Asia Pacific 1 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT VIETNAM PLANT BB Project #AP 2165 Active-Activa One Piece Fire Loss Reduction

Asia Pacific1

FINAL REPORTFINAL REPORT

VIETNAM PLANT

BB Project #AP 2165

Active-Activa One Piece Fire Loss Reduction

Asia Pacific2

1. Problem Description Baseline statistics of production loss:

• FF Loss: 26.7% (Y1)• RF Loss: 29.1% (y2)• TTL: 45.3% (y)• Major defects includes 70.5% over total FF defects:

-Clay crack (CC)- loss of total FF pcs (y)-CDT & PHT loss of RF loss …* Shortage Supply vs Demand 15.7% volume around 200 A pcs/month

Project targets FF loss : 18 % RF loss : 21% TT loss : 29.9

B. Executive SummaryB. Executive Summary

Asia Pacific3

Baseline study - FFL and RFL& Shortage Demand in 2009

Trend of FFL

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jan Feb Mar May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

%

BSL FFL Target FFL FF Loss%

Trend of RFL

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

BSL RFL Target RFL RF Loss %

Trend of TTL

0

20

40

60

80


%

Target TTL BSL TTL Total Loss%

D M A I C

Asia Pacific4

Completion Schedule: Define: 01/03/10 Measure: 31/03/10 Analyze: 31/05/10DMAIC Improve: 30/06/10 Control: 31/07/10 Close: 30/09/10

Benefits: (in K USD @ AOP rate)Direct Saving = 214k USD (98 + 117) - Production losses = 98k USD - Sales losses = 117k USD (short supply models)Cash Flow Improvement = 214K USDIndirect Saving = NilProgram Budget: = Nil

Project Leader: Nguyen Phuong (BB)Project Champion: Prasanna MBB: Pittaya Team Members: Do Anh Thai, Nguyen Ngoc Cang, Nguyen Lam , Nguyen T Phong , Nguyen Thanh Hai,,Huynh Anh Tuan ,Le Ngoc Hung

Key Metrics:Primary metric (Y): First Fire Loss = First fire loss (pieces) / total inspection (pieces) Baseline = 26.76% Target = 18% (AOP = Baseline)Secondary metric (y1): Re-fire Loss = Re-fire loss (pieces) / total inspection in re-fire (pieces)Baseline = 29.19% Target = 21% (AOP = Baseline )TTL Baseline = 45.37% Target = 29.90% (vs AOP = 36.2%) = (Clay loss + FF loss + RF loss) / total casting

Key Initiative: Total Fire Loss Reduction for Category Heroes Active & Activa (Vietnam Operations) AP2165

Active-va Fire Loss Reduction - Vietnam

High Fire Losses on Active-Va one piece cause high cost and unstable supply

Count

Fire lossCount

43.0 82.4 100.0

29.19 26.76 11.94Percent 43.0 39.4 17.6Cum %

CL lossFF lossRF loss

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Active -va fire loss

Coun

t

Perc

ent

FF loss defectCount

8.4 4.6 3.9Cum % 70.5 83.1 91.4 96.1 100.0

16.96 3.02 2.01 1.12 0.94Percent 70.5 12.6

OtherWHPFLECCT

25

20

15

10

5

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

FF loss by defect

Coun

t

Perc

ent

RF loss DefectCount

31.5 10.2 9.8 4.0 1.9Cum % 42.5 74.1 84.2 94.1

38.27

98.1 100.0

28.40 9.16 8.85 3.60 1.75Percent 42.5

OtherPRTLEMattPHTCDT

9080706050403020100

100

80

60

40

20

0

RF loss by defectRF Loss - Pareto

FF Loss - Pareto

D M A I C

Business Errors:- Active –Activa are key models with high/stable demand.

They are strategic products with big benefit. Due to their high losses, supply of these models could not support with high demand.

- Sale revenues loss in EBIT about $ 117k annually. We have shortage around 200 pcs of Active-va / month which are caused by high fire loss.

- Price increase pressure to maintain GM will impact in lost sales & revenue

Barriers:- New model & complex - Lack of skilled workers – Design not complete- Mold

technical & mold condition not stable

Asia Pacific5

Benefit Category (K USD)

DIRECT BENEFITA. Cost Takeout = 97.6

B. Incremental Margin(1) Net Increased Capacity = 116.6(2) New Product Net Sales =

C. Inc Cost Exec =

Total Direct Benefit = 214.3

CASH FLOW BENEFITNet Cash = 214.3

INDIRECT BENEFITA.Cost Avoidance =

B. Cost Savings =

C. Net NVA Reduction = D. Non Financial Benefit=

Project # Project Title BB Champion MBBAP2165 Active-Va One piece Fire loss reduction Nguyen Phuong Prasanna Techarungnirun Pittaya

Detailed Computation by Category

Direct Saving from reduction loss = ((Total pcs FF* cost *( Y BSL- Ytarget) + Total pcs RF *cost *( YBSL - Ytarget))*11.5 month =97690$

Direct saving from Incremental margin= (Total pcs selling * price selling *%margin *% improve)11.5 month =116649$

