DMAICDMAIC

Project Tracking DefineDefine

ControlControl plan

Voice of the Customer-VOC

3

Customer Comments Critical to Quality-CTQ’s

Vice President - IBD Process Quality is a major Concern for us in order to expand further Business across world.

Process Quality.

Internal Senior Management

Process Quality is being a Key factor to retain our existing business

Process Quality.

4

HRC Business Jan. – Apr. 2013

ITEM QUANTITY % Contribution Cum %

CYCLINDERICAL 133422 31.35 31.35DIN 115035 27.03 58.37

FGN 105938 24.89 83.26FSS 20508 4.82 88.08FSA 14465 3.40 91.48SMJ 10616 2.49 93.97

FSDCP 6282 1.48 95.45FSF 4454 1.05 96.50SPJ 3908 0.92 97.41FMF 2460 0.58 97.99NIT 2210 0.52 98.51

FSDC 1205 0.28 98.79FSK 992 0.23 99.03TCP 820 0.19 99.22TIA 800 0.19 99.41TFP 660 0.16 99.56TC 550 0.13 99.69TIS 550 0.13 99.82FTS 337 0.08 99.90JP 125 0.03 99.93

TKF 120 0.03 99.96FSFP 66 0.02 99.97FTM 52 0.01 99.99TM 40 0.01 100.00TTM 20 0.00 100.00

TOTAL 425635

ActionableActionable

Din Rejection 2012

5

Project Charter

Business case:- XXXXX (P) Ltd is the leading manufactures of Switchgear & it is

located in Northern India and exporting the goods to word wide. It is part of by 5.5 decades old company ,Now this Group is owned by

Leading MNC Group & operating on Global market. It has facilities in over 70 countries and market his products in close

to 180 countries One of the product chains is manufacturing / assembly of industrial Fuses.BOM components are a combination of in-house production & vendor supplied material. Depending on the

regular production plan & Short date supply orders ,production execution is carried out. Staged non conformity to design over the

last 12 months is resulting in rework/ rejection & breach of established cycle time. Culminating into delay in POD & OT expenses.

Also rush production leads to possible suspicious final product delivery in term of quality.

There is a urgent need to streamline the process to defect free single piece flow with min. cycle breaks & OT requirement

Team:-Unit Head :- Sharanjit Singh.

ALL SME. 1. QUALITY. 2. PDD. 3. COMPONENT SHOP. 4. METAL FINISHING. 5 PRODUCTION. 6. HR 7. PURCHASE 8. Team Leader

Problem Statement:- The average rejection of Din Fuse is 1.0 % as against targeted of 0.6 % in yr 2012

without considering the line rejection.

Goal Statement:- To reduced the average % of rejection from 1% to 0.3 % including the line rejection for a volume of average 25000 no's per month

In Scope :- Quality Score to be improved to 99.7 % by controlling the Non conformities.

Out Scope :- Any other fuse manufactured in the line other than Din are out of scope.

Milestones Target Date Actual dateD 15 th May Completed on Time M 15th Jun. Completed on Time A 15th, July. Completed on Time I 15 th, Aug.. Completed on Time.C 15th Sep.

ARMI

A – Approval of team decisions I.e., sponsor, business leader, MBB.R – Resource to the team, one whose expertise, skills, may be needed on an ad-hoc basis.M – Member of team – whose expertise will be needed on a regular basis.I – Interested party, one who will need to be kept informed on direction, findings.

Key Stakeholders

ARMI Work Sheet

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Stakeholders - CEO

I I I I I

Sponsor I I I I IChampion I &A I &A I &A I &A I &A

BB / Guide A & I A & I A & I A & I A & ITeam Leader I & R I & R I & R I & R I & R

DGM I & M I & M I & M I & M I & MQuality Head R & M R & M R & M R & M R & M

Team Members M M M M M

Communication Plan

Information Or Activity Target Audience Information Channel Who When

Project Status Leadership E-mails Yeshveer Weekly

Tollgate Review BB,Team Leader &

ChampionE-mails or Meetings Yeshveer As per Project Plan

Project Deliverables or Activities

Members Emails, Meetings Yeshveer Weekly

CTQ Tree

Improvement in Quality Score by reducing the Non Conformities

Improvement in Quality Score by reducing the Non Conformities

CTQs

Documents at sub assembly stage for (Project Y Metric) to be generated on Daily Basis.

Documents at sub assembly stage for (Project Y Metric) to be generated on Daily Basis.

Quality Score Monitored on Daily Basis w.r.t target.Quality Score Monitored on Daily Basis w.r.t target.

