National Workshop on “Enabling MSME to be Competitive ... · •Training on 5S, VUD, 7 QC tools, CAPA PHASE 1 ... •1-S,2-S and Visualization (Red Tag, Basic House keeping)

National Workshop on “Enabling MSME to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

1

1

WELCOME TO

MSMEUPGRADATION

THROUGH MACE CLUSTER APPROACH AT

GENBA USING QC TOOLS

2

PRICOL LIMITED OVERVIEW

3

PRICOL LIMITED OVERVIEW

4

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

Cluster ApproachPricol and Tier -2 Vendors Top Management Commitment And Active InvolvementGoal Setting Based On The Future Challenges Monthly Visits At Genba Along With MACE CounselorStep by Step Activities Implementation As Per Decided 4 Phase Model Monthly Progress ReviewTrainings and MotivationTwo way communication

5

PLAN DO CHECK ACTSelection of Suppliers

Data Collection

Target Setting

Phase wise Improvement Plan Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Act

ion

Pla

ns

Checking Of Results(Supplier’s

Performance)Standardization

DEMING CYCLE FOLLOWED IN EACH ACTIVITY

FORMATION OF CLUSTER-1

Selected 7 Vendors Based On Share Of Business (Approx 60 % of Total Buying),Criticality Of Components Supplied & Past Performance of At Least One Year. Cluster was launched in May-2009.Commodity of Vendors – Plastics, Sheet metal & Wiring Harness

6

PHASE-2

•Complete 5-S•Up-gradation through advance Quality Tools •Hoshin-Kanri (MFO).•Autonomous Maintenance; OEE•Yield Improvement•Implementation of 8 Pillars Check sheet•Training on advance tools like DOE, DMAIC

& OEE

PHASE-3

•Capturing Customer Voice•1-S,2-S and Visualization•Customer Concern (QCD) through why-why Analysis.•Red Bin Analysis using basic QC Tools•Daily Work Management for Target Monitoring.•Monthly Performance Review at Gemba & Collaborative Learning•5 New Kaizen/month/vendor.•Training on 5S, VUD, 7 QC tools, CAPA

PHASE 1

•TPM Cluster•Certified Quality Engineer•Six Sigma Black Belts.•Benchmarking Visits.•Horizontal Deployment of Cluster Activity through Tier-2.

PHASE4

•TEI through SSQC activities.•Single Piece Flow using Model Line; identifying Lean Manufacturing Projects (MPS) based on Customer Requirements.•Inventory Turns Ratio Management•Energy Consumption Management•Cost of Poor Quality•Initial Supply Control•Value added per employee cost (VAPCO)•Training on SSQC, MPS, EMS, QMS, NPD.

MACE ROADMAP FOR WORLD CLASS EXCELLENCE


2

7

TARGET SETTING (2009~10)

14960

10472

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2008~09 2009~10(Target)

Target Setting for PPM

90

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008~09 2009~10(Target)

Target Setting for Defects

•Capturing Customer Voice (CSR Review)

•Customer Concern Analysis (CSR Analysis Using Basic QC Tools)

•Red Bin Analysis by using basic QC Tools

•1-S,2-S and Visualization (Red Tag, Basic House keeping)

•Monthly Performance Review & Collaborative Learning

•Delivery Failure analysis

•Daily Work Management implementation (Managers Only)

PHASE-1

ACTIVITIES INITIATED

8

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION REPORT AND GAP ANALYSIS

9

DAILY RED BIN MEETING

Red Bin Analysis

Step No. Activity1 All members of CFT to meet at defined time to discuss previous days rejections.