Total Direct Saving Project = Direct saving from reduction loss + Direct saving from Incremental margin=214340$

AOP Exchange rate = 17,819.65 VND / USD

Microsoft Excel Worksheet

Active-va Fire Loss Reduction - Vietnam D M A I C

Asia Pacific6

2. Solution Strategy Statistical study high-loss models and defect locations Focus team assignment by model Beware of new comers (PF, HL,WH,LE) Apply Six Sigma tools to identify vital factors (Xs) for process

control Key factors to study:

Slip formula, Aging time Mold life , mold condition and design variation Casting system, tools, skill and procedure variations Daily communications among key processes


Asia Pacific7

Support Activities Daily loss court meeting and trouble shooting

- FF major defects- Defect by models- Relevant defect locations- Focus team assignment by product group- Trouble shooting database and follow up- Defect traceability road-map and data collection- Defect location map recording by location


Asia Pacific8

3. Summary of Six Sigma Tool ApplicationMeasurement Phase

CTQ flow chart

Process flow chart

Process mapping (KPIVs, KPOVs)

C&E Matrix

GR&R (A-RF-L)

Baseline data (FFL, RFL, TTL, % defects)

Analysis Phase FMEA summary

SPC charts

Multi-vari studies( T-test, One way Anova, …)

Paretos and location


Asia Pacific9

3.Six Sigma Tool Application

Improvement Phase

GR&R (FF result: A,defect CC & LE)

Data mining experiment (interactions of Humidity & Mold life , OPT, Aging time…).

DOE & RSM

Visual communications (Defect location updates)

Training (caster master,)

Casting procedure modification


Asia Pacific10

3.Six Sigma Tool ApplicationControl PhaseA. Control Plan

B. Defect tracing and feedback daily

C. Slip SPC and control sheet

D. Humidity & temperature record

E. POKAYOKE & Visual factory

F. Casting procedure follow-up

G. Mold status record

H. Casting procedures follow-up

Performance trend charts

- FFL,RFL, TTL (Ys)

- % of cast loss, CC, PF and new comers (ys)


Asia Pacific11

4. Results and Conclusions Active –va one piece performance has been improved from w4.Apr 2010 and achieved stable results through Jul.2010


Trend Chart TT Loss

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

Time

%

TTL% BSL % Target %

Trend Chart FF Loss

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.00

Time

%

FF loss % BSL FF Target FF

Trend Chart RF Loss

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.00

Time

%

RF loss % BSL RF Target RF

Asia Pacific12

Monthly saving & YTD summary

OUT PUT INCREASE

0

500

1,000

Monthly

$ Total A pcs increase saving

Transfer A

Total A pcsincrease saving

129 34 42 55 210 216 129

Transfer A 556 221 576 498 741 835 723

Jan'10

Feb'10

Mar'10

Apr'10

May'10

Jun'10

Jul'10

DIRECT & INDIRECT SAVING USD

0.0

20000.0

40000.0

60000.0

Monthly

$

Total Direct saving $

Indirect Saving $

Total Direct saving $ 560230051766201533043221314711787048

Indirect Saving $ 276017381536193321412636199238145338

Nov' Dec' Jan' Feb' Mar' Apr' May' Jun' Jul'

Early Project Saving

Asia Pacific13

II. MEASUREMENT PHASEII. MEASUREMENT PHASE

A. Process DescriptionB. Process Map SummaryC. Cause & Effects Fishbone DiagramD. Cause & Effects Matrix SummaryE. GR& R

D M A I C

Asia Pacific14

Drying Spraying

Firing

White inspection

Fail

Pass

Rework

Fai

Pass

Loss Loss

Green finishing& inspection

Mold prep. Mold assembling Bench prep. Pouring

DrainingDemoldingPunching

Casters

Trap glaze

Loading

Glost inspcection

CASTING

ThixoResidue

Slip Making

Model/Mold designMold fitSurface quality

Slip pumping

Circulating timeSlip line design

Leakage

Mold installation

Mold maintenaceBench design

Mold Making

Slip rate Time

CleaningDrying

Predrying

Loss

Feed

back

Glaze dryness

Generator Air Compressure

Sponging

Feed

back

Process Flow ChartProcess Flow Chart

Casting Environment : Humidity & temperature

Critical Process

D M A I CA. Process Description

VC Plumbing Vietnam bird-viewVC Plumbing Vietnam bird-view• Plant Operation: started Jan. 1997Plant Operation: started Jan. 1997• Headcount: approx. 300 employeesHeadcount: approx. 300 employees• Production schedule: 2 shifts x 6 days/week Production schedule: 2 shifts x 6 days/week • Plant Capacity:Plant Capacity:

- Output: avg. 35000“A” pcs/ month- Output: avg. 35000“A” pcs/ month

Asia Pacific15

Process Map FF SummaryD M A I C

Asia Pacific16

Km/l

Personnel

Machines

Materials

Methods

Measurements

Environment

% FF Loss

Caster ,Glost inspector , Kiln operator, Sprayer

+ Operator skill

-Humidity

-Temperature

- Dirty

-Bast Wash

+ Plastic Mold

+ Raw materials Glaze quality

+ Slip Quality

+ Duels

+ Kiln equipment

+ Spray gun

+ Glost equipment

+ Case Mold

+ casting tool

+ Training procedure

+ Standard methods sheet

+ Slip Formula

+ handling

+ Master meter pressure

+ Humidity Meter

+ Mold Life

CAUSE & EFFECT FISHBONE DIAGRAM D M A I C

Asia Pacific17

C&E Metric Summary FFD M A I C

Asia Pacific18

Process Map RFD M A I C

Asia Pacific19

MEASUREMENT STUDY-GR&RD M A I C

Asia Pacific20

GR&R (A-RF-L)D M A I C

MS is Acceptable < 10%

Need Improve more

Asia Pacific21

III. ANALYSIS PHASE

A. FFL% with CCL% correlation B. High volume defect by Location focus C. CCL defect happen high mold lifeD. Caster performance on FFL defect & impact of Aging time to FFLE. CDT & PHT defect loss high ratio on RFL

D M A I C

Asia Pacific22

FFL% vs CCL % correlation

Regression Analysis: FFL % versus CCL %

The regression equation is

FFL % = 5.50 + 1.29 CCL %

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 5.496 2.373 2.32 0.033

CCL % 1.2947 0.1680 7.70 0.000

S = 3.56428 R-Sq = 76.7% R-Sq(adj) = 75.4%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P

Regression 1 754.06 754.06 59.36 0.000

Residual Error 18 228.67 12.70

Total 19 982.74

Unusual Observations

Obs CCL % FFL % Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid

8 11.0 28.194 19.755 0.885 8.439 2.44R

High correlation CCL vs FFLCC Defect happen with high ratio >70%FFL

on Active one piece in 2009 Need focus to improve CCL to reduce FFL

D M A I C

Asia Pacific23

CCL % BY HIGH VOLUME LOCATION ON PRODUCT

CCL happen so much on O.A.P.P2,H location

O

Reduce CCL on these location O,A,P,H to improve CCL.

Picture to illustrate Product locationD M A I C

A A

H

P2,P

H

Asia Pacific24

CORRELATION CCL % BY LOCATION VS MOLD LIFE

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: CCT Loss, Mold Life

Two-sample T for CCT Loss

ML N Mean StDev SE Mean

High 5 56.40 7.83 3.5

Low 5 22.00 4.00 1.8

Difference = mu (High) - mu (Low)

Estimate for difference: 34.4000

95% CI for difference: (24.2927, 44.5073)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 8.75 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 5

Significant Mold life high & Low different CCL

CCL by location A, H,P happen on mold Which one have high mold life . Need focus to find out what’s mold life is best setting for improvement

D M A I C

Asia Pacific25

One-way ANOVA: 1070, 1139, 1187, 1293, 1463, 1659, 1666, 1906, 1907

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 8 380.1 47.5 1.38 0.254

Error 25 862.9 34.5

Total 33 1243.0

S = 5.875 R-Sq = 30.58% R-Sq(adj) = 8.36% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on

Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev ---------+---------+---------+---------+

1070 4 11.000 5.824 (--------*-------)

1139 4 11.675 4.167 (--------*-------)

1187 4 14.825 3.686 (-------*--------)

1293 4 7.025 4.225 (--------*--------)

1463 4 7.300 3.032 (-------*--------)

1659 4 9.445 7.852 (-------*--------)

1666 4 9.025 6.989 (--------*--------)

1906 3 18.667 10.599 (---------*---------)

1907 3 10.400 3.940 (---------*---------)

---------+---------+---------+---------+

7.0 14.0 21.0 28.0Pooled StDev = 5.875

CCT Loss Defect by Caster

CCT Loss By caster on Mar’10

CCT loss between casters have big variation .Specially on ID 1659 ,1666,1659,1187 & 1097 with big variation & high mean.On Mar’ these ID caster continue with CCT loss high %. Need improve Caster performance

D M A I CCCL DEFECT WITH CATSERS PERFORMANCE

Asia Pacific26

CCL DEFECT WITH SLIP AGING TIME

Aging

time

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

2.9

2.5

1086420

Aging

time

CCL

2.9

2.5

161412108642

F-Test

0.017

Test Statistic 29.62P-Value 0.000

Levene's TestTest Statistic 7.33P-Value

Test for Equal Variances for CCL

On Low aging time 2.5 have variation so much & Mean % CCT defect higher than High aging time 2.9. So if continue maintain and increase more Aging time to standardization. We can improve more defect performance

Significant different

D M A I C

Asia Pacific27

% RFL BY CDT ,PHT & MATT LOSS DEFECT

CDT & PHT loss 75% on RFL

D M A I C

Asia Pacific28

1 2

0

5

10

Kiln

CC

%

Boxplots of CC% by Kiln(means are indicated by solid circles)

Defect loss by kiln No

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: CC%, Kiln

Two-sample T for CC%

Kiln N Mean StDev SE Mean1 53 2.56 2.10 0.292 81 2.86 2.37 0.26

Difference = mu (1) - mu (2)Estimate for difference: -0.30595% CI for difference: (-1.078, 0.468)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = - 0.78 P-Value = 0.436 DF = 120

