TEAM “CATALYST” DFSS BB Project - ASQ · Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life TEAM “CATALYST”- DFSS BB Project

•1

Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life

TEAM “CATALYST”- DFSS BB Project –

“Solution for Exhaust Tail Pipe Failure

Maxximo Minivan“

15th April 15 to 30th Jan 16


TEAM “CATALYST “ MAXXIMO MINIVAN

1

PRADEEP C , DGM ,

Vehicle Integration Center Of Excellence

Mahindra Research Valley


Let me introduce Mahindra and Mahindra Group .

Mahindra Rise….

2

•2


1. Project Selection :

1.1 Understanding the context of Project Selection.

1.2 Project selection process.

1.3 Team Selection and Preparation .

With this brief Background ,let me discuss how the project was

selected.

3


Who selected the Project ?

The Mahindra Auto Sector (AFS) product Development has New

Product Development(R&D) and Plant Vehicle Team(PVT).The Plant

Vehicle Team is the Interface between the Customer Care and the Product

Development. Vehicle Integration Centre of Excellence deal with Major vehicle

Level Warranty Engineering issues.

Our Project belongs to the Product Development (R&D).

Leadership Team , including Senior General Manager (PVT) , Senior General

Manager(R&D –Vehicle Integration Centre of Excellence) and Myself selected the Project

Ravindra (Manager – PVT) , Aravindh T R (Manager – Integration ) , Yuvaraj &

Nitin(Sharda Motors) , Rithesh Rajan(System Design) were part of the Team.

Who was responsible for selecting this Project ? 1.1.1 .a TEAM

CATALYST

4

•3


Background Information on the Project: (Organisation Impact)

1.Maxximo MiniVan was Major Sales Volume

Contributor in the “Bottom of Pyramid Segment” for Mahindra.

2. Mahindra Maxximo Minivan had 20% Market Share

Which was under Threat due to Field Failure Issues.

3. Volume Dropped from 2500 No.s Peak to 1000 ~1200 No.s/ Month.

4. Exhaust Tail Pipe Failure was Top Field Concern

What Background Information on the company or those

Who selected the Project needed to understand the context of Project 1.1.1 .b TEAM

CATALYST

5


Background Information on the Project: (Financial Impact)

1.The Below Table clearly explain that the Organization incurred a Huge Warranty Cost

due to this Failure.



CATALYST

Year

Warranty Cost Year (Per Year)

due to Exhaust Failure in MiniVan

(INR)

2013 1,32,84,081

2014 2,03,36,970

2015 71,25,285

6

•4


Background Information on the Project: (Customer Impact)

The Customer or Vehicle Owner encountered the following

problem incase of this Failure in Exhaust

1.Vehicle went Off Road.

2. Vehicle Owner Lost Customer Trust.

3. Vehicle Owner Paid INR14,000(Replacement Cost) to make

Vehicle Roadworthy.



CATALYST

7


Background Information on the Project: (complexity & Challenge)

Following were main challenges encountered in understating the issue

1.The Exhaust System had cleared all the Inhouse Validation (General Highway

Durability of 1,50,000 Kms ,Torture Test of 100 Cycles). No Failure Observed.

2. Failure was Not Specific to any Application.

3. No Design change from the Tested Configuration to Production.

4. No Traditional Way of solving this Problem.



CATALYST

8

•5


How was the Opportunity brought to the Attention of the Leadership

Team ??

1. Minivan one of the STAR Products for Mahindra.

2. Customers Moved away from Minivan .Word of Mouth spreading .

3. Traditional Approach did not Help to resolve concern. Radical Approach Needed.

4. Competition ‘s selling had been the Failure of Exhaust in Minivan.

How was the gap or Opportunity brought to the

attention of the Leadership

Team ??

1.2.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

9


What was the Gap (problem solving was as below ) :

Attached Mail communication from Plant Vehicle Team(PVT)

What is the Gap in (Problem Solving)??

1.2.1.b TEAM

CATALYST

Define

R/1000 was 4 , very High in this Segment /Class of Vehicle.

10

•6


What are of the Organization had the Opportunity or Gap??

1.2.1.c

Define

Exhaust Tail Pipe

Broken

Production Process

Variation study

Implement

Solution

YES NO

No Design

Change

Design

Change

Need GAP (Opportunity)

Gap or Opportunity was to be identified in the Area of Dimensional Non Conformance of the

Product and/ or in the Design Quality Itself.

DESIGN

QUALITY

PROCESS

QUALITY

11


1.Field Failure Data and Customer Usage pattern.

2.Warranty Yard Visit

3.SCR Tracking (As per Mahindra & Mahindra Standard)

What data was generated to help select the Project?? 1.2.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Brain Storming

External Data Internal Data

1. Competition Analysis(Domestic)

2. Global Benchmark.

3. Previous Structural Analysis reports.

Define

How was the Project Selected??

1. Data used came from Internal and External sources.

2. External(Warranty, Field Visit ) and Internal(Design ..)

3. Based on Brain storming with above , Project selected.

12

•7


What Methods and /or Tools used to assess or prioritize the Need?? 1.2.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.2.2.c Why were these Methods /Tools data used to select the Project??

1.2.2.b Project Scoring Sheet for Selection .

1.2.2.c To quantitatively ,qualitatively assess and prioritize the Need on

criticality interms of ROI , Resource and Timeline

13


What Goals (Organization /Local),performance Measures, and

or strategies Is the Project expected to Impact ?? 1.2.3.b TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.2.3.c How do the stated Measures relate to the perceived Gap or

Opportunity (1.2.1)??

This slide shows how this Project Deliverables align to the Corporate Values:

1.This Project was an example of Mahindra’s Rise Pillar “Accepting No Limits”.

2.This Project was to improve the Customer Satisfaction by reducing the Cost of Ownership with the Opportunity

Mahindra Rise Pillar

1.Alternate Thinking

2.Accepting No Limits.

3.Driving Positive Change

Project Outcome &

Deliverables in addressing

Gap

Reduction of Tail Pipe

Failures – Less Ownership

Cost

14

•8


Project Execution Method & Project Management Model TEAM

CATALYST

Define

DMADV , a Six Sigma Tool is used to execute

the Project

Overall Project and all Phases

Were Managed through Project Management

Model

15


7

We start with Define Phase.

We developed the Work Plan with Responsibilities.

Project Work Plan (DMADV)

Identify Business opportunity - Resp - Team

Identify Critical to Quality and Critical to Process Chart – Resp -Team

Prepare and Publish Team Charter - Resp -Lead Member

Prepare Project Timeline - Resp- Lead Member

Prepare SIPOC Diagram – Resp - Team

Prepare TOP Down Process - Resp- Team

Identify Functional Deployment -Resp- Team

Identify Quick Wins - Resp – Team.

Define

16

•9

Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life 10

Define

1.2.3.c.1 How do the stated Measures relate to the perceived Gap or


17

Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life 10

Define

1.2.3.c.2 How do the stated Measures relate to the perceived Gap or


18

•10


What is the Problem statement that expresses where the

Organization wants to be at the End of the Project ?? 1.2.3.d TEAM

CATALYST

Define

Problem Statement

So What was our Problem and what was our Goal ??

Problem Statement

Our Aim at the End of the Project (Goal )??

In Maxximo Minivan ,The Exhaust TailPipe Failure Rate(R/1000) was High and equal to 4

Problem Statement In Maxximo MiniVan ,the Exhaust TailPipe Failure Rate(R/1000) should be less or equal to 1

19


How were the Stake Holder Group Identified ?? 1.3.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.3.1.b What and who were the stake Holders Group??

SIPOC DIAGRAM

Once the Problem and Goal were defined , we developed SIPOC for the entire Exhaust

Tail Pipe Part to Identify the Stake Holders.

20

•11


How were the Stake Holder Group Identified ?? 1.3.1.a.2 TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.3.1.b.2 What and who were the stake Holders Group??

We had done the Top Down Chart for Understanding the Process Stake Holders in Tail Pipe Assembly

The TOP DOWN Chart helped us in understanding the Sequence.

21



CATALYST

Define


We had developed the Functional Deployment Chart for Understanding each Functional Role in Tail Pipe Assembly

The Function Deployment Chart helped us in understanding the Function of each link in the Process.

22

•12



CATALYST

Define


Based on above 3 Tools , Stake Holders were identified in the Process to Customer Linkage.

Two Category Stake Holders were identified :

Internal Stake Holders – Who have direct impact on the

execution of the Project.

External Stake Holders- Who facilitate the Project.

Stake Holders collectively nominated Suitable Project Team.