2 All members should sign the daily attendance sheet.

3 RBA leader should start the brainstorming session regarding the top defect of previous week.

4 Views / Comments should be noted down in cause/effect diagram on board which includes 4-M analysis.

5 Treat all the above views as a probable causes.

6 Now list out these causes with controlled / non controlled activities.

7 Now start elimination of probable causes to reach at only potential causes.

8 Start validating the points one-by-one.

9 Find out the root cause of defect.

10 Prepare action plan to take countermeasure with target date of completion & define the responsibility of a person.

11 Note down all the points of countermeasures taken in RBAsummary sheet.

12 Record the effectiveness of lots after countermeasure taken in RBA summary sheet.

13 Make / Prepare the weekly Pareto Graph.

14 Put the graph on board for display purpose to all the employees.

15 There should be two Pareto-graphs: 1) Part - Wise 2) Defect - Wise.

RED BIN ANALYSIS - Procedure

GENBA Visit by MACE, Pricol and Cluster Members

10

After Improvement ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )

Before Improvement ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )

BENEFITS

SPACE SAVING

Bins for in-process rejection,power cut and lumps are kept on shop

floor near machine.

Bins for in-process rejection,power cut and lumps are kept in Multi storage rack on shop floor near machine.

1S & 2S

11

Before Improvement ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )

After Improvement ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )

Gang way

Previously receiving material,despatch material, rejections and slow moving

mold kept in same place.

Separate Location identified and demarkation for

receiving and despatch area.

Receiving material area.

Despatch area.

1S & 2S

12

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REVIEW BY TOP MANAGEMENT


3

13

RESULTS – 2009~10

14960

10472

6064

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2008~09 2009~10(Target) Achieved

PPM AT PRICOL

90

63 67

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


DEFECTS AT PRICOL

60%

26%

6064

4244

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

2009~10 2010~11


67

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

2009~10 2010~11(Target)


Delivery Rating criteria was added in Focus area from April-2010Cluster-2 was launched in Jun’’2010 in which we added different commodity vendors i.e.Bulb and Electronics


14

ACTIVITIES INITIATED

•Deep Analysis of Defects by using 7 QC Tools.

•Monitoring of PPM & Reduction by using 7 QC Tools.

•Poka Yoke Implementation.

•Implementation of QC Circle activities (One QC Circle in each area).

•Starting of Suggestion scheme & implementation of Kaizens.

•Daily Work Management implementation in entire plant.

•Inventory Turns Ratio Calculation & Monitoring.

•Delivery Failure Analysis in Deep way.

•Direct On Line

PHASE-2

15

POKA -YOKE TRENDCUMULATIVE POKA YOKE TREND 2010-11

2929

26222220

1717161512

95

05

101520253035

APR

IL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEP O

CT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

TOTA

L AC

H.

FY 2010-11

NOS.

KAIZEN TRENDCUMULATIVE KAIZEN TREND 2010-11

393393

352313

27123721118916713510678

360

150

300

450

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG SEP OCT

NOV

DECJA

NFE

BMAR

TOTA

L AC

H.

FY 2010-11

NO

S.

16

BEST POKA-YOKE

TURN LENS TILT

Receiver Gauge used to measure

Dimensions

WITH OUT LEG

TURN LENS TILT

HOLE PROVIDED BOTH SIDES IN MOLD FOR LEG

FITMENT LEG PROVIDED

PROBLEMNo fool proofing is done in the Visor moldsSo,Turn lens fitted in any directions.

SOLUTION1.Provide hole in both side of Visor P17/21/DLX molds..2.Leg to be provided in all cavity of Turn lens.

BEFORE AFTER

17

QUALITY CIRCLE STATUS-2010~11No. of Quality Circles formed 14

No. of Projects Completed 26

18

RESULTS – 2010~11

6064

4244 4156

0

2000

4000

6000

8000


PPM

6347 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Defects

31%

19%


4

19


4156

3500

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2010~11 2011~12(Target)


51

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010~11 2011~12(Target)


97 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010~11 2011~12(Target)

Target Setting for Delivery

20Winner- Aar- Aar Technoplast

INTERNAL QC CIRCLE COMPETION (NOV-2011) FOR PROMOTING QC CIRCLE ACTIVITIES

1st Runner up- ADPL

FOCUS AREAS FOR 2011~12 •Lean Projects Implementation

•Strengthening of QC Circle activities

•Implementation of Direct On Line Activity

.Daily Work Management implementation in entire plant at all level

21

LEAN PROJECTS IDENTIFIED 2011~12 S.No.

