Industrial validation of a poka-yoke system to prevent defects in stamped metal components

Authors

  • María Blanca Becerra Rodríguez Tecnológico Nacional de México image/svg+xml
  • Arturo Hernández Hernández Polytechnic University of Queretaro image/svg+xml
  • Roberto Zitzumbo Guzmán Centro de Innovación Aplicada en Tecnologías Competitivas image/svg+xml
  • Wendy Maldonado González Tecnológico Nacional de México image/svg+xml
  • Omar Alejandro Cervantes Gloria Tecnológico Nacional de México image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/mdi.v14i24.369

Keywords:

metal stamping, Poka-Yoke, defect prevention, Lean Manufacturing, quality assurance

Abstract

Defect prevention in stamped components requires mechanisms capable of acting directly at the source without substantially increasing process complexity. This study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a mechanical Poka-Yoke device to prevent the release of parts missing a critical hole. An applied before-and-after design was employed, integrating production records, root-cause analysis, CAD development, CNC machining, and functional inspection. Baseline data showed 630 nonconforming parts out of approximately 35,000 components produced per month (1.8%). The available post-implementation monitoring period covered five months and 175,000 inspected parts, with no documented escapes of the targeted defect. With zero observed events, the one-sided 95% exact binomial upper confidence limit was approximately 0.0017% (17.1 ppm). Direct timing of 30 positioning, verification, and release cycles using the Poka-Yoke yielded a mean cycle time of 54.91 ± 2.79 s/cycle (95% CI: 53.87–55.95 s; range: 50.11–60.53 s).

The attribute-based R&R validation involved 200 reference parts (100 conforming and 100 with the critical hole intentionally absent), three operators, and two repetitions, resulting in 1,200 evaluations. The assessment yielded 591 true positives, 600 true negatives, nine false negatives, and no false positives, corresponding to an overall sensitivity of 98.50%, specificity of 100.00%, accuracy of 99.25%, false-negative rate of 1.50%, and false-positive rate of 0.00%. The device required an initial investment of approximately MXN 2,000, compared with an estimated annual cost of MXN 100,000 for additional manual inspection. Under the stated assumptions, the first-year simple return on investment (ROI) was 4,900%, with a payback period of 0.02 years.

Author Biographies

María Blanca Becerra Rodríguez, Tecnológico Nacional de México

Profesora-Investigadora del Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Querétaro (ITQ).

Arturo Hernández Hernández, Polytechnic University of Queretaro

Profesor-Investigador de la Universidad Politécnica de Querétaro (UPQ).

Roberto Zitzumbo Guzmán, Centro de Innovación Aplicada en Tecnologías Competitivas

Investigador del Centro de Innovación Aplicada en Tecnologías Competitivas (CIATEC).

Wendy Maldonado González, Tecnológico Nacional de México

 Profesora del Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Querétaro (ITQ).

Omar Alejandro Cervantes Gloria, Tecnológico Nacional de México

Profesor-Investigador Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Querétaro (ITQ).

References

Antony, J., McDermott, O., & Sony, M. (2022). Quality 4.0 conceptualisation and theoretical understanding: a global exploratory qualitative study. The TQM Journal, 34(5), 1169–1188. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-07-2021-0215

Antony, J., McDermott, O., Sony, M., Toner, A., Bhat, S., Cudney, E., & Doulatabadi, M. (2023). Benefits, challenges, critical success factors and motivations of Quality 4.0: A qualitative global study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34(7–8), 827–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2022.2113737

Antony, J., Sony, M., Furterer, S., McDermott, O., & Pepper, M. (2022). Quality 4.0 and its impact on organizational performance: An integrative viewpoint. The TQM Journal, 34(6), 2069–2084. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-08-2021-0242

Antony, J., Sony, M., McDermott, O., Jayaraman, R., & Flynn, D. (2023). An exploration of organizational readiness factors for Quality 4.0: An intercontinental study and future research directions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40(2), 582–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-10-2021-0357

Brandenburger, J., Schirm, C., Melcher, J., Hancke, E., Vannucci, M., Colla, V., Cateni, S., Sellami, R., Dupont, S., Majchrowski, A., & Arteaga, A. (2020). Quality4.0—Transparent product quality supervision in the age of Industry 4.0. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.06502

Gal, B., Madreiter, T., Scheder, N., Liesinger, E., Hold, P., & Schlund, S. (2024). Expanding the boundaries of Zero-Defect Manufacturing: A systematic literature review. Procedia CIRP, 122, 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.01.050

Hernández Chávez, G., & Hernández Chávez, Y. (2024). ¿Qué es la Calidad 4.0? Una revisión de la literatura. Ingeniería Industrial, 46, 129–149. https://doi.org/10.26439/ing.ind2024.n046.6890

Hoffmann, R., & Reich, C. (2023). A systematic literature review on artificial intelligence and explainable artificial intelligence for visual quality assurance in manufacturing. Electronics, 12(22), 4572. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12224572

Hossain, M. M., & Purdy, G. (2024). Role of Industry 4.0 in zero-defect manufacturing: A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework for future research directions. Manufacturing Letters, 41, 1696–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2024.09.197

Markatos, N. G., & Mousavi, A. (2023). Manufacturing quality assessment in the industry 4.0 era: A review. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34(13–14), 1655–1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2194524

Pachimuthu, D., Pinzone, M., & Taisch, M. (2024). Assessing Zero-Defect Manufacturing maturity: A review of the state of the art. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(19), 899–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2024.09.167

Powell, D., Magnanini, M. C., Colledani, M., & Myklebust, O. (2022). Advancing Zero Defect Manufacturing: A state-of-the-art perspective and future research directions. Computers in Industry, 136, 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103596

Psarommatis, F., May, G., & Azamfirei, V. (2024). Zero defect manufacturing in 2024: A holistic literature review for bridging the gaps and forward outlook. International Journal of Production Research, 64(17), 7395–7431. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2388217

Saihi, A., Awad, M. M., & Ben-Daya, M. (2023). Quality 4.0: Leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies to improve quality management practices—a systematic review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 40(2), 628–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2021-0305

Sony, M., Antony, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2020). Essential ingredients for the implementation of Quality 4.0: A narrative review of literature and future directions for research. The TQM Journal, 32(4), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0275

Sony, M., Antony, J., Douglas, J. A., & McDermott, O. (2021). Motivations, barriers and readiness factors for Quality 4.0 implementation: An exploratory study. The TQM Journal, 33(6), 1502–1515. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2020-0272

Souza, F. F., Corsi, A., Pagani, R. N., Balbinotti, G., & Kovaleski, J. L. (2022). Total Quality Management 4.0: Adapting quality management to Industry 4.0. The TQM Journal, 34(4), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2020-0238

Widjajanto, S., Purba, H. H., & Jaqin, S. C. (2020). Novel Poka-Yoke approaching toward Industry 4.0: A literature review. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20303065w

Published

2026-11-01

How to Cite

Becerra Rodríguez, M. B., Hernández Hernández, A., Zitzumbo Guzmán, R., Maldonado González, W., & Cervantes Gloria, O. A. (2026). Industrial validation of a poka-yoke system to prevent defects in stamped metal components. Multidisciplinas De La Ingeniería, 14(24), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.29105/mdi.v14i24.369