The Team selected was as given in Table.

NAME FUNCTION

NITIN M& AVESH SPONSOR

RAJ PAI CHAMPION

ROHIT PATHAK MENTOR /MBB

C.PRADEEP BLACK BELT

RITHESH RAJAN SYSTEM ENGINEER

T RAMANATHAN DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER

M ARUN CAE

L LOKESH VALIDATION

ARAVINDH T R PACKAGE MANAGER

AMIT DESHPANDE PLANT VEHICLE TEAM

AJAY PILLAY CUSTOMER CARE

NITIN Z SHARDA MOTORS

23


1.

What Knowledge /Skill sets were determined to be necessary

For successful completion of the Project?? 1.3.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.3.2.b To what extent did the existing Stake Holder groups have the

Required Knowledge or skills ??

Training

(1.3.2.b)

Group (1.3.2.b)

Communication Team

Work

Analytical

Tools

Lean Six

Sigma

Time

Management

Decision

Making

NITIN M& AVESH Y Y R R Y Y

RAJ PAI Y Y R R Y Y

ROHIT PATHAK Y Y Y Y Y Y

C.PRADEEP Y Y Y Y Y Y

RITHESH RAJAN Y Y R R Y R

T RAMANATHAN Y Y R R Y Y

M ARUN Y Y R R Y Y

L LOKESH Y Y R R Y Y

ARAVINDH T R Y Y R R Y Y

AMIT

DESHPANDE

Y Y R R

Y Y

AJAY PILLAY Y Y R R Y Y

NITIN Z Y Y R R Y R

Y – Yes

R –

Require

Training

24

•13


1.

What additional Knowledge and skills were brought in to make the

Project More Successful ?? 1.3.2.c TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.3.2.b To what extent did the existing Stakeholder groups have the

Required Knowledge or skills??

Y – Yes

R –

Require

Training

Training

(1.3.2.b)

Group (1.3.2.b)

Communication Team

Work

Analytical

Tools

Lean Six

Sigma

Time

Management

Decision

Making

NITIN M& AVESH Y Y R R Y Y

RAJ PAI Y Y R R Y Y

ROHIT PATHAK Y Y Y Y Y Y

C.PRADEEP Y Y Y Y Y Y

RITHESH RAJAN Y Y R R Y R

T RAMANATHAN Y Y R R Y Y

M ARUN Y Y R R Y Y

L LOKESH Y Y R R Y Y

ARAVINDH T R Y Y R R Y Y

AMIT

DESHPANDE

Y Y R R

Y Y

AJAY PILLAY Y Y R R Y Y

NITIN Z Y Y R R Y R

25


TO ALL MEMBERS

What additional Knowledge and skills were brought in to make the

Project More Successful ?? 1.3.2.c TEAM

CATALYST

Define

1.3.3.a Before the start of the Project , what specific Training was done ??

Training

provided

(1.3.2.c /1.3.3.a)

Trained

By Purpose

Lean Six Sigma

/DFSS

Over View of

Six Sigma

In-house

Training

Decision Making Making

Conclusions

In-house

Training/

External

Trainer

ON NEED BASIS

26

•14


Before start of the Project , what was done to prepare the team to

Work Together as a Team ?? 1.3.3.b TEAM

CATALYST

Define

Forming Storming Norming Performing

Nominations Conflicts Resolution Alignment to common

Goal

Foundation Laid

Target achievement in progress

27


What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the Project?? 1.3.4.a TEAM

CATALYST

Define

Stake

Holders

Project

Selection

Data

Collection

Data

Analysis

Implementat

ion

Control Time

Management

NITIN M& AVESH R I I A R I

RAJ PAI R I I A I I

ROHIT PATHAK R I I I I I

C.PRADEEP R I R

A

R A

RITHESH RAJAN I R A A I I

T RAMANATHAN I C I I R I

M ARUN I I I I I I

L LOKESH I I I I I I

ARAVINDH T R I R A R I R

AMIT

DESHPANDE

I R I R

I I

AJAY PILLAY I I I A A I

NITIN Z I I I R I I

R Responsible

C

Accountable A

Consulted

I Informed

28

•15


Project Charter TEAM

CATALYST

Define Project Charter was approved by the Head Product Development , Functional Head of Exhaust system and

DEAN MIQ, Plant Quality Head With all Stake Holders on Board.

29


What deadlines and deliverables did the Team have to consider

Ahead of starting the Project ?? 1.3.4.b TEAM

CATALYST

Define

Financial Year

Phases Apr-15 15-May Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16

Define

Measure

Analyse

Design

Verify

F16

This Project was planned for execution

In 10 Months Record Time.

30

•16


Before the Project started ,what Team routines including

Communication Were established ?? 1.3.4.c TEAM

CATALYST

Define

NAME FREQUENCY

TEAM MEETING Weekly Once

MEETING WITH CHAMPION Every Fortnight

MEETING WITH MENTOR Every Fortnight

MEETING WITH SPONSOR Monthly Once

NAME Plan /Phase Target

Date/Month

Visit to SHARDA

MOTORS

(Supplier)

During

Measure

Phase

June 2015

Visit to MVML

Chakan , Pune

During Verify

Phase

August 2015

Visit to Field

/Feedback

During Verify

Phase

November

2015,

January 2016

31

Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life

Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

9

Project Tollgate ..

The DEFINE Phase deliverables of DMADV were approved by Project Sponsor and Project Champion .

With this the DEFINE Phase got executed by 15th May 2015 as per the Project Timeline

32

•17


Before the Project started ,what Team routines including

Communication Were established ?? 1.3.4.c.1 TEAM

CATALYST

Define

Before the Project Started , the Team Had done a Pre Visit to Supplier (SHARDA MOTORS) to

Understand if any Quick Wins were there to be explored.

The Study and Results are given in the Coming Slides.

Visit happened in the Month of Feb end 2015.

We were able to identify and Implement which are Easy , reversible and Low Cost …

The Quick Wins gave us confidence to move into the Project ……

33


Sr.

No

.

Source Concerns/

Issues

Potential

Quick win

opportunit

y (solution)

Easy to

implement

Fast to

implement

Cheap to

implement

Within the

teams

control

Easy

reversible

Implement

(Yes/No)

1 Process

Walkthrough

Thinning Of

Pipe @ Bend

Daily

Inspection

of 5

Samples

Y Y Y Y Y Yes

2 Process

Walk

Through

Calibration of

CNC Bending

(Period

Interval –

Yearly Once)

Calibration

every

Quarterly

Y Y Y Y Y Yes

Visit to Supplier for Quick Wins

Mail acknowledgement

From Supplier

21

Before the Project Started , the Team Had established a Pre Visit to Supplier (SHARDA MOTORS) to

Understand if any Quick Wins are there to be explored.

34

•18


Quick Wins Implementation Plan

S. No. Quick wins Activities Responsibilities

Person

Start

Date

Target

date of

completion

Actual

date of

completion

Standardization

of completion

1 Calibration of

CNC Bending

Machine

Calibration

to be

ensured

Quarterly

M/s Sharada

Motors

15.1.15 15.3.15 01.03.15 Process

Standardised

2 Thinning

Measurement on

Samples Daily

Measuremen

t of

Thickness

on Bend

Section

M/s Sharada

Motors

15.1.15 15.3.15 26.02.15 Process

Standardised

OBSERVATION : Source of Failure from the Phenomena of “ Thinning in

Bending Operation “ was getting eliminated/had come under control

Mail acknowledgement

From Supplier

22 35


Quick Win Results

Source of Failure from the Phenomena of “ Thinning in

Bending Operation “ was getting eliminated/had come

under control

The Quick Wins gave us confidence to move into the

Project ……

23 36

•19


2. Current Situation and Root Cause /

Improvement Opportunity Analysis

2.1 Key Measures expected out of Project

2.2 Possible Root Causes /Improvement Opportunities.

2.3 Final Root Cause /Improvement Opportunities.

2.4 Project Management Update.

24

We now move to the Measure and Analyze Phase of the Project which covers section 2 of

ASQ criteria which Focus on :

Current Situation and Root Cause Analysis.

37


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


25

As a standard practice a Work Plan was developed along for Measure Phase

38

•20


What specific Goals and or Measures ,is the Team trying to achieve

In this Project ?? 2.1.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Measure

2.1.1.b What additional Potential Benefits , Other than Specific goals and /or

Measure will the Project Impact ??

Main Goal Reduction in R/1000 of Exhaust Tail

Pipe Failure from 4 to <=1 in Minivan

Expected Benefit 1. R/1000 reduction to <=1.