Project Title No. of vendors

Project Completed (till Dec-11)

Project Under Progress

1. SMED 5 3 2

2. Tool Break down Reduction

4 1 3

3. Machine Break down Reduction

3 1 2

4. Inventory Turn Over Ratio Improvement

4 1 3

5. Productivity Improvement through idle time reduction

4 1 3

6. Quality Improvement 4 1 3

7. Energy Consumption Reduction

4 1 3

TOTAL 28 9 19

22

CLUSTER ACHIEVEMENTS SINCE START OF

CLUSTER

23

REJECTION PPM AT PRICOL CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2

Overall -29%

Cluster-1 Rejection PPM Trend

392941566064

14965

0

5000

10000

15000

2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 Apr~Dec'11

59%31. 5%

Overall -72%

20%

Cluster-2 Rejection Trend

7960

11328

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

Cluster-1 Defect/month

2.3

4.65.3

7.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 2011~12 uptodec'11

NO. OF DEFECTS AT PRICOLCLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2

25%23%

Overall -76%

58%

Cluster-2 Defect/Month

1.17

1.11

1.081.09

1.11.111.121.131.141.151.161.171.18

2010~11 2011~12 upto Dec'11

5%

30%

24

9897

020406080

100

2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

9291

0

20

40

60

80

100

2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

DELIVERY RATING TREND AT PRICOLCLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2

10%

Delivery Rating

Calculation Started in FY2010-11

10%

NO. OF DEFECTS AT MSILCLUSTER-1

0000

0

5000

10000

15000

2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 Apr~Dec'11

CLUSTER-2

No Defect due to Cluster-1

000

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

No Defect due to Cluster-2


5

25

242

310299

050

100150200250300350

2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

NO. OF KAIZENS IMPLEMENTEDCLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2

4%105

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

16%

2932

0

10

20

30

40

50

2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec

NO. OF POKA YOKE IMPLEMENTEDCLUSTER-1

9%

5

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec

20%

CLUSTER-2

26

NO. OF DIRECT ON LINE COMPONENTS

4

17

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2009-10 2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec

DOL Data

27

ACHIEVEMENT &

AWARDS

28

RECOGNITION BY MSIL

29

WINNER OF QUALITY CIRCLE COMPETITION AT MSIL – OCT-2010

30

1ST RUNNER UP OF QUALITY CIRCLE COMPETITION AT MSIL – NOV-2011


6

31

KAIZEN CONVENTION AT MSIL – SEP-2011

32

WINNER OF TOPS CASE STUDY PRESENTATION AT MSIL

33

WINNER OF CASE STUDY IN MANUFACTIRING EXCELLENCE STREAM AT 4TH CII NATIONAL SUMMIT-2011

34

AAR-AAR CASE STUDY

PRESENTATION

35

18/1, MATHURA ROAD FBD.

363636

MEETING DAY & TIME

Frequency : Once in a Week• Every Wednesday• 3:00 to 03:30 pm• Attendance : 97.86%

NEEL KAMAL

MR.M.S. DUGALFACILITATOR

LEADER

DETAILS OF QUALITY CIRCLE

• Date of Formation : 25TH Nov 2010• No of Projects Completed : 05• Current Project started : 5TH APR 2011 • Tgt for Completion : 26TH JUNE 2011• Team Working Area : MOULDING

MAMTA

PUSHPADEEPA

MEENU


7

373737

PLAN DONE

Period

Activities 1Wk.

2Wk.

3Wk.

4Wk.

1Wk.

2Wk.

3Wk.

4Wk.

1Wk.

2Wk.

3Wk.

4Wk.

