5(4), 392-422. doi:doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2013-0059
[23] T. Costa, F. S. (2017). Improve the extrusion process in tire production using six sigma methodology. (1104-1111,
Ed.) Procedia manufacturing, 13. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.171
[24] T. Costa, F. S. (2017). Improve the extrusion process in tire production using Six Sigma methodology. Procedia
Manufacturing, 13, 1104-1111. doi:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351978917308090
[25] Tianyang Zhao, G. L. (2024). Effect of structural improvement of gaskets on the heat leakage load and energy
consumption of the refrigerator. Energy, 300. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131430
[26] Tjahjono, B. B. (2010). Six Sigma: a literature review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3).
doi:doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075017
[27] Wasage, C. (2016). Implementation of Six Sigma Projects in Fortune 500 companies. Journal of Modern
Accounting and Auditing, 12(4), 208-216. doi:doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2016.04.002
[28] Yang C-C, J. Y.-T.-C. (2022). The Development of the New Process of Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) and Its
Application. Sustainability, 14(15). doi:doi.org/10.3390/su14159294
M. M. Uz Zaman Siddiqui, A. Tabassum
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 28 (2025). pp. 193-221
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.28.14
ISSN 2301-1092 ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay 222
Author contribution:
1. Conception and design of the study
2. Data acquisition
3. Data analysis
4. Discussion of the results
5. Writing of the manuscript
6. Approval of the last version of the manuscript
MMUZS has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
AT has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Acceptance Note: This article was approved by the journal editors Dr. Rafael Sotelo and Mag. Ing. Fernando A.
Hernández Gobertti.