2. Reduction of Warranty Cost from 2 Crore INR to very less Figure.

Additional

Potential Benefit

1. Customer Satisfaction

2. Less Cost of Ownership to Customer

3. Better Word of Mouth from Customer which is a Big Sales Pitch

39


Brain Storming

26 40

•21


Cause and Effect Diagram

27 41


Cause-Effect Matrix Output #1

(Crack)

Output #2

(Thinning)

Output #3

( Twisted Fitment on

Vehicle)

Output

Indicators

Input/ Process indicators 9 7 3 Total

Importance

(1-10 scale)

Less Material Thickness 3 3 0 48

Pipe Bend Radius 9 9 0 144

Pipe Material Thinning 3 3 0 48

Muffler Assy is Not Ok 1 1 0 16

Excessive Clamping Force 3 1 0 34

Wrong Bending Mandrel 3 3 1 48

Minor Crack during bending 9 3 0 108

Weld Penetration Improper 9 3 1 102

Pipe Internal Rust 1 0 0 9

Insulator not Perpendicular 9 0 9 108

Scale: 0=None, 1=Low, 3=Moderate, 9=Strong

28 42

•22


Sr. No. Performance Indicator (Y) Operational Definition

Y1 CRACK

The Crack is the Major Failure Mode which is creating

Exhaust Tail Pipe to get detached from the system. There

should not be any crack ( Hairline also) in the Manufacturing

Process.

Y2 THINNING

The Thickness of the Pipe is 1.6mm with Minimum Value as

1.2mm as per Engineering.

Exhaust Manufacturing Process starts from the Cutting of the

Pipe Raw Material inside Plant till the storage of the System

Inside Plant . Minimum 30 Data shall be collected from May

2015 to June 2015

Y3 TWISTED FITMENT OF ASSY ON

VEHICLE

The Exhaust system is fitted on the Vehicle with Rear

Isolators on the Vehicle perpendicular to the Vehicle Plane.

Minimum 30 Vehicle Data shall be collected from May 2015

to June 2015

Performance Indicator (Y)

29 43


Sr. No. Process / input Indicator

(X)

Operational Definition

X1 Pipe Bend Radius The Pipe Bending Radius is 80mm currently in the Design.

X2 Minor Crack During Bending

There should not be any Minor Crack in the Bending

Process.

There is a check point in the Buy Off stage before

Assembly.

Input Indicator (X)

30 44

•23


Sr. No. Process / input Indicator

(X)

Operational Definition

X3 Welding Improper

The Welding specification is given as Below :

1. Throat Height is <= Smallest Thickness

2. Plate Thickness = 1.6mm

3. Filling angle should be 110 Deg Minimum

These Parameters are checked in a Month’s Production

as this is a destructive Test .

X4 Insulator not Perpendicular

The Rear 2 Isolators getting fitted on the Vehicle are to

be Perpendicular as per the Engineering Intent.

These are checked in the Daily Production Batch @

MVML .( May 2015 to June 2015 Batch).

Input Indicator (X)

31 45


Data Measurement Plan

Remarks:

Other data refers to additional information from stratification perspective.

Performance

measure (Y)

Operational

definition

Data source

and location

Sample

size

Who will

collect the data

When will

data be

collected

How will data

be collected

Other data that

should be

collected at the

same time

Crack Inbuilt Crack

during

Bending

M/s Sharda

Motors,

Chakan

30 No.s Mr. Nitin Shinde,

Mr. Zaheer Pinjri

As per Shift

Time

Visual -

Thinning

(Pipe

Thickness)

Pipe

Thickness

after Bending

(1.6 to

1.2mm)

M/s Sharda

Motors,

Chakan

30 No.s Mr. Nitin Shinde,

Mr. Zaheer Pinjri

As per Shift

Time

Vernier -

Process / Input

(X)

Operational

definition

Data

source

and

location

Sample

size

Who will

collect the data

When will

data be

collected

How will

data be

collected

Other data that should

be collected at the

same time

Isolator fitment

on Vehicle

The Rear 2 Isolators

getting fitted on the

Vehicle are to be

Perpendicular as per

the Engineering

Intent.

These are checked in

the Daily Production

Batch @ MVML .(

Jan 2015 to Feb

2015 Batch).

M/s

MVML

30 No.s Mr. Amit Paliwal June 2015 Visual To check whether this is

corrected in PDI before

dispatch

32 46

•24


MSA

(Measure System

Analysis)

33 47


A. Data collection Format &

Collection – Page 1 Sr No. Operator Position 1 Position 2 Location Remarks

1 A 1.47 1.55 At Sharda Motors Position 1 –

Ahead of the

Bend

Position 2 –

Behind the

Bend

2 A 1.38 1.49 At Sharda Motors
















34

Position 1 Position 2

48

•25


B. Data collection Format &

Collection –Page 2 Sr No. Operator Position 1 Position 2 Location Remarks

18 B 1.37 1.35 At Sharda Motors Position 1 –

Ahead of the

Bend

Position 2 –

Behind the

Bend

19 B 1.40 1.43 At Sharda Motors

















35 49


C. Gauge

R&R Results

36 50

•26


process variation.

variation. A historical standard deviation is used to estimate the

The measurement system variation equals 4.0% of the process

100%30%10%0%

NoYes

4.0%

tolerance.

The measurement system variation equals 5.1% of the

100%30%10%0%

NoYes

5.1%

ReprodRepeatTotal Gage

45

30

15

0

30

10

%Process Var

%Tolerance

operator.

study, reproducibility is not estimated because there is only one

occurs when different people measure the same item. In this

-- Operator component (Reproducibility): The variation that

4.0% of the total variation in the process.

times. This equals 100.0% of the measurement variation and is

occurs when the same person measures the same item multiple

-- Test-Retest component (Repeatability): The variation that

reproducibility to guide improvements:

total gage variation is unacceptable, look at repeatability and

Examine the bar chart showing the sources of variation. If the

>30%: unacceptable

10% - 30%: marginal

<10%: acceptable

General rules used to determine the capability of the system:

Number of parts in study 13

Number of operators in study 1

Number of replicates 2

Study Information

Variation by Source

(Replicates: Number of times each operator measured each part)

Comments

Gage R&R Study for Measurements

Summary Report

Can you adequately assess process performance?

Can you sort good parts from bad?

1.401.381.36

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1.40

1.38

1.36

0.010

0.005

0.000

Variation by Source

Total Gage 0.003 27.02 4.00 5.10

Repeatability 0.003 27.02 4.00 5.10

Part-to-Part 0.012 96.28 14.24 18.15

Study Variation 0.013 100.00 14.79 18.86

Process Variation 0.085 676.20 100.00 127.50

Tolerance (upper spec - lower spec): 0.4

Source StDev Variation

%Study

Variation

%Process

%Tolerance

Measurements by Part

Compare the test-retest data for each part.

Xbar Chart of Part Averages

At least 50% should be outside the limits. (actual: 61.5%)

Test-Retest R Chart (Repeatability)

Parts with larger ranges have less consistency.

Gage R&R Study for Measurements

Variation Report

C. Gauge R&R Results

37 51

51


Considerations :

Lower Limit = 1.20 mm

Upper Limit = 1.60 mm

Observations:

• Cpk value = 1.14

• Recommended was 1.33 or more

• sigma value is 3*Cpk+1.5 = 4.9

D. Process Capability :

38 52

Thickness

•27


E. Calculation Sigma Performance

1. Number of units processed

2. Total number of defects made

(Include Defects made and Later Fixed)

3. Number of defect opportunities per unit

4. Solve for defects per million opportunities

5. Look Up process sigma in abridged sigma

conversion table

Sigma DPMO

1 697672

1.1 660083

1.2 621378

1.3 581815

1.4 541694

1.5 501350

1.6 461140

1.7 421428

1.8 382572

1.9 344915

2 308770

2.1 274412

2.2 242071

2.3 211928

2.4 184108

2.5 158687

2.6 135687

2.7 115083

2.8 96809

2.9 80762

3 66811

3.1 54801

3.2 44567

3.3 35931

3.4 28717

3.5 22750

3.6 17865

3.7 13903

3.8 10724

3.9 8198

4 6210

4.1 4661

4.2 3467

4.3 2555

4.4 1866

4.5 1350

4.6 968

4.7 687

4.8 483

4.9 337

5 233

5.1 159

5.2 108

5.3 72

5.4 48

5.5 32

5.6 21

5.7 13

5.8 9

5.9 5

6 3.4

39 53


F. Data Summarization (Y)

For continuous (Y)

Output indicator Standard

deviation

Cp Cpk Sigma Level

Y2 0.0856 1.2 1.14 3.42

For discrete (Y)

Output indicator No. of units No. of opportunities per

unit

No. of defects DPM

O

Sigma

Level

Y1 (CRACK) 34350 01 11 320 4.9

Y3(TWIST

FITMENT ON

VEHICLE)

34350 01 52 1455 4.5

Baseline definition

40 54

•28


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


25

The Measure Phase deliverables of DMADV were approved by Project Sponsor and Project Champion .