Problem IdentificationPboblem selectionProblem DefinitionData collection & target settingRoot cause analysisDeveloping solutionTrial of counter measuresChecking result Implementation of counter measuresEffectivenessStandardisationHorizontal developmentPayback period analysis

Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11

38

52747

53810

5314053650

52456

54260

51246

52480 53267

51456

52750

51468

52980

50000

51000

52000

53000

54000

55000

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

AVG PPM

TIME PERIOD

PPM

98382

20689 20568 19960 15738 14540 14009 13820 13426 13260 12740 10833 10499 8818

34%41%

49%56%

61%66%

71%76%

80%85%

90% 93%97% 100%

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

BACK

COVE

R YG8

CASE

-CLU

STER

FRONT DIA

L YM

I

CASE

INNER

OMNI F

RONT

DIAL

BACK

COVE

R

SPACER

ASSY. C

ASE

BACK

COVE

R YMI

BACK

COVE

R YV4

CASE

P-9

0

CASE

YAMAH

A 07W

FRONT DIA

L MARUTI

CAR C

ASE

COMP. NAME

PPM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

393939

1268

1058

3349

3

6256

3

64%

98% 99% 100%

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

WARP

AGE

CRACK

SHORT

OMOLD

BLACK

SPO

T

DEFECT

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PPM

40

“TO ELIMINATE REJECTION ON ACCOUNT OF WARPAGE &CRACK IN BACK COVER YG8 ’’

414141

96056

95840

97850

96417

94562

96541

92587

97254

96124

94687

97560

97564

95680

89000

90000

91000

92000

93000

94000

95000

96000

97000

98000

99000Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-

10

Jul-1

0

Aug-1

0

Sep-

10

Oct-1

0

Nov-1

0

Dec-1

0

Jan-

11

Feb-

11

Mar

-11

AVG

MONTHS

PP

M

424242

2016

2087

2014

1899

1987

1963

2007

2156

2005

1963

1985

2068

2054

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

2200

Apr-10

May-

10Ju

n-10

Jul-1

0Aug

-10

Sep-1

0Oct

-10

Nov-10

Dec-1

0Ja

n-11

Feb-11

Mar-1

1

AVG

MONTHS

PP

M

PPM HIGH


8

434343

98072

00

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

PPM

AVG. TARGET

44

CASE YG4

UNDERSTANDING OF PROBLEM

BACK COVER YG8 FITMENT WITH CASE YG8

RESULT: WARPAGE OBSERVED

BACK COVER

OK COMPONENT NG COMPONENT

454545

np ≥ 5

Where n = sample size

p= proportion of rejection

Our PPM is 98072

p = 98072 = 0.098072

1000000

n * 0.098072 ≥ 5

n = 5 = 50.98

0.098072

n ≥ 51MINIMUM 51 PCS ARE REQUIRED BUT WE DECIDED TO TAKE 500PCS FOR ANALYSIS

46

Final Inspection

Packing & Despatch

Remaining 481 Pcs checked after Injection molding and found 24 pcs

NG

Injection Moulding

Stacking

We Produced 500 Pcs in Moulding and

found 19 pcs reject during Injection

molding

INFERENCE: WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO STAGES OF DEFECT OCCURRENCE MOULDING & STACKING.

47

MAN MACHINE

MATERIAL

PREHEATING

WARPAGE

UNAWARNESS

NEGLIGENCE

COOLING TIME VARIATION

METHOD

BARREL TEMP.

MOULD

UNSKILLED

ILLNESS

HOLDING TIME LESS

MOLD TEMP.

WARPAGE DEVELOPED AFTER MOLDING

HIGH.

LOW.

DEGRADATION

COOLING LINE BLOCK

COOLING TIME

LOW.

HIGH.

CONTAMINATION

CYCLE TIME.