Quality Score 99.7 % (Lower Specification Limit) Quality Score 99.7 % (Lower Specification Limit)

Any day when Quality Score is less than 99.7 % would be considered as defective day(Defect Definition)

Any day when Quality Score is less than 99.7 % would be considered as defective day(Defect Definition)

SIPOC

Data Collection Plan

KPI Operational Definition Defect Def Performance StdSpecification Limit

OpportunityLSL USL

Quality Score The average rejection of Din fuse is 1% in yr 2012 as against targeted 0.6 % without

considering the line rejection Quality score

less than 99.7 % considered as

defective.

99.7 0 Correct material. 99.7 % NA

Total numbers of Din Fuse

manufactured per day.

KPI Data Type

Data Items Needed

Formula to be used Unit

Plan to collect Data

What Database or

Container will be used

to record this data?

Is this an

existing database or new?

If new, When will the database be ready for use?

When is the

planned start date for data

collection?

Sample

Y = Quality Score 99.7 %

Discrete

Quality Score of Hrc fuses

at assembly,

Sub assembly,

Component mfg.and

RGT Level at incoming

=Ok Product/ Manufactured

Products X 100

Percentage ( % ) Excel Sheet Existing

New Data to be taken for current Four Months I.e Jan to Apr..2013 Available

Data Collection Plan

Calibration Status of Main Measuring Instruments Pertains to HRC.

S No. Instrument Certificate No.Calibration

DateCalibration Due Date

1 Vernier Caliper 12060612003 30/08/12 30/08/13

2 Micro-Meter 12060612004 30/08/12 30/08/13

3 Micro-Ohm-Meter 1206022001 30/08/12 30/08/13

4 Profile Projector 12060612010 30/08/12 30/08/13

5 Conductivity Meter 12060622003 30/08/12 30/08/13

6 HV Tester 12060622002 30/08/12 30/08/13

7 Hardness Tester HT/2013-14/178 09/05/13 09/11/13

Effectiveness & Efficiency

Effectiveness at 94.74% with 38 samples is good enough, and we conclude that the measurement System is adequate.

For the purpose of data validation, 38 data points have been re-verified for the rejection %.

Procedure Used:• 38 random samples picked up from 337 data points. The samples have been randomly generated by Axus Pro and we asked three Quality auditors to re-verify the 38 data points.

• On verification, we found that 2 data points were differently captured in the 38 samples which were re-verified.

Effectiveness % = Number of samples where both measurement were similar * 100 Total Number of samples under consideration

= 36 * 100 = 94.74 38

Harinder Harinder Bhupender Bhupender  Yashveer Yeshveer 

Master

Between Appraiser

Repeatability wrt MasterT1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

% Rej. % Rej. % Rej. % Rej. % Rej. % Rej. % Rej.

0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00

9.68 9.68 9.68 9.68 9.68 9.68 9.68 1.00 1.00

4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 4.55 1.00 1.00

0.47 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.47 1.00 1.00

1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.00 1.00

0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.31 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 1.00 1.000.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 1.00 1.000.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.00 1.00

0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00

0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.74 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Validation Measurement System -Effectiveness & Efficiency

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Volume

Opportunities 38

Errors 2

Result 94.74%

Volume

Opportunities 38

Errors 2

Result 94.74%

Efficiency & Effectiveness is successful, hence the data is all right for further analysis

KPI Data Type

Discrete0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.83 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.00 1.00

1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.87 1.88 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.00 1.00

0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 8.08 1.00 1.00

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

            36.00 36.00

Repeatability between appraiser 94.74 94.74

Normality Test

As the p value is < 0.05. it shows that Data is Not Normal

15

Stability :- Summary for Rejection Jan to Apr. 2013 .

It is evident that data is Not Random & Non Stable It is evident that data is Not Random & Non Stable 16

Graphical Summary

17

The minimum quality score is 86.67 and max is 100 , So there is variation and it is evident to go with median because its close .

Median of Process

18

Probability Plot

19

20

Measure Type (Effect) Operational Definition Data Type Hypothesis Test to be performed

% of Rejection

( Quality Score )Y Average 1% Rejection per month. Continuous XXXXX

Frame X Din Fuse mfg. is further divided in to Five Categories. Discrete Mood Median Test

Rating. X In the Din sub groups we are producing 73 ratings . Discrete Mood Median Test

Category. X In these sub group there are two category . I.e Normal & Compact. Discrete Mood Median Test

Team Leader X

The process owner, who is responsible for managing the performance of a set of associates in a given shift

Discrete Mood Median

Test

Month X Discrete Mood Median Test

Shift X General Shift Discrete Mood Median Test

Potential Causes

Din Fuse Group Details

22

Frame Size

Frame 00 = 1

Frame 000 = 2

Frame 01 = 3

Frame 02 = 4

Frame 03 = 5

Statistically Significant X’s

As p value is < 0.05 , which shows that frame size has impact on Y

23

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Frame Size

Mood median test for Q. ScoreChi-Square = 33.38 DF = 4 P = 0.000

Frame Individual 95.0% CIsSize N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 --------+---------+---------+--------1 58 100 100.00 0.49 (-*2 25 4 96.71 5.65 (------------*----------)3 37 26 99.50 1.23 (--*--)4 40 24 99.48 1.17 (--*)5 9 14 100.00 0.99 (-----* --------+---------+---------+-------- 96.0 97.5 99.0