With this the Measure Phase got executed by June 2015 as per the Project Timeline

Project Tollgate ..

55


Analyze


41 56

•29


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


42 57


What Methods and or /Tools were used to identify the Root Causes/

Improvement Opportunities ?? 2.2.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

2.2.1.b How was the Team prepared to use these Methods and or Tools ??

CTQ Flow Down Tool helped us in converging the Failure

Mode into Measurable Performance

Parameter

Transfer

Function

T =F(X)

This Mathematical Function related the

output of the system (Tail pipe ) to the

Inputs in Engineering and Process.

PARETO

Prioritization Of Causes.

Why were these Tools Selected ?? 2.2.1.c

Training by MIQ

Training with

System Center of

Excellence

Training by MIQ

TOOLS(2.2.1.a) Why Selected(2.2.1.c) Team Preparedness(2.2.1.b)

Team had converged on these Three Tools . These Analyze Tools have been Explained in coming slides.

58

•30


What Data was generated and how were the Data analyzed to identify

The root causes , Improvement(s) / Opportunities (s)?? 2.2.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

After Deployment of these Tools, following were the Major Observations :

1. From CTQ , Pipe Thickness and Bend Radius were Important contributors.

2. From Causes Matrix ,Minor Crack during Bend and the Fitment of Insulator (Not Perpendicular)on Vehicle

were suspected as Root Causes.

Pipe Bend Radius and the Pipe Thickness, Fitment of Insulator on Vehicle Data were generated.

59


Analyse Phase

Define CTQ flow - Down

Comparative Methods

Final Analysis

43 60

•31


CTQ Flow Down System/Part Characteristics to Design Parameters

Design Parameters

System/Part Characteristics

Customer Requirement No Failure in Exhaust Tail Pipe

Bending & Welding Profile

Bend Radius Pipe Thickness

44 61


Sr. No. Process / input Indicator (X) Operational Definition

X1 Pipe Bend Radius The Pipe Bending Radius is 80mm currently in the Design.

X2 Minor Crack During Bending

There should not be any Minor Crack in the Bending Process.

There is a check point in the Buy Off stage before Assembly.

Causes

Sr. No. Process / input Indicator (X) Operational Definition

X3 Welding Improper

The Welding specification is given as Below :

1. Throat Height is <= Smallest Thickness

2. Plate Thickness = 1.6mm

3. Filling angle should be 110 Deg Minimum

These Parameters are checked in a Month’s Production as this is a

destructive Test .

X4 Insulator not Perpendicular

The Rear 2 Isolators getting fitted on the Vehicle are to be

Perpendicular as per the Engineering Intent.

These are checked in the Daily Production Batch @ MVML .( May

2015 to June 2015 Batch).

45 62

•32


What were the Possible Root Cause(s) , Opportunities (s)?? 2.2.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze


Based on the CTQ and Causes Matrix , following root Cause were converged on :

1. Pipe Bend Radius

2. Minor Crack during welding

3. Welding Improper

4. Fitment of Insulator (Not Perpendicular )on Vehicle.

63


What Methods and or /Tools were used to identify the FINAL Root

Causes/ Improvement Opportunities ?? 2.3.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze


Hypothesis One

Way A NOVA Tool was used to determine whether

significant differences between the Means.


Training by MIQ

1 Sample T Test

The One sample t Test was selected as this

compared a sample Mean to a

Hypothesized population Mean and

determined how they are different.

Training by MIQ



PARETO Tool was used to prioritize the root Cause. Training by MIQ

64

•33


Count 49 10 2 2

Percent 77.8 15.9 3.2 3.2

Cum % 77.8 93.7 96.8 100.0

Cause OtherCrackTwistRadius

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Co

un

t

Pe

rce

nt

22

10

49

Pareto Chart of Cause

Prioritization of Xs - Causes

Using Pareto Analysis , we found Radius had a larger Count

Percentage of Influence .

46 65



The Final root causes , Improvement(s) / Opportunities (s)?? 2.3.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze


1. Pareto Analyze was done to prioritize the Cause.

2. A NOVA tests results analyzed the Variation in the Radius/Thickness measured.

3. 1 Sample t Test analyzed the Variation in Thickness Measured with respect to Bend Radius Location and

Operator.

4. Hypothesis Testing was also done for verifying the Null Hypothesis .

All above Findings are explained in the subsequent Slides.

2.3.2.b What are specific examples of data analysis that lead to final root

cause??

66

•34


ANOVA Test

Results

47 67


A NOVA TEST

48 68

•35


1-Sample t test

Results

49 69


1.65

1.50

1.35

1.20

90% chance.

the difference. If it differed by 0.062393, you would have a

either direction, you would have a 60% chance of detecting

If the true mean differed from the target by 0.042544 in

For alpha = 0.05 and sample size = 17:

100%

0.062393

90%

0.042544

60%< 40%

0.042544 60.0

0.047772 70.0

0.053894 80.0

0.062393 90.0

Difference Power

sample size of 17?

What difference can you detect with a

sample size.

Power is a function of the sample size and the standard deviation. To detect a difference smaller than 0.053894, consider increasing the

1-Sample t Test for the Mean of Position 1

Diagnostic Report

Data in Worksheet Order

Investigate outliers (marked in red).

Power

What is the chance of detecting a difference?

Operator A vs. Position 1

target (p > 0.05).

The mean of Position 1 is not significantly different from the

> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.110

1.551.501.451.401.35

1.4

test results.

the target. Look for unusual data before interpreting the

-- Distribution of Data: Compare the location of the data to

that the true mean is between 1.3923 and 1.4689.

the mean from sample data. You can be 95% confident

-- CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating

mean differs from 1.4 at the 0.05 level of significance.

-- Test: There is not enough evidence to conclude that the

Sample size 17

Mean 1.4306

95% CI (1.3923, 1.4689)

Standard deviation 0.074454

Target 1.4

StatisticsDoes the mean differ from 1.4?

Distribution of Data

Where are the data relative to the target?

Comments


Summary Report

1 Sample t Test Operator A Vs Position 1

50 70

•36


1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

90% chance.





100%

0.071776

90%

0.048942

60%< 40%

0.048942 60.0

0.054956 70.0

0.061999 80.0

0.071776 90.0

Difference Power

sample size of 17?




Power


sample size.



Diagnostic Report

Operator A vs. Position 2

target (p < 0.05).

The mean of Position 2 is significantly different from the

> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.012

1.61.51.41.3

1.4

test results.






the 0.05 level of significance.

-- Test: You can conclude that the mean differs from 1.4 at

Sample size 17

Mean 1.4588

95% CI (1.4148, 1.5029)


Target 1.4




Comments


Summary Report

1 Sample t Test Operator A Vs Position 2

51` 71


1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

90% chance.





100%

0.061936

90%

0.042240

60%< 40%

0.042240 60.0

0.047428 70.0

0.053504 80.0

0.061936 90.0

Difference Power

sample size of 18?




Power


sample size.



Diagnostic Report

target (p > 0.05).


> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.141

1.61.51.41.3

1.4

test results.








Sample size 18

Mean 1.3722

95% CI (1.3343, 1.4102)


Target 1.4




Comments


Summary Report

Operator B vs. Position 1

1 Sample t Test Operator B Vs Position 1

52 72

•37


Operator B vs. Position 2

1.65

1.50

1.35

1.20

90% chance.





100%

0.065692

90%

0.044801

60%< 40%

0.044801 60.0

0.050304 70.0

0.056748 80.0

0.065692 90.0

Difference Power

sample size of 18?




Power


sample size.



Diagnostic Report

target (p > 0.05).


> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.323

1.61.51.41.3

1.4

test results.








Sample size 18

Mean 1.3806

95% CI (1.3403, 1.4208)


Target 1.4




Comments


Summary Report

1 Sample t Test Operator B Vs Position 2

53 73


Comparative Methods for Checking

Hypothesis

Supplier claim that Tail Pipe thickness near Bending was maintained >1.6mm.