INJECTION PRESSURE

484848

RANKING MORE THAN 10 IS CONSIDERED AS POTENTIAL CAUSES


9

494949

S.NO. STAGES POTENTIAL CAUSES RANKING

1 MAN UNSKILLED 4TH

2

MACHINE

COOLING TIME 1ST

3 MOLD TEMPERATURE 5TH

4

METHOD

HOLDING TIME 3RD

5WARPAGE DEVELOPED AFTER

MOLDING2ND

6 BARREL TEMP. 6TH

505050

Validation of Potential CauseS.NO

POTENTIAL CAUSE VALIDATION

METHOD

VALIDATION DATAJUDGMENT

SPEC: OBSRV:

1 COOLING TIMETHROUGH

SCATTER DIAG50 ± 5

SCATTER DIAG OF COOLING TIME VS WARPAGE

y = -0.0524x + 3.1402

R2 = 0.8856

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63COOLING TIME

WA

RP

AG

E

INFERENCE:- Since R² is 88.5% which is greater than 36%.So there is a relationship b/w cooling time and Warpage but our spec is 45-55.As shown in graph within our spec there is

no rejection .So, this cause is not significant

Spec:- 50 ± 5

Warpage :-1 mm Max

We checked the relationshipbetween Cooling Time & Warpage

through Scatter which has been shown below

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30

5151

DIMENSIONAL TREND

0.620.74

0.86

0.54

0.36

1.04

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

IMMEDIATE ONMACHINE

After 5 MIN

After 1 HR.

TIMINGS

DIM

EN

SIO

NO

MIN MAX

51



METHOD

VALIDATION DATA JUDGMENTSPEC: OBSRV:

2

WARPAGE DEVELOPED

AFTER MOLDING

DIMENSIONAL REPORT MADE FOR 500 PCS TO CHECK THE WARPAGE AFTER IMMEDIATE

MOLDING & AFTER 5 MIN, 1 HR

PCS SHOULD

NOT WARP

We checked 500 pcs immediately on m/c

found no ng pcs,then after 5 min no

rejection,but after 1 hr some pcs were getting

rejected due to warpage

Valid Cause

AFTER 1 HR SOME PCS GOT

REJECTED

52

Why Why Analysis for Warpage Developed after Moulding

Because –No Cooling Fixture after mouldingAnswer:

Because – Not Considered during Devlopment.Answer:

Why? No Cooling Fixture after mouldingWhy-2

Not Considered during DevlopmentRoot Cause

Why-1 Why? Warpage developed after Moulding

535353

Validation of Potential Cause

S.NO


METHOD


SPEC: OBSRV:

3 HOLDING TIME SCATTER DIAGRAM 3 ± 1 Valid Cause

HOLDING TIME VS RESULT

y = -0.1173x + 1.362

R2 = 0.8854

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

HOLDING TIME

WARPAG

INFERENCE: Since R² = 88% which is greater than 63% means there is a relationship between Warpage & holding time.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within

spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause.

We checked the relationshipbetween Holding Time &

Warpage through Scatter which has been shown below


Spec:_3 ± 1

Warpage :-1 mm Max

54



METHOD


SPEC: OBSRV:

4 UN SKILLEDCHECK

THROUGH SKILL MATRIX

In- Valid Cause

NEW OPERATOR CAN WORK UNDER GUIDANCE,HE UNDERSTANDS KEY POINTS OF PROCESSCAN WORK INDEPENDENTLY,UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PROCESSCAN TEACH OTHERS

OPERATOR NAME SHIFT PRODUCTION QTY REJECTION QTY. PPM

RAMVILLAS A 500 11 22000

ANIL B 500 10 20000

INFERENCE: AS THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN REJECTION OF OPERATORS SO THIS IS NOT THE SIGNIFICANT CAUSE


10

555555


POTENTIAL CAUSE

VALIDATION METHOD


SPEC: OBSRV:

5MOLD

TEMPERATURETHROUGH

SCATTER DIAG42 ± 5

SCATTER DIAG OF MOLD TEMP VS WARPAGEy = 0.0294x - 0.6733

R2 = 0.831

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57

MOLD TEMP.

