See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352542878

A Case Study of Coffee Sachets Production Defect Analysis Using Pareto

Analysis, P-Control Chart and Ishikawa Diagram

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-0866-7_115

CITATIONS READS

5 717

5 authors, including:

Nur Illa Idris Tan Chan Sin

Universiti Malaysia Perlis Universiti Malaysia Perlis
4 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Safwati Ibrahim Rosmaini Ahmad

Universiti Malaysia Perlis Universiti Malaysia Perlis
54 PUBLICATIONS   774 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A novel Mathematical logic for using lean manufacturing practises View project

Solving assembly line balancing problem using heuristic: A case study of power transformer in electrical industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nur Illa Idris on 06 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Case Study of Coffee Sachets Production Defect
Analysis using Pareto Analysis, P-Control Chart and
Ishikawa Diagram

Nur Illa Idris1, Tan Chan Sin2, Safwati Ibrahim3, Mohammad Fadzli Ramli4,
Rosmaini Ahmad5
1,2,5
School of Manufacturing Engineering,
3,4
Institute of Engineering Mathematics,
Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Kampus Tetap Pauh Putra, 02600 Arau,
Perlis, Malaysia

illaidris7799@gmail.com,
cstan@unimap.edu.my,mfazli@unimap.edu.my,
safwati@unimap.edu.my,rosmainiahmad@unimap.edu.my

Abstract. Nowadays, food and beverages companies in Malaysia are struggle to

survive with their rival, hence improving quality and increase productivity are
vital. This paper propose the method of analysis a coffee sachet production de-
fectives by using statistical process control (SPC) tools and also to identify each
types of defects with their root cause. This paper are using methodology of phys-
ical observation through examination of automated production flow line, then
Ishikawa cause-and-effect diagram are created. The company valid information
are obtained from the professional such as production managers, quality control
executives and line supervisors, also staffs and operators that direct or indirectly
involves the production line activities through interview and distributed feedback
form. After that, a Pareto diagram analysis is done hence creating a control chart
(p-chart) to illustrate the result analysis. The result shows there are high number
of product defectives according to each type and waste production occur. The
problem found was underweight, leaking, overweight, empty, unsealed and
height out of the standard. The major causes of defectives coffee sachet and root
causes of each defect types are specified which are human, machine, work meth-
ods, and materials. While the main root cause of underweight and leaking defect
are caused by unskilled worker and improper adjustment at the machine each
time before running the production.

Keywords: Coffee Sachet Quality, Defective Analysis, Quality Control, Statis-

tical Process Control, Pareto Analysis, p-Chart, Ishikawa Diagram
2

1 Introduction

Manufacturing industry in automated flow line focuses on productivity assessment and

analysis since it presents an important indicator of the company’s profit and perfor-
mance. To measure the productivity rate, mathematical and statistical analysis method
are required to identify the failure factors and recommend for further improvement [1].
Productivity in the economic aspect is focusing on few variables which are cost, quality,
and quantity[2]. Much has been written about productivity and quality as a source of
competitive advantage in the last decade; however, little attention has been given to
examine how quality performance can effectively affect productivity assessment in the
manufacturing industry[3].
To increase productivity and customer loyalty, quality is the most vital part in any
industry commerce or company, also growing valuable market share[4].
In order to improve their quality products in industry, the usage of statistical tool is
significant that can convey reliable evaluation in each quality performance. The statis-
tical tools is essential in decision making support system.
SPC or well-known as Statistical Process Control is a powerful tool that can
measures and manages quality control in a appropriate technique. SPC commonly rec-
ognized as an analytical tool using a control charts that permit a control or out-of-con-
trol order statistically[5].
The problems arise in this case study are does the implementation of quality control
in the company are under control limits and what are the factors that cause the defects
of coffee sachet production line in order to improve the quality control in the company.
This paper focus on analyzing the variability of defects in the automated coffee sa-
chet production line by using Pareto chart and p-control chart and also to identify the
root cause of defects using Ishikawa diagram in the implementation of quality control
of the coffee sachets production.