P>0.05No difference

between 2 kilns

D M A I C

Asia Pacific29

FMEA SUMMARYD M A I C

Asia Pacific30

IV. IMPROVEMENT PHASE

A. Rifle Shot study B. Multi-vari Studies on CCT defect by location C. Improve mold condition/modification & Mold life D. Improve Caster performance/allocation & Aging timeE. Multi-vari studies on RF loss CDT& PHTF. Data mining DOE on effects of Mold life & HumidityG. Defects monitoring and daily feedbackH. Casting procedures follow-up

D M A I C

Asia Pacific31

D M A I C

CCT LOSS BY LOCATION NEED TO IMPROVE

I> O location need to improve

II> A location need to improve

Iii> H location need to improve

IV> P2,P location Need to improve

Asia Pacific32

Reduction CCL on location O

Location O : 24% on CCL %Rifle Shot study

-Poor corner need

=> Change radius dia

-Poor moving short pad

-=> Change pad by soft pillow

-Thickness not enough

Make thicker more 3mm

Visual oil check

Soft pillowVisual Oil check

D M A I C

Asia Pacific33

Reduction CCL on location O

One-way ANOVA: Before, After

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 293.2 293.2 4.80 0.043

Error 17 1038.1 61.1

Total 18 1331.3

S = 7.814 R-Sq = 22.02% R-Sq(adj) = 17.44%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on

Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev --+---------+---------+---------+-------

Before 11 12.770 9.552 (---------*--------)

After 8 4.813 4.237 (-----------*----------)

--+---------+---------+---------+-------

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Pooled StDev = 7.814

Significant improve CCL at O location

D M A I C

Before W3 of Apr’10 After is from W4 of Apr- W4 of jul’10

Asia Pacific34

Reduction CCL on location A

Rifle Shot study Location A : 20 % on CCT %

-Humidity at location so hard to control , Especially at high mold life times

Cheese cloth cover

Air fan to dry

Green finishing on transfer dryer date

Standard loose mold

Cheese cloth cover

D M A I C

Air Fan to dry

Asia Pacific35

Reduction CCL on location A

One-way ANOVA: A Before, A After

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 300.7 300.7 5.84 0.042

Error 8 411.8 51.5

Total 9 712.5

S = 7.174 R-Sq = 42.21% R-Sq(adj) = 34.98%


Pooled StDevLevel N Mean StDev -------+---------+---------+---------+--

A Before 5 27.309 7.893 (----------*----------)

A After 5 16.341 6.376 (---------*----------)

-------+---------+---------+---------+--

14.0 21.0 28.0 35.0


Significant improve CCL at A location

D M A I C

Before W1 of May After is from w2 of May – w2 of Aug’10

Asia Pacific36

Rifle Shot study

Reduction CCL on location H (Foot core)

=>New comer : need to improve mold design : make spagless for foot core .

=> Back up foot core ( 2 foot core for 1 mold set

D M A I C

Asia Pacific37

Reduction CCL on location H (Foot core)

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Before, After

Two-sample T for Before vs After

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Before 7 13.83 7.03 2.7

After 8 8.75 2.01 0.71

Difference = mu (Before) - mu (After)


95% CI for difference: (-1.65354, 11.81156)


Have improve but not so much . NPD research & develop mold technical .How to spagless foot core to control mold humidity

D M A I C

Asia Pacific38

D M A I C

•Most of location be reduced CCT loss , just remain P2,P location still not yet improve .

•So let take action to improve P2,P location in next step

Asia Pacific39

Reduction CCL on location P2& P

Rifle Shot study

Do experiment on 1 bench with 1 opt . Result after one month

Two-sample T for before_1 vs after_1


before_1 8 0.2275 0.0423 0.015

after_1 4 0.06750 0.00957 0.0048

Difference = mu (before_1) - mu (after_1)




Significant improve

D M A I C

Location P2,P: is hollow .

=> Modified solid

Result

Asia Pacific40

Observation

Indiv

idual

Value

161412108642

3.0

2.9

2.8

_X=2.9263

UCL=3.0504

LCL=2.8021

Observation

Movin

g Ran

ge

161412108642

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

__MR=0.0467

UCL=0.1525

LCL=0

I-MR Chart of Aging time1

Increase Aging time

Before After

D M A I C

Aging time Ave: 2.92 day

After is from w1 of Jun still Jul’10

Asia Pacific41

Improve Caster Performance

Rifle Shot study

Data

40

30

20

10

0

ter, 1463 before, 1463 After, 1293 before, 1293 After, 1632 After, 1070 before, 107

One-way ANOVA: 1907 Before, 1907 After, 1666 before, 1666 After, ...