WA

PA

GE

We checked the relationshipbetween mould Temp & Warpage through

Scatter which has been shown below

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = , Where N = 30

INFERENCE:- Since R² is 83% which is greater than 36%.So there is a relationship b/w Mold temp and Warpage but our spec is 37-47, as shown in graph within our spec there is

no rejection .So, this cause is not significant

Spec:_42 ± 5

Warpage :-1 mm Max

56

Validation of Potential Cause

S.NO


METHOD


SPEC: OBSRV:

6BARREL

TEMP.

THROUGH

SCATTER DIAGRAM

Z1 - 210 ± 10

Z2 - 220 ± 10

Z3 - 220 ± 10

Z4 - 210 ± 10

We checked the relationshipbetween barrel

temperature & Warpage through Scatter which has been shown in next slides

Z1Z2Z3Z4

575757


SCATTER DIAGRAM FOR ZONE 1 TEMPERATURE VS WARPAGE

y = -0.0016x + 1.1358R2 = 0.0226

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230

TEMPERATURE

WARPAG

TEMP. SPEC :- 210 ± 10

WARPAGE SPEC:-1MM MAX

INFERENCE: Since R² = 2% which is lesser than 36% .So that there is no relation b/w Z1 temp. & Warpage . It means this cause is not significant.

585858

SCATTER DIAG OF Z2 TEMP VS WARPAGE

y = 0.0304x - 5.7414

R2 = 0.9543

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232

TEMPERATURE

WA

RPA

G

TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10

SPEC. OF WARPAGE= MAX. 1MM


INFERENCE: Since R² = 95 % which is greater than 36% means there is a relationship between Warpage & Zone 2 Temp.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within

spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause.

5959

SCATTER DIAG OF Z3 TEMP VS WARPAGE

y = 0.0568x - 11.543

R2 = 0.8503

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238

TEMPERATURE



INFERENCE: Since R² = 85% which is greater than 36% means there is a relationship between Warpage & Zone 3 Temp.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause.

TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10

606060

SCATTER DIAG FOR Z4 TEMP VS WARPAGE

y = -0.0014x + 1.1079

R2 = 0.0307

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240

TEMPERATURE

WARPAG


INFERENCE: Since R² = 3% which is lesser than 36% .So that there is no relation b/w Zone 4 Temp. & Warpage . It means this cause is not

significant.

TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10



11

616161

SL. NO.

VALID CAUSE PICTURE

1HOLDING TIME.

2BARREL TEMPERATURE OF ZONE

II & III.

3WARPAGE DEVELOPED AFTER

MOLDING

6262

S.NO.

COUNTERMEASURE LOCATIONIMPLEMENTAT

ION DATEVERIFICATIO

N DATESTATUS

1 HOLDING TIME FROZEN

FROM . 3 ± 1 i.e. 5 ± 1ON MACHINE 04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK

COUNTERMEASURE NO. 1

As shown in graph, Equation Y = m x + c

Y = 0.1173 x – 1.362

Warpage = 0.1173 *Holding Time – 1.362

Customer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm

RR Tgt = 0.80 mm

0 = 0.1173 * Holding Time – 1.362

Holding Time. = 1.362 / 0.1173 = 11.61

0.8 = 0.1173 * Holding Time – 1.362

Holding Time = 1.362 + 0.8 / 0.1173 = 8.18

Spec as per Equation :- 11.61 – 8.18

But on this spec Cycle Time Increased. So that As per scatter plot we decided to revised this spec is 5 ± 1

6363

S.NO.


ION DATEVERIFICATIO

N DATESTATUS

2BARREL TEMPERATUR FOR ZONE

II IS FROZEN ie: 205 ± 5°C EARLIER IT WAS 220 ± 10°C

PROCESS DATA SHEET

04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK


As shown in graph,Equation Y = m x + c, hence

Y = 0.0304 x – 5.7414

Warpage = 0.0304 * zone 2 Temp. – 5.7414

Customer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm

RR Tgt = 0.80 mm

0 = 0.0304 * Zone Temp. – 5.7414

Zone 2 Temp. = 5.7414 / 0.0304 = 189ºC

0.8 = 0.0304 * Zone 2 Temp – 5.7414

Zone2 Temp = 5.7414 +0.8 / 0.0304 = 215ºC

Spec as per Equation :- 189 - 215ºC

We produce 500 pcs on this spec. , but pcs were rejected because of

short mould so we decided to revised this spec is 205 ± 5

6464

S.NO.