Conduct 1 Sample T Test

Suspicion statement : Mean Thickness @ Pipe Radius was > 1.6mm

Ho :µ < =1.6mm

Hα : µ > 1.6mm

If P < 0.05 , reject Ho.

1. As P< 0.05 , Ho was rejected.

2. Operator B does not have any significant Deviation from Target Value.

3. Operator A had significant Deviation @ Position 2 from Target Value.

54 74

•38


What was(were) the Final Root Cause (s)

/Improvement/Opportunities ? 2.3.2.c TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze


1. Pipe Bend Radius was the significant Factor supported all the above simulation test results.

75


How were the Final Root Causes /Improvements

/Opportunities Validated?? 2.3.3.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

2.3.3.b What evidence showed that the Final Root Cause /Improvements

Opportunities Validated ??

Shop Floor Visit.

Other Causes

Elimination

Control Charts &

Process Capability .

No Minor Crack.

No Raw Material

concern.

FINAL ROOT CAUSE Validation Method Validated Improvement Opportunity

PIPE BEND

RADIUS

Hypothesis Testing .

Pipe Thickness

near the Bend

meeting Variation

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

90% chance.





100%

0.071776

90%

0.048942

60%< 40%

0.048942 60.0

0.054956 70.0

0.061999 80.0

0.071776 90.0

Difference Power

sample size of 17?




Power


sample size.



Diagnostic Report

Different Tools were used in Validation.

The elimination of Causes played a significant Role. Hypothesis established the relation that Bend Thickness is

Not the Major contributor.

76

•39


During all the Phases of DMADV , based on the Learnings and Findings , deliverables & schedule were

reviewed.

During Analyze Phase , there were no change in the Project Scope /Schedule change , but we had 2or 3

days discussion with Our Mentor to ensure Proper Tools were used. This Rigorous work helped us in

Meeting the Schedule.

How was the correctness of the Initial Project scope, deliverables and Timing

Verified ? ?(Or what changes were made). 2.4.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

Correctness of the Project ensured. Whatever Tools Planned were used.

Deliverables were as per the Requirement .

No Scope Change No Time Deviation

77


.

How were Stakeholders involved (or) communicated on the

Root Cause /Opportunity and Improvement Phase of the Project?? 2.4.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

Project Lead

/Champion Stake Holders

In the Analyze Phase , the Project Team also made 1 Plant Site Visit.

78

•40


.

What Stake Holder Resistance was identified or addressed

In this Phase of the Project?? 2.4.1.b TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

Enclosed Graph

was a applicable

to our Team

1. During our Meeting schedule , there were Warranty discussions between Supplier and M&M Management

At one point of the Meeting , there was disconnect between interacting agencies from both sides.

2. Considering Organizational Security Policy , we could not detail any further.

3. But the same got resolved with Visibility of Confidence from this Project

79


.

How was the appropriateness of the initial Team Membership and

Management routines confirmed(or what changes were made??) 2.4.1.c TEAM

CATALYST

Analyze

1. Appropriateness of the Initial Team Membership and Management Routines were ensured by conducting

Weekly Review Meetings.

The Weekly Review Meetings were focusing on the following :

1.1 Timeline

1.2 Deliverable.

1.3 Resource Constraint. ( Continuous Monitoring and Tracking was done in case of the System Resource)

80

•41


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


42

The Analyze Phase deliverables of DMADV were approved by Project Sponsor and Project Champion .

With this the Measure Phase got executed by July 2015 as per the Project Timeline

Project Tollgate ..

81


3. Solution/ Improvement Development

3.1 Possible solutions or Improvement.

3.2 Final Solutions or Improvements

3.3 Project Management Update.

24

We now move to the Design and Verify Phase of the Project which covers section 3 of


After Understanding the Root Cause , our Job was to find out the possible solutions & Finalize

The same .

82

•42


Design


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


56 83


Design Phase

Generate

and select

concepts

Conduct

Design FMEA

Optimize

Design

Make design robust

Optimize solution

57 84

•43


What Methods and or /Tools were used to identify the possible solution(s)/

Improvement ?? 3.1.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design


Benchmark Tool helped us in understanding what is the

Best in Class configuration in Market

Design Concepts

Innovative Ideas for New Design concepts

based on the systems Relation.

TRIZ Innovative IDEA Tool relating the real Life

problem to simplified Principles which are

proved globally.


Data shared by

Benchmark

Team

Training with

System Center of

Excellence

Training by MIQ



85



Solutions , Improvement(s) ?? 3.1.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

For Utilization of the Tools , following Data were collected :

1. Benchmark Vehicles(Domestic) – Exhaust Tail Pipe Bend Radius / Pipe Thickness

2. Relative Case Study on how to apply these TRIZ principles.

3. Engineering Relation /Calculations in defining the Exhaust System Routing .

4. Global Benchmark from Website A2MAC1.

Tail Pipe - Benchmarking &

Measurement(Higher End Pick Up)

Project/

Platform

Tail Pipe

diameter

(mm)

Bend

Radius

(mm)

U215 60 90

U220 60 90

BOLERO 60 135

SCORPIO 60 100 (Min)

86

•44


Tail Pipe - Benchmarking & Measurement

Vehicle

Muffler

Volume

(M3)

Times

greater

than

engine cc Volume

Engine

cc

Back

pressure

Exhaust

port

ID (mm)

Front Pipe

Diameter

(mm)

Tail Pipe

Diameter

(mm)

Length of

front

pipe from

muffler

(mm)

Length

of tail

pipe

from

muffler

(mm)

Length

of

system

(mm)

ACE

78.5 11.21 V=3.14/4*20

0*125*400 702 21.3 28

ID : 41.5

OD : 44.5

ID : 41.5

OD : 44.5 1000 500 2500

MINIDOR 40.18 8.052

V=3.14/4*17

5*75*390 499 - -

ID : 32

OD : 34

ID : 31

OD : 33 - - -

ALFA 30.42 7.7

V=3.14*55*5

5*320 395 43 -

ID : 31

OD : 35

ID : 28

OD : 32 180 125 600

CHAMPION 35.32 6.93

V=3.14*50*5

0*450 510 - -

ID : 31

OD : 35

ID : 29

OD : 33 750 100 1300

MAX

PICKUP

361.73 11.3 V=3.14/4*20

0*120*480 3200 - -

ID : 50

OD : 54

ID : 47.5

OD : 51.5 - - -

BOLERO

PICKUP

361.73 11.3 V=3.14/4*20

0*120*480 3200 - 46

ID : 52

OD : 56

ID : 47.5

OD : 51.5 1895 1300 3700

PIAGGIO

PORTER - - - - - -

ID : 41

OD : 45

ID : 34

OD : 38 - - -

59 87

ID – Inside Diameter , OD – Outer Diameter of Pipe


TRIZ(Contradict problem solving Technique..)

Principle 20 : Continuity of Useful action

Benchmark and Lessons Learnt from Other Platforms.

Principle 35 : Parameter Changes

Changes in Tail Pipe Radii and Tail Pipe Thickness.

Principle 10 : Preliminary Action

Simplification of design

Principle 19 : Periodic Action

Eliminated with Daily check of the Thickness & Radius Parameters in both Shift

In all the prepared options care must be taken to make Design

change within Package Boundary Design Envelope. Design Modification should be

easy for Assembly and Service.

61

TailPipe Failure = F( Package Boundary Envelope , Pipe Profile )

Contradiction = Package Boundary Envelope VS Pipe Profile

88

•45


TRIZ (Contradict problem solving

Technique)

• Design = F(Simple, Tail Pipe Radius Increase)

• Manufacturability = F (Commonality with existing Production )

• Measure = (Thickness , Radius)

TailPipe Failure = F( Package Boundary Envelope , Pipe Profile )

62 89


Design Concepts Generated

Concept 1 In existing Engineering ,Increase the Tail Pipe Radius from R80 to R100

Concept 2

Existing : Current Engineering is with Integrated Tail Pipe Type of Tail Pipe.

Proposed : Split Type of Tail Pipe with Flange Bolted Concept. The Flange can

be taken as Carryover from Existing Production Vehicles such as BOLERO ,

SCORPIO.

Concept 3 Increase the Tail Pipe Radius from 44.5 mm to

60mm (which is Carryover from SCORPIO/ BOLERO)

Concept 4

Increase the Tail Pipe Radius from 44.5 mm to

60mm (which is Carryover from SCORPIO/ BOLERO) & Increase the Pipe

Radius to Next available Size.