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 18 2092.3 116.2 3.94 0.000

Error 35 1031.4 29.5

Total 53 3123.7

S = 5.429 R-Sq = 66.98% R-Sq(adj) = 50.0


Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev ----+---------+---------+---------+-----

1907 Before 3 17.937 8.362 (----*----)

1907 After 3 4.127 3.606 (----*-----)

1666 before 3 6.754 1.537 (-----*----)

1666 After 3 3.733 3.607 (----*----)

1139 before 3 7.810 6.769 (-----*----)

1139 After 3 6.746 1.787 (-----*----)

1463 before 3 11.333 4.163 (----*-----)

1463 After 3 8.238 5.918 (----*----)

1293 before 3 25.317 14.444 (----*----)

1293 After 3 1.111 1.925 (----*----)

1632 After 2 3.095 0.337 (------*-----)

1070 before 3 3.333 5.774 (-----*----)

1070 after 3 3.000 2.646 (----*-----)

1659 before 3 11.746 4.399 (-----*----)

1659 After 3 3.333 5.774 (-----*----)

1187 Before 3 6.667 2.309 (-----*----)

1187 After 3 5.333 0.577 (----*-----)

1184 Before 1 25.000 * (--------*--------)

1184 After 3 7.953 2.228 (-----*----)

Significant improvement Caster Performance

=>Run WCP effectively

-=> Standard casting procedure

-=> PP program Effectively & Incentive

D M A I C

Asia Pacific42

CCL After VS Before Take Action

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Before, After

Two-sample T for Before vs After


Before 19 15.31 3.95 0.91

After 13 8.61 2.14 0.59

Difference = mu (Before) - mu (After)




Test Mold life

Normal distribution

Significantly CCL improve before vs After is from May – Jul’10

D M A I C

Asia Pacific43

Reduction CDT & PHT defect Loss on RF Loss D M A I C

Data

Special programNormal Program

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

Boxplot of Normal Program, Special program

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Normal Program, Special program

Two-sample T for Normal Program vs Special program


Normal Program 7 20.73 1.67 0.63

Special program 7 12.24 1.99 0.75

Difference = mu (Normal Program) - mu (Special program)




Rifle Shot study

Normal Kiln program

Special Kiln program

Set up special kiln program to run for Some heavy & complex model including : Active to reduce CDT ,PHT

Significant different between Kiln program

Asia Pacific44

Reduction CDT & PHT defect loss on RF Loss D M A I C

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: PHT% Before, PHT % After

Two-sample T for PHT% Before vs PHT % After


PHT% Before 6 6.92 1.69 0.69

PHT % After 7 4.663 0.833 0.32

Difference = mu (PHT% Before) - mu (PHT % After)




CDT & PHT Improve from Nov’09 to Jul’10

Good trend

Asia Pacific45

DOE OBJECTIVE

The DOE was started from 7-Jun To 12 Jul ’10

Key Variable Used : Mold Life , OPT , Humidity , Slip formula, Slip Aging time

Research interaction of Mold life , Humidity impact to CC Loss defect on Active one piece

Find out Best combination between mold Life VS humidity with the best result on Active one piece

D M A I C

Asia Pacific46

Data mining –CC% vs FACTORS (DOE)Data mining with coded factors

D M A I C

Asia Pacific47

DOE-CCL VS MOLD LIFE & HUMIDITY

Tabulated statistics: Mold life, Humidity

Rows: Mold life Columns: Humidity

off on All

45 0.1633 0.0467 0.1050

0.05774 0.04041 0.07791

3 3 6

51 0.2033 0.1233 0.1633

0.00577 0.03786 0.05007

3 3 6

57 0.2233 0.1367 0.1800

0.01155 0.00577 0.04817

3 3 6

63 0.2833 0.1767 0.2300

0.01155 0.03215 0.06229

3 3 6

69 0.3033 0.2700 0.2867

0.02309 0.03464 0.03204

3 3 6

75 0.3267 0.3033 0.3150

0.03512 0.02309 0.02950

3 3 6

All 0.2506 0.1761 0.2133

0.06485 0.09394 0.08806

18 18 36

Cell Contents: Result : Mean

Result : Standard deviation

Mold life frome 69-75 got high CCL .So that why we just focus mold life from 57-63