2 Literature Review

Quality in any production process needs to be measure, understand and improve by

using quality control (QC). This management function helps the industry in their pro-
duction process flow and make sure to keep them always in order and follow the spec-
ification and customer demand [6].
The execution of QC focus objective to assure that the products or service their pro-
ducing in compliance with the standard operating procedure (SOP) and related standard
ISO in line with customer demand with very minimal cost.
Statistical process control (SPC) tools are well-known as a method of problem solv-
ing analysis. There are many tools that available but most commonly used as quality
tools are Pareto diagram, histogram, check sheet, control charts, scatter diagram, pro-
cess flow chart diagram, Ishikawa diagram or cause-and-effect fishbone diagram[7]. In
this paper, we focus on three tools which are Pareto diagram, Ishikawa diagram and p-
control charts.
A Pareto analysis also one of the decent SPC tools that helps to highlight the most
frequently occurring defects, highest number of total defectives, precedence root cause
 3

of defects, or recurring production waste[8]. By using the Pareto chart, where the plot-
ted values on the bar chart illustrate the most leading number of defects to the least
number so that we can take proper action to the most attention problem that occurred
in the production line.
Ishikawa diagram or cause-and-effect diagram supports information about the root
cause of the problem. The data analyze in the diagram usually comes from a brain-
storming or interviewing session with the production managers, quality control execu-
tives and line supervisors also staffs and operators that direct or indirectly involves the
production line activities[9]. Then, the Ishikawa diagrams are created. The diagram
looks like a fishbone that have fraction of root cause at each defect or problem found
in the production line.
Control chart methods are generally used for the purpose of controlling the quality
of the product and determining the state of the production process. Control chart is from
a Shewhart control chart, a graphic illustration of the process measurements that have
been observed versus the sample number or time line as shown in Figure 1 below. The
Shewhart chart contains the CL, UCL, LCL stands for center line, upper control limit
and lower control limit, respectively. Central Line is the middle line between the upper
control limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL). The center line is a line that repre-
sents the average defect rate in a production process.

Fig. 1. Shewhart Control Charts[5].

Some experts justify the benefits of executing SPC in automated production line are
increasing product quality, eliminate excessive quality check, decrease the percentage
of defective parts procured from vendors, lessen complaints or goods returns from cus-
tomers, diminish rework and scrap rates, offer physical and statistical proof of quality,
allow trends designate marked, and capability to reduce costs and lead times [10] [11].
The importance of SPC application proven by process performance improvement, de-
creasing product variability and increase production efficiency, In addition, SPC able
to monitor the natural variation of a process and minimize the deviation from a target
value and play a major role in process improvement[12].
4

3 Methodology

A local food and beverage manufacturing production line company are about to be in-
vestigate in order to apply the mentioned SPC tools. This case study tend to develop
the high product quality and lessening any process variability occur in the production
flow line. Owned by a local investors, the selected company located at the northern
region in Malaysia. The company is a small to mid-size enterprise (SME) business pro-
ducer of food health industries, including healthy coffee and tea beverages, to fulfill the
local demands in northern region.
By using an automated flow process manufacturing line, this company is manufac-
turing coffee and tea sachet packaging in a clean and hygiene manufacturing environ-
ment. This company using the resources that are exist locally in rural areas of the state
as natural ingredients which are known as healthy food for human bodies.
Figure 2 below show a schematic diagram of automated line in serial stations. The
coffee sachet production line is using this type of automated flow line.

Fig. 2. Scheme of an automated line with q serial stations[13].

Figure 3 below is the sample of coffee sachet packaging they produced in the company.

Fig. 3. Sample of coffee sachet packaging.

 5

Figure 4 below is the methodology process flow that have been structure for this
study. The detail for each process will be discuss in the next section.

Physical Observation

Data Collection

Pareto Chart

P-Control Chart

Ishikawa Diagram

Fig. 4. Methodology process flow

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Pareto Chart Analysis

This subsection is about to recognize and justify the main problems that cause recurrent
defects of coffee sachets production. Data collected for four months data (May until
August 2019). The actual rejection shown in Tables 1 and 2 are clustered in according
to each type of defects identify in the production line.

Table 1. Data collected for types of defect and number of coffee sachets defective over the past
four months (May to August, 2019).

Number of defectives Total

number of
No Type of defects May June July Aug. defectives
1 Empty 50 89 66 53 258
2 Overweight 46 49 150 79 324
3 Underweight 100 70 123 100 393
4 Leaking 59 103 69 132 363
5 Unsealed 21 76 70 67 234
6 Height out of standard 19 10 50 92 171
 6

Total production (lot size) 318150 333400 304140 350500 1306190

Total number of sample inspected 954 1000 912 1052 3919
Total number of defective 295 397 528 523 1743
Total percentage defective 30.91% 39.69% 57.87% 49.74% 44.48%

Table 2. Number of coffee sachets defective, percentage of relative defective and cumulative
percentage defective over the past four months (May to August, 2019).