63 90

•46


Transfer Function Y = f(x) Exhaust Tail Pipe

-Tail Pipe Bend = F(Bend Radius & Pipe Thickness)

EngineCC : 909

Power : 26BHP@3600RPM

Torque : 58NM@1800RPM

Max RPM : 3800

Rated RPM : 3600

No.of.cylinders 2NO OF SPEEDS 4

DRIVE 2WD

STROKE/BORE 80X79.7

NO OF STROKES 4

GVW 1815KG

VEHICLE TYPE LOAD CARRIER

MAX SPEED 70 KM/HR

WEIGHT TARGET OF

EXHAUST SYSTEM10kg

Valve throat dia(d) 29.5mm

Exhaust valve port dia 28.4mm

IVO 9 BTDC

IVC 35 ABDC

EVO 42 BBDC

EVC 10 ATDC

Primary pipe length(P) ASD2/1400d2

P (mm) 3.813239763 1143.971929

1.161417323 Valve throat dia(d) (in)

3.149606299 STROKE (S) (in)

3.137795276 BORE (D) (in)

232.000

Exhaust valve

opening period

in crank degree(A)

Front & Tail Pipe diameter(mm) Formula

Valve throat dia(d)=29.5mm

ID= d+(d / 8)

33.1875

Muffler volume(cc) Formula

15*Engine cc

11970

INPUT DATA

Exhaust valve

opening period

in crank degree(A)

64 91


Transfer Function Y = f(x) Exhaust Tail Pipe

-Tail Pipe Bend = F(Bend Radius & Pipe Thickness)

65 92

•47


What were the Possible Solution(s) , Improvement (s)?? 3.1.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

Design

After Deployment of these Tools, following were the Major Solutions :

Based on the Design Concepts,TRIZ and Benchmark following Solutions were converged on :

1. As an Intermediate solution , going for a split Type Exhaust , where Exhaust Tail Pipe is SPLIT.

Incase of Failure , only that part will be replaced.

2. Going for complete New Design with bigger size Pipe of Exhaust Tail Pipe.

3. Going for increase in the Radius of the Tail Pipe.

What evidence showed that Solution /Improvement identified were

Possible instead of Final?? 3.1.2.c

3.1.2.C The above solutions were Feasible as per Following Evidences:

a. Engineering Feasibility on all the above 3 Ideas.

b. Radical shift in thinking for this Platform, thereby giving confidence to Management.

93


What Methods and or /Tools were used to identify the Final

solution(s)/Improvement ?? 3.2.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design


PUGH MATRIX Tool helped us in understanding the

Weightage of each Factor /concept

DOE

Tool helped us to identify how the Inputs

Parameter changes the Output /Type of

Relation

Design FMEA

Tool helped us to have the Failure Mode

anticipated for this Concept


Training by MIQ

Training by MIQ

Training by MIQ



94

•48


How were the Methods and or Tools used to determine

Final solutions , Improvements ??

3.2.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

The Methods deployed are illustrated in the coming slides .

Based on process understanding, Ratings were allocated against Each criteria

Pugh Matrix Selecting the best proposal

PUGH MATRIX

Datum concept

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

Potential to Reduce Failure

+ + + +

Design Simplicity S S - -

Reliability + S S +

Ease of Servicing + + S -

Manufacturability S - - -

Cost of Feature + - - -

Sum (S) 2 2 2 0

Sum (+) 3 1 0 1

Sum (-) 0 2 2 3

95


B Diagram & P Diagram FMEA

SHIFT LEVER CHASSIS VACCUM HOSE ROUTING

SHIFT BRACKET WIRING HARNESS

PROPELLER

SHAFTBRAKE BUNDY

SUSPENSION CARGO

SPARE WHEEL REAR AXLE ASSY

FUEL TANK ASSY/Fuel

LinesTransmission

GSL cable/parking brake

cable

HEAT SHIELD ENGINE ASSY BODY

Physical touching / Contact

Material Exchange

Energy Transfer

Data Transfer (Signals)

Clearance needed

EXHAUST SYSTEM

a) Flange

b) Pipes & connections

c) Catcon

d) Flex Joint

e) Muffler

f) Isolators

g) Hangers

h) Tail Pipe

BOUNDARY DIAGRAM

Exhaust System

Piece to Piece Variation Customer usage/Abuse Component change over a period of time

a) Variation in Fuel tank mounting a) Removal of Catcon a) Isolator stiffness change

b) Pipe diameters & orientation angles b) Removal/modification of Muffler b) Flex joint Stiffness change

c) Welding variations c) Welding of Hangers directly to Chassis c) Degradation of Catalyst

d) Process/Assy variation d) Leakage through Welding over time

Environment

a) Air & temperature changes

b) Dust & rain

INPUTS Check PointsOutputs

(FunctionRequirements )Error States

Exhaust Gas RuleNote - Each output should be in a single box. Don’t

write all output in one biox

Note - Each error state should be in a single box.

Don’t write all error state in one biox

Heata) To direct & Take Exhaust gas out of the

vehicle in a direction governed by regulationNo transfer of exhaust gases

Partial transfer of exhaust gases due to

leakage/blockage

Maintaining exhaust back pressure within

limits

Not maintaining exhaust back pressure

within limits

Partially maintaining exhaust back

pressure within limits

Maintaining minimum ground clearanceNot maintaining minimum ground

clearance

Partially maintaining ground clerance

Corrosion free exhaust system Corrosion of exhaust system

maintain sufficient clearances from critical

parts such as propellar shaft, fuel tank(min 60

mm) ,fuel lines, axle

critical clearances not sufficient

maintain minimum rampover angle 20degrampover angle less than min

requirement

maintain minimum departure angle angle

20deg

departure angle less than min

requirement

To meet emission norms BS3 /BS4 Not meeting emission norms

Meeting only BS3 emission norms

Attenuate exhaust gas sound to acceptable

limit for the Category of the Vehicle

Not attenuating the Emission noise to

acceptable limits

Partial attenuating emissioon noise to

acceptable limits

Meets the NVH targets of Pass by Noise Not meeting Pass by noise targets

Partially meeting Pass by noise targets

Meets Warranty & Useful life Targets

Useful life - 250000 Kms

Warranty life - 100000 Kms/3yrs

Not meeting useful life/warranty life

targets

Partially meeting useful life/warranty

life targets

Prevent water and snow entry to the

exhaust system/ enginewater and snow entry

Catcon should not get clogged easily with

sulphur/ lead content in fuel

catcon gets easily clogged with

sulphur/ lead content

Should resist regular road debris/ stone

hitings

gets easily damaged/ cracked with

road debris

Fluid retentionLeakage through the tail pipe should be

with the allowed design limitexcessive exhaust fumes leakage

Ergonomics NA

Appearance NA

Packaging & shipping Dust entry to be prevented gets dusty

Easy to serviceEase of removal, fitment for replacement

of exhaust components

Difficult to remove and fit exhaust

componentsEasy tool access for tightening exhaust

componentstool acces is limited/ difficult

Design for Assembly Easy tool access Tool acces is limited/ difficult

Ease of assembly on linedifficult to assemble and increased

tack time

Design for ManufacturabilityPipe Bends/ Tube diameters must be

standard with standard

Expansion/Reduction

Non standard pipe sizes

a) Exhaust Tail pipe routings &

orientation

e) Flex joint length Diameter, location &

orientation

b) Proper selection of Catcon loading

& location of Catcon

f) Addition of heat shields on Catcon/Muffler

if required

c) Muffler type, Size, Number of

chambers selection

g) Maintain static & dynamic clearance with

all others interfacing aggregate systems

d) Isolator stiffness selection &

orientation of isolatorsh) Design for ease of Assy & Serviceability

i) Acceptable leakage value specification

j) Design for rust prevention

P Diagram

NOISE FACTORS

System interface

Emission level from Engine

Packaging of Fuel Tank & Routing of Fuel lines

Exhaust

System

Control Factors

Purpose of the product & its

design intent

Safety

Government Regulation

NVH targets

Warranty & Useful life targets

RWUP

68



3.2.2.a

96

•49


DOE and DOE Plan Factor

Unit of

Measure Present

status Investigation

range

Nature of

Factor

(E/C/N)

level Operations

implication remarks

1 2

Tail Pipe Size mm 44.5 40 to 60 C 45 60 Manufacturing

constraint

Tail Pipe Bend Radius

mm 80 80 - 120 E 100 120 Can be done in same

set up.

Factors – Tail Pipe Bend Radius , Pipe diameter each at 2 levels

Response – CAE Stress (Structural).