ION DATEVERIFICATIO

N DATESTATUS

3BARREL TEMPERATUR FOR ZONE

III IS FROZEN ie: 210 ± 5°C EARLIER IT WAS 220 ± 10°C

PROCESS DATA SHEET

04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK


As shown in graph

Equation Y = m x + c, hence

Y = 0.0568 x – 11.543

Warpage = 0.0568 * zone 2 Temp. – 11.543

Custumer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm

RR Tgt = 0.80 mm

0 = 0.0568 * Zone Temp. – 11.543

Zone 2 Temp. = 11.543 / 0.0568 = 203ºC

0.8 = 0.0568 * Zone 2 Temp – 11.543

Zone2 Temp = 11.543 +0.8 / 0.0568 = 217ºC

Spec as per Equation :- 203 -217ºC

so we decided to revised this spec is 210 ± 5

656565

62563

36286

36266

62570

64280

62400

63280

64580

61258

61736

60580

62500

61450

62580

63542

36305

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Apr-10

May

-10

Jan-1

0

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-1

0

Oct-1

0

Nov-10

Dec-1

0

Jan-1

1

Feb-1

1

Mar

-11

AVG

5-Ju

n-11

7-Ju

n-11

AVG

MONTHS

PP

M

PROCESS OPTIMISED

58%

66

S.NO.

COUNTERMEASURE LOCATIONIMPLEMENTATIO

N DATEVERIFICATION

DATESTATUS

4200 GMS OF WEIGHT PROVIDED ON

COMPONENT FOR PROPER COOLING AFTER MOULDING

ON MACHINE 11 JUNE 2011 11 JUNE 2011 OK


INFERENCE: After putting the weight no pcs were rejected because of warpage

DIMENSIONAL TREND

0.620.74

0.86

0.54

0.36

1.04

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

IMMEDIATE ONMACHINE

After 5 MIN

After 1 HR.

TIMINGS

DIM

EN

SIO

NO

MIN MAX DIMENSIONAL TREND

0.36 0.37

0.42

0.62 0.630.67

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

IMMEDIATE ON MACHINE After 5 MIN

After 1 HR.

TIMINGSDIM

ENSIO

NO

MIN. MAX.


12

67

62563

36286

00

63542

62580

61450

62500

60580

61736

61258

64580

63280

62400

64280

62570

36266

36305

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Apr-10

May

-10

Jun-1

0

Jul-1

0

Aug-10

Sep-1

0

Oct-1

0

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-1

1

Feb-1

1

Mar

-11

AVG

5-Ju

n-11

7-Ju

n-11

AVG

13-J

un-11

AVG

MONTHS

PP

M

WEIGHT PROVIDED ON COMPONENT

100%

PROCESS OPTIMISED

NOTE: THERE WAS NO SIDE EFFECT OF THESE COUNTERMEASURES

68

CASE YG8

BACK COVER YG8FITMENT WITH CASE YG8

BACK COVER YG8

Being cracked after scerewed

CRACK

UNDERSTANDING OF PROBLEM

Root Cause identified for crack – Ejector Speed High due to Catching developed in Mould at Rib Area(Same Methodology was used for analysis as used for Warpage)