Percentage of Percentage of Cumulative

Type of Total number defective to relative percentage
No defects of defectives sample size defective defective
1 Underweight 393 10.03% 22.55% 22.55%
2 Leaking 363 9.26% 20.83% 43.38%
3 Overweight 324 8.27% 18.59% 61.96%
4 Empty 258 6.58% 14.80% 76.77%
5 Unsealed 234 5.97% 13.43% 90.19%
6 Height out of standard 171 4.36% 9.81% 100.00%
Total sample size 3919
Total 1743
Average percentage
defective 44.48%
 7

Pareto Chart of Types of Defect

Total Number of Defective 2000
100
1500 80

Percent
1000 60
40
500 393 363 324 258 234 171 20
0 0
Defects ht g
igh
t
pt
y led ar
d
eig kin e ea nd
w Le
a
rw Em s a
er ve Un st
nd O t of
U
ou
ight
e
H
Number of Defective 393 363 324 258 234 171
Percent 22.5 20.8 18.6 14.8 13.4 9.8
Cum % 22.5 43.4 62.0 76.8 90.2 100.0

Fig. 5. Pareto chart for types of defect observed over the past four months.

4.2 Control Chart (p-chart) Analysis

In this present case study, the data has been collected in May until August, 2019 from
the production line. Table 3 below presented data for month of August 2019 for each
subgroup, where the minimum size of the subgroup are 25 taken at each month (ISO
8258:1991-E). Then, fraction defective is calculated. For further analysis and clear in-
terpretation of data presented, P-chart is established to control the fraction defective for
a group of quality characteristics for all the defects (underweight, leaking, overweight,
empty, unsealed and height out of the standard).

Table 3. Computing fraction defective for August, 2019.

Number Number Fraction

Subgroup Inspected Defective defective, p
Number (n) (np) (np/n)
1 34 19 0.5588
2 34 14 0.4118
3 34 10 0.2941
4 34 13 0.3824
5 34 11 0.3235
6 34 10 0.2941
8

7 34 17 0.5000
8 34 18 0.5294
9 34 23 0.6765
10 34 10 0.2941
11 34 14 0.4118
12 34 30 0.8824
13 34 23 0.6765
14 34 30 0.8824
15 34 27 0.7941
16 34 29 0.8529
17 34 17 0.5000
18 34 6 0.1765
19 34 30 0.8824
20 34 42 1.2353
21 34 23 0.6765
22 34 19 0.5588
23 34 35 1.0294
24 34 30 0.8824
25 34 23 0.6765
This calculation of p-chart has been constructed with control limits
(UCL=0.87, CL=0.62, and LCL=0.36)

p-chart for August 2019

1.40
Proportion nonconforming, p

1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
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
Subgroup number

Fraction defective, p center LCL UCL

Fig. 6. P-Chart of Proportion Coffee Sachet Defective in August 2019.

 9

Figure 6 shows the p-chart is constructed for August 2019. The results show that
quality features in production line of the coffee sachets have a tendency to decline the
statistical control characteristics because the subgroup number 18 and 20 are out of
control. Henceforth, the production process need to be in the state of acceptable statis-
tical control by finding the root cause.
From the control chart above, we can see that the defect of coffee sachet over the
control limit still fluctuate each month. The fluctuating number of defect products
above UCL show inconsistency quality control of product in the company. Due to that
reason, the company need a better quality control system. Moreover, with increasing
outlier points that are outside the UCL and LCL line indicates declining activities in
quality control and this condition need more attention.

4.3 Ishikawa Cause-and-Effect Diagram Analysis

Cause-and-effect diagram or Ishikawa diagram was made after the p-chart to analyze
the factors that become the root cause of the defects. The factors that influence and
cause defects products can generally be classified as:

i. Man : workers in the production process

ii. Material: the components in producing the products into finished goods
iii. Machine: equipment used during the production process
iv. Method: instructions or work order to be followed in the production process
v. Environment: the circumstances around the production site, which directly
or indirectly affect the production process

From the data in Table 1 and 2, we can see that the leading two types of defects in
the production process are underweight, with 22.55% from overall defect percentage
and leaking defect with 20.83%. As a tool to find the cause of the defect, cause-and-
effect diagram is used to explore the root cause for each type of defects. Figure 7 and 8
shows the cause-and-effect diagrams for both defects of the coffee sachet (Fig. 7).
10

Cause-and-effect diagram for underweight

Man Material

Lack of skill

Less focus Changing type of

plastic wrapping
Fatigue
Under
weight

Bolt too tight Unscheduled

maintenance
Wrong Improper
adjustment at adjustment

Methods Machine

Fig. 7. Cause-and-effect diagram for underweight defect of coffee sachet.