D M A I C

Asia Pacific48

ANOVA: Result versus Mold life, Humidity

Factor Type Levels Values

Mold life fixed 6 45, 51, 57, 63, 69, 75

Humidity fixed 2 off, on

Analysis of Variance for Result

Source DF SS MS F P

Mold life 5 0.188033 0.037607 32.57 0.000

Humidity 1 0.049878 0.049878 43.19 0.000

Error 29 0.033489 0.001155

Total 35 0.271400

S = 0.0339822 R-Sq = 87.66% R-Sq(adj) = 85.11%

DOE-CCL VS MOLD LIFE & HUMIDITY

Mold life & Humidity impact so much to CC defect loss 70% & 18.3%

D M A I C

Asia Pacific49

Model Cast date cast pcs/dayMold lifeHumidityHumidity1 OPT Slip formulaAging time loss pcs Result StdOrder RunOrder Blocks CenterPt StdOrder_1RunOrder_12010 7-Jun 13 45 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.23 1 1 1 1 1 12010 8-Jun 14 51 off -1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.21 2 2 1 1 2 22010 9-Jun 13 57 off -1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.23 3 3 1 1 3 32010 10-Jun 14 63 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 4 4 1 1 4 42010 11-Jun 15 69 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.33 5 5 1 1 5 52010 12-Jun 15 75 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.33 6 6 1 1 6 62010 13-Jun 14 45 on 1 1632 B-36 68 0 0.07 7 7 1 1 7 72010 14-Jun 14 51 on 1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.14 8 8 1 1 8 82010 15-Jun 15 57 on 1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.13 9 9 1 1 9 92010 16-Jun 14 63 on 1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.14 10 10 1 1 10 102010 17-Jun 13 69 on 1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.23 11 11 1 1 11 112010 18-Jun 14 75 on 1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 12 12 1 1 12 122010 19-Jun 15 45 off -1 1632 B-36 68 1 0.13 13 13 1 1 13 132010 20-Jun 15 51 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.2 14 14 1 1 14 142010 21-Jun 13 57 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.23 15 15 1 1 15 152010 22-Jun 14 63 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 16 16 1 1 16 162010 23-Jun 14 69 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 17 17 1 1 17 172010 24-Jun 14 75 off -1 1632 B-36 68 5 0.36 18 18 1 1 18 182010 25-Jun 15 45 on 1 1632 B-36 68 1 0.07 19 19 1 1 19 192010 26-Jun 13 51 on 1 1632 B-36 68 1 0.08 20 20 1 1 20 202010 27-Jun 14 57 on 1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.14 21 21 1 1 21 212010 28-Jun 15 63 on 1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.19 22 22 1 1 22 222010 29-Jun 14 69 on 1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 23 23 1 1 23 232010 30-Jun 15 75 on 1 1632 B-36 68 5 0.33 24 24 1 1 24 242010 1-Jul 15 45 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.13 25 25 1 1 25 252010 2-Jul 15 51 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.2 26 26 1 1 26 262010 3-Jul 14 57 off -1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.21 27 27 1 1 27 272010 4-Jul 15 63 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.27 28 28 1 1 28 282010 5-Jul 14 69 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 29 29 1 1 29 292010 6-Jul 14 75 off -1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 30 30 1 1 30 302010 7-Jul 14 45 on 1 1632 B-36 68 0 0 31 31 1 1 31 312010 8-Jul 13 51 on 1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.15 32 32 1 1 32 322010 9-Jul 14 57 on 1 1632 B-36 68 2 0.14 33 33 1 1 33 332010 10-Jul 14 63 on 1 1632 B-36 68 3 0.2 34 34 1 1 34 342010 11-Jul 14 69 on 1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 35 35 1 1 35 352010 12-Jul 14 75 on 1 1632 B-36 68 4 0.29 36 36 1 1 36 36

DOE – CC% vs Mold life ,humidity ,OPT ( 3 input, 2 level )

Data mining work sheet ( Red- code)D M A I C

Asia Pacific50

Factorial Fit: Result versus Mold life, Humidity, OPT NOTE * This design has some botched runs. It will be analyzed using a

regression approach.

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Result (coded units)

Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 0.20979 0.004923 42.61 0.000

Mold life 0.04046 0.02023 0.001441 14.04 0.000

Humidity -0.07208 -0.03604 0.004923 -7.32 0.000

OPT 0.00708 0.00354 0.004923 0.72 0.478

Mold life*Humidity 0.00718 0.00359 0.001441 2.49 0.019

Mold life*OPT -0.00361 -0.00180 0.001441 -1.25 0.221

Humidity*OPT -0.02125 -0.01062 0.004923 -2.16 0.040

Mold life*Humidity*OPT -0.00461 -0.00230 0.001441 -1.60 0.121

S = 0.0278501 R-Sq = 92.00% R-Sq(adj) = 90.00%

Analysis of Variance for Result (coded units)

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Main Effects 3 0.235499 0.203099 0.0676998 87.28 0.000

2-Way Interactions 3 0.012202 0.012202 0.0040674 5.24 0.005


Residual Error 28 0.021718 0.021718 0.0007756

Lack of Fit 16 0.009668 0.009668 0.0006042 0.60 0.830

Pure Error 12 0.012050 0.012050 0.0010042

Total 35 0.271400

Main effect Mold life , Humidity

Interaction : Mold life & Humidity .

DOE – CC% vs Mold life ,humidity ,OPT ( 3 input, 2 level )D M A I C

Asia Pacific51

Factorial Fit: Result versus Mold life, Humidity

* NOTE * This design has some botched runs. It will be analyzed using a

regression approach.



Constant 0.21333 0.005011 42.57 0.000

Mold life 0.04200 0.02100 0.001467 14.31 0.000

Humidity -0.07444 -0.03722 0.005011 -7.43 0.000

Mold life*Humidity 0.00838 0.00419 0.001467 2.86 0.007

S = 0.0300661 R-Sq = 89.34% R-Sq(adj) = 88.34%



Main Effects 2 0.235098 0.235098 0.117549 130.04 0.000


Residual Error 32 0.028927 0.028927 0.000904

Lack of Fit 8 0.006394 0.006394 0.000799 0.85 0.569

Pure Error 24 0.022533 0.022533 0.000939

Total 35 0.271400

Reduce model DOE – red code . OPT exclude

D M A I C

Mold life, Humidity & Interaction ML & Humidity impact to CC loss

Asia Pacific52

Humidity

Mea

n

onoff

0.300

0.275

0.250

0.225

0.200

0.175

0.150

Moldlife5763

Interaction Plot (data means) for Result

Mold life , humidity effect so much to CC%

DOE – Fractional factorial ( red code )