696969

33493

0

32146

33560

32870

3456033254

3367233245

3298033465

34121

33586

34456

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Apr

-10

May

-10

Jun-10

Jul-1

0

Aug

-10

Sep-

10

Oct-10

Nov

-10

Dec

-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

AVG

9-Ju

n-11

AVG

MONTHS

PPM

POLISHING DONE &

FREQUENCY DECIDED

100%

S.NO COUNTERMEASURE LOCATIONIMPLEMENTA

TION DATEVERIFICATIO

N DATESTATUS

1 High polish done in mould and frequency decided i.e. 20,000 shots . Inhouse 08 june 2011 08 june 2011 Ok

COUNTERMEASURE TAKEN

70

65897

36286

0 0

96056

00000

92540

8968095680

9756497560

9468796124

97254

92587

96541

9456296417

97850

95840

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

Apr-1

0

May

-10

Jun-1

0

Jul-1

0

Aug-1

0

Sep-10

Oct-1

0

Nov-10

Dec-1

0

Jan-1

1

Feb-

11

Mar-1

1AVG

Apr-1

1

May

-11

JUNE 1

ST W

EEK

JUNE 2ND W

EEK

JUNE 3RD W

EEK

JUNE 4TH

WEEK

JUNEJULY

AUG

SEPTOCT

MONTHS

PP

M

TEMPERATURE & HOLDING TIME

FROZEN

POLISHING DONE

100%

NOTE: THERE WERE NO SIDE EFFECTS OF THESE COUNTERMEASURES.

717171

20161978

1650

20542068

1985

1963

20052156

2007 1963

1987

1899

20142087

0 0 0 0 00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Apr-10

May

-10

Jun-1

0

Jul-1

0

Aug-10

Sep-1

0

Oct-1

0

Nov-10

Dec-1

0

Jan-1

1

Feb-1

1

Mar

-11

AVG

Apr-11

May

-11

Jun-1

1

Jul-1

1

Aug-11

Sep-1

1

Oct-1

1

MONTHS

PP

M

100%

72

S.no What When Where Who

1 PROCESS DATA SHEET UPDATED25 JUNE

2011PROCESS DATA

SHEETNEEL KAMAL

2

PM CHECK SHEET AND HISTORY CARD UPDATED FOR (RIB AREA

POLISHING FREQUENCY 20K SHOTS)

29 JUNE 2011

PROCESS DATA SHEET

NEEL KAMAL

3 WORK INSTRUCTIONS UPDATED28 JUNE

2011WORK

INSTRUCTIONSNEEL KAMAL

4PFMEA AND CONTROL PLAN

UPDATED28 JUNE

2011PFMEA NEEL KAMAL

S.no What When Where Who

1SEPARATE POLISHING

FREQUENCY DECIDED FOR RIB AREA

05 JULY 2011

HOUSING FRONT FOG LAMP AND

ROOM LAMP SWIFT

MR. R.L.DOGRA


13

73

•Most intractable problem resolved•Horizontally Deployment done benefiting other Component •Computer skill developed for making Presentation•Knowledge of new tools & techniques•Knowledge gain for all •Team morale high to take up More challenges.

•Customer rejection ppm reduced from 2016 to 0 on account of Warpage & Crack.

• Inhouse Rejection reduced from 96056 PPM avg to 0. Per month to 0 PPM on account of CRACK & WARPAGE.

•Productivity increased by 9.6 %(Man per unit per hour)

•Spray Consumption Minimized & save Rs. 2170 per Year after polishing done

•Direct cost saving =1440*12* 8.96 = RS. 154829 (approx) Rs per Year on Account of Saving by Eliminate Warpage & Crack from Back cover YG8

COOLING FIXTURE SHOULD BE THERE AFTER MOLDING TO ELIMINATE DEFECT WARPAGE FOR MATERIAL PPTF.

POLISHING FREQUENCY SHOULD BE SEPERATELY DECIDED FOR EACH AFFECTED AREA OR REMOVAL ITEMS.

PROCESS PARAMETER OPTIMISATION SHOULD BE DONE DURING DEVELOPMENT

74

PROCESS FLOW SCATTER DIAG.

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM

GRAPH CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM

BRAIN STORMING

CHECKSHEET PARETO DIAGRAM

75

THANK YOU

Documents

National Workshop on “Enabling MSME to be Competitive ... · •Training on 5S, VUD, 7 QC tools, CAPA PHASE 1 ... •1-S,2-S and Visualization (Red Tag, Basic House keeping)