The coffee sachet were underweight is because by few factors. One of the factor is
caused by the machine where there are unscheduled maintenance attended and some
improper adjustment has been made during the production is ongoing.
Then, because of wrong adjustment at the weighing scale or bolt are too tight, the prod-
ucts cannot be filled correctly according to the desired weight. Other factors that con-
tribute to the defect is the when the operator changing the plastic wrapping. When the
workers are less focus or lack of skill during their work shift, the defects continue to be
happened.
 11

Cause-and-effect diagram for leaking

Man Material

Lack of skill

Less focus Changing type of

plastic wrapping
Fatigue
Leaking

Sealing unheated Unscheduled

maintenance
Wrong sealing Improper
pressure adjustment

Methods Machine

Fig. 8. Cause-and-effect diagram for leaking defect of coffee sachet.

The root cause that contribute to leaking defects shows in the Figure 6 above. Leak-
ing defect caused by the wrong plastic sealing pressure and when the sealing is unheated
properly. So when it is unheated, the plastic is leaked and can be fill by air or water.
Workers with lack of skill or get less focus during the machine adjustment or mainte-
nance, will be the main caused to this types of defects. Again, changing of plastic wrap-
ping roll if the roll is finished, can affected the leaking defects.

5 Conclusion

Based on the data shown is Table 2, the highest defect for four months is caused by
underweight with percentage of 22.25% from overall defect and second highest is cause
by leaking with 20.83%. Based on the result of p-control chart for August 2019, the
results show that quality features in production line of the coffee sachets have a ten-
dency to decline the statistical control characteristics because the subgroup number 18
and 20 are out of control. Henceforth, the production process need to be in the state of
acceptable statistical control by finding the root cause. Based on the cause-and-effect
diagram, the main factors that affected the quality control are man, machine, work
methods and materials. While the main root cause of underweight and leaking defect
are caused by unskilled worker and improper adjustment at the machine each time be-
fore running the production.
The physical observation with support of brainstorming with all the professionals
and staff operators, Pareto Charts, P-control Chart and Ishikawa Diagram analysis have
provided useful information in identifying causes for rejection or defect analysis. This
12

study also helpful in proposing optimal solution to be implemented for productivity and
quality improvement.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the support from Universiti Malaysia Perlis
(UniMAP) and the fundamental research Grant Scheme (FRGS) under a grant number
FRGS/1/2019/TK03/UNIMAP/02/7 from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.

References

[1] T. Chan Sin, R., Usubamatov., M. A. Fairuz., M. F. B. M. Amin Hamzas., and L. Kin
Wai.: Engineering mathematical analysis method for productivity rate in linear
arrangement serial structure automated flow assembly line. Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2015,
1-10, May(2014).
[2] T. C. Sin., R. Usubamatov., M. F. B. M. A. Hamzas., L. K. Wai., T. K. Yao., and M. S.
Bahari.: Parameters Investigation of Mathematical Model of Productivity for Automated
Line with Availability by DMAIC Methodology. J. Appl. Math., 1-7, May (2014).
[3] I. N. Illa., T. C. Sin., G. M. Fathullah., and A. Rosmaini.: Mathematical modeling of
quality and productivity in industries : A review. Published by the American Institute of
Physics. no. May(2018).
[4] M. Ben-Daya and M. A. Rahim.: Effect of maintenance on the economic design of x̄-
control chart. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 120(1),131–143, (2000).
[5] I. Online, H. Trung, H. Tien, Y. Chou, Y. M. Fang, and T. Van Hoang, “Statistical
Process Control Methods for Detecting Outliers in Gps Time Series Data,” vol. 7, no. 5,
pp. 8–15, 2018.
[6] F. Cesar., F. Fernandes., M. G. Filho., and M. Bonney.: A proposal for integrating
production control and quality control. 109(5), 683–707(2009).
[7] I. Organizations.: Statistical Process Control Tools : A Practical guide for Jordanian.
4(6), 693–700 (2010).
[8] M. Z. Ń,: Management Systems in Production Engineering Using the pareto diagram
and fmea ( failure mode and effects analysis ) to identify key defects in a product. (2014).
[9] J. Rantama, E. Tiainen, and T. Ka.: A case of implementing SPC in a pulp mill. 4(3),
321–337(2013).
[10] P. Taylor and W. C. Benton.: Statistical process control and the Taguchi method : a
comparative evaluation. October 2014, 29:9, 37–41(2007).
[11] K. Gerard et al.: The use of automated optical testing ( AOT ) in statistical process
control ( SPC ) for printed circuit board ( PCB ) production. (2008).
[12] Y. Mengesha Awaj, A. P. Singh, and W. Yimer Amedie.: Quality improvement using
statistical process control tools in glass bottles manufacturing company. 7, October
2012, 107–126(2013).
[13] R. Usubamatov and C. S. Tan.: Mathematical Models for Productivity Rate of
Automated Lines with Reliability Attributes of Mechanisms. Appl. Mech. Mater. 695,
no. September 2014, 521–525(2015).
 13

View publication stats