Type of DOE – Full Factorial

Exhaust Tail Pipe

Factors Level Present status CAE Max. Von Misses

Stress(N/mm^2)

Tail Pipe Bend Radius 100mm 80

32.9

Tail Pipe Bend Radius 80mm 29.5

Pipe Radius 45mm 44.5

32.0

Pipe Radius 60mm 29.2

69



3.2.2.a

97


10-1-2-3

99

95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

5

1

Effect

Perc

ent

A Tail P ipe Bend Radius

B P ipe Radius

Factor Name

Not Significant

Significant

Effect Type

A

Normal Plot of the Effects(response is CAE Stress, Alpha = 0.05)

Lenth's PSE = 0.217742

DOE – Normal Plot

70

B

AB

A

3.53.02.52.01.51.00.50.0

Te

rm

Effect

2.767

A Tail P ipe Bend Radius

B P ipe Radius

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Effects(response is CAE Stress, Alpha = 0.05)

Lenth's PSE = 0.217742



3.2.2.a

DOE – Pareto Chart

98

Tail Pipe Bend Radius is significant because it’s p-value is less

than the α of 0.05.

•50


DOE – Trial Plan /Design

73

DOE – Main Effect & Interaction Effect



3.2.2.a

99

Bend Radius of the Tail Pipe have significant

Effect on the CAE Stress


What were Final solutions , Improvements??

3.2.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

Design

For Utilization of the Tools , following Data were collected :

1. The Solution coming out of the Study was to increase the BEND RADIUS (As a significant

Factor).

2. This Solution was evolved out of all the other alternate options from our DESIGN Tools

(DOE, PUGH MATRIX & DFMEA).

3. It was clearly proved after the DOE only that the Bend Pipe Radius had significant contribution

into the Pipe Stress than the Pipe Thickness /Pipe Diameter.

100

•51


How were the Final Solution(s) , Improvement (s)Validated?? 3.2.3.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

After Deployment of these Tools, following were steps were taken :

1. The Team went for some Preliminary Field Evaluation Units before Implementation.

2. 10 No's of Exhaust were made with this configuration .

3. The Field Evaluation Units gave the Team the Confidence in the solution.

What evidence showed that Solution /Improvement was

performed prior to Implementation?? 3.2.3.b

Mail from PLANT VEHICLE TEAM

On the Improvement observed in Field.

101


What additional potential Benefits were anticipated from the final

Solution (s)/Improvements ?? 3.2.4.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

Additional Potential Benefits :

1. With this the Stress on the Front End Part of the Tail Pipe (ie Muffler) and the Rear End

Fitted Muffler is reduced. This extends the Life of the Muffler and the Insulator.

2. With this Radius Increase , there is Marginal Increase in the Gap between the Tail Pipe

and the Rear Axle (Giving more Overload Protection).

3. This Additional Potential Benefits are not anticipated prior to this Implementation.

Were the additional potential Benefits anticipated

Prior to Implementation?? 3.2.4.b

102

•52


What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify

the final Solution (s)/Improvements to be Implemented ?? 3.2.5.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

What evidence showed that Justification was performed

prior to Implementation ?? 3.2.5.b

Final Solution

Field Unit Trial

Feedback

Reference

BenchMark

Justified

for

Impleme

ntation

DESIGN

PHASE

Structural

Analysis

Validation

VERIFY PHASE

103


During all the Phases of DMADV , based on the Learnings and Findings , deliverables & schedule were

reviewed.

During Analyze Phase , there were no change in the Project Scope /Schedule change , but we had updated

Field Vehicle with Modified units to expedite the Feedback & Confidence . This Rigorous work helped us in

Meeting the Schedule.

How was the correctness of the Initial Project scope,

deliverables and Timing Verified ? ?(Or what changes were made). 3.3.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Design

Correctness of the Project ensured. Whatever Tools Planned were used.

Deliverables were as per the Requirement .

No Scope Change No Time Deviation

104

•53


.

How were Stakeholders involved (or) communicated on the

Root Cause /Opportunity and Improvement Phase of the Project?? 3.3.1.b TEAM

CATALYST

Design

Project Lead

/Champion Stake Holders

1. Weekly Review Meetings were conducted by Teleconferencing or by Video Conferencing .

2. In the DESIGN Phase , the Project Team visits to CAE Team.

3. Conflicts Issues were resolved by Verbal discussions than by exchanging Mails as per the

Protocol agreed within Team.

4. Respective Stake Holders were involved in Review , Validation and Approval Mechanism

105


.

What Stake Holder Resistance was identified or addressed

In this Phase of the Project?? 3.3.1.c TEAM

CATALYST

Design

Enclosed Graph

was a applicable

to our Team

1. No Resistance from any of the Team Stake Holders during the DESIGN Phase.

2. MIQ Team supported with TRIZ Knowledge sharing to all Cross Functional Team.

106

•54


.

How was the appropriateness of the initial Team Membership and

Management routines confirmed(or what changes were made??) 3.3.1.d TEAM

CATALYST

Design

1. Appropriateness of the Initial Team Membership and Management Routines were ensured by conducting

Weekly Review Meetings.

The Weekly Review Meetings were focusing on the following :

1.1 Timeline

1.2 Deliverable.

1.3 Resource Constraint. ( Continuous Monitoring and Tracking was done in case of the System Resource)

107


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


42

The Measure Phase deliverables of DMADV were approved by Project Sponsor and Project Champion .

With this the Measure Phase got executed by Aug 2015 as per the Project Timeline

Project Tollgate ..

108

•55


Verify Phase

Evaluate reliability Evaluate design Transfer to Production

76 109


CAE ANALYSIS – SUPPLIER

77 110

•56


CAE ANALYSIS - SUPPLIER

78 111


CAE ANALYSIS-Different Loading

80

OBSERVATION :

RED ZONE is HIGH STRESS ZONE.

With Radius Increase , BAND and Intensity of RED ZONE reduced.

112

•57


CAE ANALYSIS-OBSERVATION

82 113


Final Design –Fitment Trial & Part Cost Impact.

1. Proper Identification made for Trial

2. Samples supplied are with Inspection Report

84

Cost IMPACT ZERO. Part Cost was

negotiated

Between M&M /

Supplier and settled

With Zero Cost

Impact.

This was again a result

Of Colloborative

Team Effort .

114

•58


Team Reflection

Tangible Intangible

Enhancement of awareness for individual by-Accepting no

limit to gather and share of Six Sigma Tools knowledge New edge to Innovation and creativity

Huge Reduction in the Warranty Cost Team understood this Tool also as a

Cost Reduction.

Inculcation of Quality Practices in PU Team's Morale Uplift

Recognition of Team & Individual Talents in entire Sector Positive Energy through participation

& recognition

Drive for Quality Way Point Leadership promotion in Team

Exploration of New Aspects of Quality in our Product &

Services

115


Brainstorming

Cause and Effect

Diagram

Cause-Effect

Matrix

Pareto Chart

Operational

Definition

Benchmarking &

Measurement

Data Measurement

Plan

Base line

measurement

CTQ Flow Down

Transfer Function

Y = f(x)

Hypothesis

Testing – One Way

Anova

1 Sample T Test

TRIZ (Contradict

problem solving

Technique)

Design Concepts

Pugh Matrix

Design FMEA

Interface Matrix

P diagram

DOE

CAE Analysis

DMU Analysis or

Fitment Trial

Results –Failure

Verification

Results – Cost

Verification

Further Activities

Team Reflection

Business

opportunity

Critical to Quality

and Critical to

Process Chart

Team Charter

Project Timeline

SIPOC Diagram

TOP Down

Process

Functional

Deployment

Quick Wins


75

The Verify Phase deliverables of DMADV were approved by Project Sponsor and Project Champion

. With this the Verify Phase as per the Project Timeline

Project Tollgate ..

116

•59


4. Implementation and Results Verification

4.1 Stakeholders consideration.

4.2Solutions Implementation.

4.3 Project Results

24

We now move to Implementation of the Project which covers section 4 of


Effective Planning Execution , communication.

117


Implementation Process for this change Implementation ?? TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following is the Process followed for Implementation .