Let do with 2 factors , 3 replicates with 3 center point ( mold life 57& 63)

D M A I C

Asia Pacific53

Factorial Fit: Result versus mold life, humidity



Constant 0.19417 0.011286 17.20 0.000

mold life 0.01167 0.00583 0.011286 0.52 0.614

humidity -0.06444 -0.03222 0.009215 -3.50 0.004

mold life*humidity -0.00833 -0.00417 0.011286 -0.37 0.718

Ct Pt -0.02250 0.019547 -1.15 0.270

S = 0.0390950 R-Sq = 51.77% R-Sq(adj) = 36.93%



Main Effects 2 0.0190972 0.0190972 0.0095486 6.25 0.013


Curvature 1 0.0020250 0.0020250 0.0020250 1.32 0.270

Residual Error 13 0.0198694 0.0198694 0.0015284

Lack of Fit 1 0.0017361 0.0017361 0.0017361 1.15 0.305

Pure Error 12 0.0181333 0.0181333 0.0015111

Total 17 0.0412000

DOE –Full factorial s

Ct Pt not significant & curvature not significant

Let use RSM to analysis

D M A I C

Asia Pacific54

Response Surface Regression: Result versus mold life, Humidity1

The analysis was done using coded units.

Estimated Regression Coefficients for Result

Term Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 0.171667 0.015960 10.756 0.000

mold life 0.005833 0.011286 0.517 0.614

Humidity1 -0.032222 0.009215 -3.497 0.004

mold life*mold life 0.022500 0.019547 1.151 0.270

mold life*Humidity1 -0.004167 0.011286 -0.369 0.718

S = 0.03909 R-Sq = 51.8% R-Sq(adj) = 36.9%

Analysis of Variance for Result


Regression 4 0.021331 0.021331 0.005333 3.49 0.038

Linear 2 0.019097 0.019097 0.009549 6.25 0.013

Square 1 0.002025 0.002025 0.002025 1.32 0.270

Interaction 1 0.000208 0.000208 0.000208 0.14 0.718

Residual Error 13 0.019869 0.019869 0.001528

Lack-of-Fit 1 0.001736 0.001736 0.001736 1.15 0.305

Pure Error 12 0.018133 0.018133 0.001511

Total 17 0.041200

Not different with inferential applied

DOE – RSM ( contour plot)D M A I C

Asia Pacific55

Tabulated statistics: mold life, Humidity

Rows: mold life Columns: Humidity

off on All

57 0.2300 0.1350 0.1825

0.00000 0.00707 0.05500

2 2 4

60 0.1850 0.1500 0.1675

0.02665 0.00894 0.02633

6 6 12

63 0.2900 0.1650 0.2275

0.00000 0.03536 0.07500

2 2 4

All 0.2150 0.1500 0.1825

0.04790 0.01700 0.04833

10 10 20

Cell Contents: result : Mean

result : Standard deviation

Count

Conclusion of DOE

Compare loss cost

1459.53

773.55

0.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

Loss cost

$

CCT loss on ML >55 ML used at 55

compare cost by Mold life used

$1,532

$309 $287

$2,127$2,089

$421 $391

$2,901

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$ mold life used 75mold life used 55

mold life used 75 1531.6 308.62 287.04 2127.26mold life used 55 2088.5 420.85 391.42 2900.81

Cost of mold Labour cost for mold making

Labour cost for operation Total cost

Monthly cost comparison between mold life and loss reduction

Average cost of CCT due to mold life > 55 casting times. This will happen only when we use mold life > 55 times (not happen every month)

This incremental cost happens every month with the same amount

Microsoft Excel Worksheet

1,460

774Average monthly saving

= $ 686

5 5 c a s t i n g t i m e s

7 5 c a s t i n g t i m e s

C h a n g e m o l d e v e r y 7 5 c a s t i n g t i m e s

A v e r a g e C C T d e f e c t s o f 5 2 % h a p p e n d u r i n g m o l d

l i f e o f 5 5 – 7 5

M o l d l i f e l i n e

M o n t h 0

M o n t h 3

M o n t h 6

M o n t h 9

M o n t h 1 2

M o n t h 2 . 3

A s s u m p t i o n s

1 . A v g v o l u m e = 1 1 7 0 c a s t i n g / m o n t h o r 1 0 7 6 f i r i n g / m o n t h

2 . T i m i n g o f h i g h C C T d e f e c t = 0 . 8 4 m o n t h / e a c h 7 5 - c a s t i n g t i m e m o l d l i f e

= 3 . 3 4 m o n t h s / y e a r

A n n u a l c o s t c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n m o l d l i f e a n d l o s s r e d u c t i o n

C C T r e d u c t i o n 1 0 0 % f r o m c u t t i n g m o l d l i f e t o 5 5 1 0 0 %

M o l d l i f eC C T l o s s o n M o l d

l i f e > 5 5

I n c r e m e n t a l m o n t h l y c o s t

f r o m m o l d

M o n t h l y c o s t f r o m

C C T

# M o n t h i m p a c t /

y e a r

A n n u a l I m p a c t

7 5 5 2 % 5 , 2 3 7 3 . 3 4 1 7 , 5 1 4 . 3 3

5 5 0 % 7 7 3 . 5 5 1 2 . 0 0 9 , 2 8 2 . 5 8

S a v i n g f r o m r e d u c i n g m o l d l i f e t o 5 5 c a s t i n g t i m e s 8 , 2 3 1 . 7 5

Best Setting : Here We see at Mold life 60 result still in target , so we select mold life 60 we will saving mold life cost 90 $ / 2 months . So Mold life 60 with Humidity on is best setting

D M A I C

Asia Pacific56

V. CONTROL PHASE

A. Control Plan B. Defect tracing and feedback daily C. Slip SPC and control sheetD. Humidity & temperature recordE. POKAYOKE & Visual factoryF. Casting procedure follow-upG. Mold status recordH. Caster Performance record

C

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific57

CONTROL PLAN D M A I CC

Asia Pacific58

DEFECT TRACEBILITY DATABASE D M A I CC

Asia Pacific59

DEFECT TRACEBILITY SHEET

Daily check and record all defective pcs for quick tracing, actions and feedback

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific60

Trouble shooting Analysis

DEFECT TRACING AND FEEDBACK D M A I CC

Asia Pacific61

MOLD STATUS DAILY MONITORING D M A I CC

Broken mold

Asia Pacific62

DAILY SLIP CONTROL SHEET D M A I CC

Asia Pacific63

SLIP ONLINE CONTROL D M A I CC

Asia Pacific64

HUMIDITY & TEMPERATURE Record Da

ta

DA 9h MayDA 9h junDA 9h JulDA 9h Aug

80

70

60

50

40

30

Boxplot of DA 9h Aug, DA 9h Jul, DA 9h jun, DA 9h May

Data

DA 14h MayDA 14H JunDA 14h julDA 14H Aug

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Boxplot of DA 14H Aug, DA 14h jul, DA 14H Jun, DA 14h May

Data

DA 5h MayDA 5h JUnDA 5h JUlDA 5h Aug

80.0

77.5

75.0

72.5

70.0

67.5

65.0

Boxplot of DA 5h Aug, DA 5h JUl, DA 5h JUn, DA 5h May

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific65

POKAYOKE APPLY & VISUAL FACTORY

Preventive risk CC defect while trap glaze at Spray Dept

Fix location when run Air Fan

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific66

DAILY CASTING PROCEDURE FOLLOW-UP

Base on Slip property , mold life to set up casting record according daily

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific67

Caster Performance Tracking

Daily ,Weekly & monthly Individual caster performance be tracked & feedbacked

D M A I CC

Asia Pacific68

D M A I CCFMEA SUMMARY

Asia Pacific69

VI. RESULTS SUMMARY

A. FFL ,RFL & TTL% PERFORMANCEB. PROJECT SAVING

Asia Pacific70

Performance FFL % compare before Action

One-way ANOVA: FFL % before, FFL% After

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 463.2 463.2 44.66 0.000

Error 10 103.7 10.4

Total 11 567.0

S = 3.221 R-Sq = 81.70% R-Sq(adj) = 79.87%


Pooled StDev


FFL % before 7 26.116 3.910 (----*-----)

FFL% After 5 13.513 1.733 (-----*-----)

---------+---------+---------+---------+

15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0


PROJECT RESULTS

SignificantlyImproved from Apr-jul’10

Normal distribution

Target 18% Significantly archived

Asia Pacific71

Result RF Loss after took action

One-way ANOVA: RFloss Bfeore_1, RFloss After_1

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 2046 2046 11.88 0.004

Error 13 2239 172

Total 14 4286

S = 13.12 R-Sq = 47.74% R-Sq(adj) = 43.73%


Pooled StDev


RFloss Bfeore_1 10 39.09 15.71 (-------*------)

RFloss After_1 5 14.31 2.21 (----------*---------)

---------+---------+---------+---------+

12 24 36 48


Boxplot of RFloss Bfeore_1, RFloss After_1

Significant improved from Nov’09 to jul’10

PROJECT RESULTS

Normal distribution

Target 21% Significantly archived

Asia Pacific72

Result TT Loss after took action Significant improved from W1 of Apr to w4 of Jul’10

PROJECT RESULTS

One-way ANOVA: Before, After

Source DF SS MS F P

Factor 1 2487.4 2487.4 34.67 0.000

Error 22 1578.4 71.7

Total 23 4065.7

S = 8.470 R-Sq = 61.18% R-Sq(adj) = 59.41%


Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev ---+---------+---------+---------+------

Before 14 47.838 10.639 (-----*-----)

After 10 27.188 3.446 (------*------)

---+---------+---------+---------+------

24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0


Normal distribution

Target 29.1% Significantly archived

Asia Pacific73

SAVING RESULT

AP2165 - MONTHLY PROJECT SAVING

Documents

Asia Pacific 1 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT VIETNAM PLANT BB Project #AP 2165 Active-Activa One Piece Fire Loss Reduction