Samples Readiness from

supplier Fitment Trial

ECN(Engineering

Change Number )

Implementation

118

•60


INVESTMENT

OBSERVATION:

1.07LACS INR FOR

TOOLING

83 119


(ECN)Engineering Change Implementation

OBSERVATION: (Based on Field Unit Feedback , Fitment Trials )

ECN - 3310 –EN-MA01 -000071 Dated 27th Aug 2015 was released and Implemented with this

change

86 120

•61


How were the Stake Holders involved in planning the

Solution/Improvement Implementation?? 4.1.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following activities were Planned by Stake Holders for the Implementation:

1. Discussion with Supplier for the Samples – Development Team

2. Confirmation of the Samples availability Date to Plant Team for Trial – Development Team.

3. Allocation of Vehicle for the Trial - Production

4. Cross Function Team Meet after the Fitment Trial – Black Belt.

5. Sign off on the sheet for Implementation – Black Belt.

6. The above 5 processes were reviewed on Weekly Basis till Implementation – Black Belt

7. Plan for existing Material availability (with Old Design ) – Production Planning Control.

8. Information to Service on the Trial – Service

121


How were the Stake Holders involved in Implementing the

Solution/Improvement ?? 4.1.1.b TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following activities were executed for the Implementation:

1. Every Alternate review with supplier for Samples – Development Team.

2. Travel Plan for Design Team from Chennai to Pune – System & Black Belt

3. Sharing Presentation on Detail of changes to Team – Black Belt

4. Informing Senior Management on the Implementation – Black Belt

5. Budget Approval Sanctioning – Sponsor.

122

•62


What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred ?? 4.1.2.a TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following activities were done for Mitigating the Resistance for the Implementation:

Resistance anticipated from :

1. Plant Work Manpower on the

change

2. Supplier Part Delivery on Time

3. Cost Impact Approval for

Implementation

Action Plan :

1. Presentation shared to all Production

Leads. Training Planned to be given to

them

2. Colloborative Interaction and Tracking

with Supplier to avoid last Minute

Delay in Implementation.

3. Ensured that Cost Impact is NIL while

only Investment was there for Tooling.

123


What type of resistance were encountered during the Course of

Implementation of Solution 4.1.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

How was the actual resistance identified?? 4.1.2.c

How was the actual resistance addressed?? 4.1.3.a

1.Resistance

from Manpower

on Production

Line

1. Change

Details

conveyed to

Production

Resistance from

Supplier on the

Cut Off for

Implementation

Available

Material (Old

Design to be

used for

Service

Replacement)

These Two resistance was faced and action

Plan done accordingly.

During Implementation the Cross Functional

Team displayed positive attitude.

124

•63


What was the evidence of Buy in from Stake Holder?? 4.1.4.a TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

The Sign Off on the Implementation marked the evidence of Buy in from Stake Holder.

The Supplier Part Warrant report sign Off confirmed that Part had been confirmed for Production .

What was the evidence of Buy in from Stake Holder prior to

Implementation ?? 4.1.4.b

125


How did the Team know it was successful in

addressing the resistance ?? 4.1.3.b TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following were the Achievements made during this /By this Improvement Implementation:

1. No Line Stoppage on the

Day of Trial.

2. No Fitment Concern Raised

by any Cross Functional

Team.

3. Proof from the Field Data ,

that the 3MIS clearly

showed the reduced Failure

126

•64


What process / systems were changed to changed /created to

Implement the solution Improvement ?? 4.2.1.a TEAM

CATALYST

Implementation

Following were changed /Created in system for Implementing /Measure and Manage the change

1. Drawing Updated for enabling the Release Change.

2. CAE Analysis Report released for the Team.

3. The Bending Fixture @ Supplier End were Changed for accommodating the Modification.

What process / systems were changed to measure and

manage the Performance of the solution Improvement ?? 4.2.1.b

127


Additional Benefit.

91

How do the Team Measure any additional Benefit that were soft?? 4.3.2.b TEAM

CATALYST

How do the actual additional benefits that were compared to the

Expected additional benefits mentioned in 3.2.4?? 4.3.2.c

1. Above table shows the Benefit Team had obtained in additional to resolving the Problem.

2. The Major contribution was the Comprehensive Understanding of the Methodology in DFSS by the Team .

3. The Could be Better Category were taken as Measure of the Benefits. Gaps identified were taken as Improvements.

128

•65


5.Presevation and Stake Holder

communication

5.1 Sustaining Results over Time

5.2 communication of Results.

129


Field Failure Reduction Post Implementation , Failure has reduced. Design Control Plan developed.

Process Control Plan and Monitoring Frequency Interval Increased.

Front loading of the concept implemented across M&M Platform.

OBSERVATION:

BELOW MAIL FROM PLANT VEHICLE TEAM ON THE REDUCED FAILURE POST IMPLEMENTATION

87

what was done to make sure that process /system changes

Made during Implementation , continued to be followed?? 5.1.1 .a

130

•66


PROCESS STABILITY POST IMPLEMENTATION

1.641.621.601.581.56

LSL Target USL

Total N 68

Subgroup size 2

Mean 1.5976

StDev (overall) 0.010526

StDev (within) 0.0084637

Process Characterization

Cp 1.97

Cpk 1.88

Z.Bench 5.62

% Out of spec (expected) 0.00

PPM (DPMO) (expected) 0

Actual (overall)

Pp 1.58

Ppk 1.51

Z.Bench 4.50

% Out of spec (observed) 0.00


PPM (DPMO) (observed) 0


Potential (within)

Capability Statistics

Actual (overall) capability is what the customer experiences.

shifts and drifts were eliminated.

Potential (within) capability is what could be achieved if process

Capability Analysis

Process Performance Report

Capability Histogram

Are the data inside the limits and close to the target?

OBSERVATION:

Process Variation reduced..

90

The Parameters under control improved and Variation reduced.

(Post Implementation –Cp & Cpk Improved)

what evidence showed that this became part of the

Organization's culture /Strategy??

What were results of Process Capability ??

5.1.1 .b

(4.3.1.a)

TEAM

CATALYST

1.641.621.601.581.56

LSL Target USL

Total N 68

Subgroup size 2

Mean 1.5976

StDev (overall) 0.010526

StDev (within) 0.0084637

Process Characterization

Cp 1.97

Cpk 1.88

Z.Bench 5.62



Actual (overall)

Pp 1.58

Ppk 1.51

Z.Bench 4.50

% Out of spec (observed) 0.00


PPM (DPMO) (observed) 0


Potential (within)

Capability Statistics

Actual (overall) capability is what the customer experiences.

shifts and drifts were eliminated.

Potential (within) capability is what could be achieved if process

Capability Analysis

Process Performance Report

Capability Histogram

Are the data inside the limits and close to the target?

Drastic Reduction in Failures

Drastic Reduction in

Warranty Cost

(4.3.1.b) How did the results compared to specific

goal/objective from item 2.1.1 ??

INR2CRORE to INR16.0LAC

(With More improved Design in

Production ,Zero Cost was only

Days Far away).

131


Project Closure:

Appreciation on the Mail communication from Senior Management

(Plant Quality Head) on the addressal of the Field concern.

The Post Implementation 3MIS Data was much appreciated and was the Milestone

Achieved .

How did the Team communicate on the results to the

Various stake holders groups?? 5.2.1 .a TEAM

CATALYST

132

•67


Sustainability and Deployment

.

The Learnings in this whole Process were applied to New Project

& recently Launched Platform “ SUPRO Minivan”.

1.Exhaust Failures pertaining to Tail Pipe not reported till Date from Field in SUPRO VAN

2.The Process have been shared to all related System Design Teams for Front Loading in

Design .

3.Design Guideline released for the same .

What was done to make sure that benefits from

implementation (4.2.1) were maintained?? 5.1.2.2 TEAM CATALYST

What evidence show that this had become

Part of the Operation culture /strategy?? 5.2.1 .b

133


Project Name REDUCTION IN EXHAUST TAIL PIPE FAILURE IN MAXXIMO MINIVAN

Black Belt Pradeep Chandrasekaran Financial Benefits By systematic work done by DMADV approach, Targeted Reduction of

Exhaust Tail Pipe Assy Failure of Minivan by optimizing the the Tail Pipe

Bend .

The following benefits we got from the project

1. Arriving @ the Optimized Solution with least Investment and No Cost

Impact.

2. Validation of the Measurement Process @ supplier by Gauge R&R.

3. Application of TRIZ in eliminating & arriving @ the Feasible causes with Out

of Box Thinking.

4. DOE application.

5. Huge Reduction in the Warranty Cost.

Approvals Signature

Mentor Name Rohit Pathak

Date 30.1.16

Champion Name Rajendra Pai

Date 30.1.16

Finance Name Avesh Raut / Nitin Mahajan

Date 30.1.16

6. Overall Presentation and Summary

134

•68


ROAD AHEAD…..

135

Thanks to M&M and MIQ

Looking forward further……

Documents

TEAM “CATALYST” DFSS BB Project - ASQ · Build QM competence | Application orientation | Spread QM | Build team culture | Quality a way of life TEAM “CATALYST”- DFSS BB Project