Overall median = 99.67

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Month

Mood median test for Q. ScoreChi-Square = 5.87 DF = 3 P = 0.118

Individual 95.0% CIsMonth N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 +---------+---------+---------+------April 41 51 99.820 0.964 (----------*------)February 50 32 99.502 1.002 (---------*------)January 43 42 99.635 0.995 (----*-------)March 35 43 100.000 0.993 (---------------------* +---------+---------+---------+------ 99.25 99.50 99.75 100.00

Overall median = 99.667

As p value is > 0.05 , which shows that there is no impact of Month over Y .As p value is > 0.05 , which shows that there is no impact of Month over Y .

Statistically Significant X’s

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Rating (Amp)

Mood median test for Q. ScoreChi-Square = 39.94 DF = 21 P = 0.008

As the p value is < 0.05 & clearly evident that Rating has impact on Y .As the p value is < 0.05 & clearly evident that Rating has impact on Y .

1009590

800

600

400

200

0

8006004002000

100

95

90

Rating (Amp)

Q.Score

Matrix Plot of Rating (Amp), Q.Score

Rating Individual 95.0% CIs(Amp) N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 ----+---------+---------+---------+-- 6 2 0 98.69 0.65 (*-) 10 5 2 99.12 4.55 (-----------------------------*---) 16 7 4 99.17 3.03 (-----------*---) 20 1 5 100.00 0.34 (---* 25 3 5 100.00 1.42 (------* 32 24 8 99.03 3.36 (----------*--) 40 0 2 100.00 0.00 * 50 3 2 99.51 2.17 (----------------*-) 63 9 15 99.85 0.50 (*) 80 5 3 99.60 1.95 (---------*-)100 12 23 100.00 0.44 (-*125 16 26 99.84 0.50 (*)160 16 22 99.86 0.96 (--*)200 23 6 99.01 1.01 (-*-)250 12 13 99.68 1.21 (--*-)300 2 2 99.51 1.02 (--*-)315 11 9 99.57 0.86 (*-)400 10 7 99.59 1.17 (--*-)425 0 2 100.00 0.00 *500 1 2 100.00 0.90 (----*630 6 8 100.00 1.03 (----*800 1 2 100.00 2.08 (---------* ----+---------+---------+---------+-- 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0

Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Q. Score_1, Q. Score_2

N MedianQ. Score_1 158 100.00Q. Score_2 29 96.71 ( Size 000 )

Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 3.2395.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (2.13,4.14)W = 16574.5Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs. ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0000The test is significant at 0.0000 (adjusted for ties)

Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Q. Score_3, Q. Score_4

N MedianQ. Score_3 63 99.500Q. Score_4 64 99.485

Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.00095.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-0.060,0.330)W = 4138.5Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6093The test is significant at 0.6010 (adjusted for ties)

Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Q. Score_2, Q. Score_5

N Median

Q. Score_2 29 96.71

Q. Score_5 23 100.00

Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -3.03

95.1 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-4.46,-1.27)W = 542.0

Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs. ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0000

The test is significant at 0.0000 (adjusted for ties)

Statistically Significant X’s

Quality Score of All Frames at Final stage of Inspection.

Rating ( A ) Frame 00 Frame 000 Frame 01 Frame 02 Frame 03 6 99

10 99 93 16 99 97 20 100 99 25 100 98 32 100 96 99 40 100 50 100 96 63 99 95 100 80 99 98

100 100 100 100 125 100 98 99 160 100 99 98 200 99 97 250 100 99 300 99 315 99 99400 99 425 100500 99630 100800 99

Count 13 6 9 8 5Sum 1295 578 889 790 497Mean 99.62 96.33 98.78 98.75 99.40

Frame. Major Issue

Frame 000 All Ratings.Breakage of Bodies  

Frame 01

50 A (C )  Resistance Issue

80A (C)  Resistance Issue

125A (C )  Resistance Issue

Frame 02

160 A ( C )  Resistance Issue

160 A ( N ) Breakage of Bodies  

200 A ( N)Breakage of Bodies  

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Team Leader

* ERROR * All values in column are identical.

Evident that No Impact of Team Leader Over YEvident that No Impact of Team Leader Over Y

Statistically Significant X’s

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Catg.

Mood median test for Q. ScoreChi-Square = 2.66 DF = 1 P = 0.103

Individual 95.0% CIsCatg. N<= N> Median Q3-Q1 +---------+---------+---------+------C 21 12 99.057 1.307 (-*------------------------------)N 148 156 99.686 0.984 (--*----) +---------+---------+---------+------ 99.00 99.30 99.60 99.90

Overall median = 99.667

A 95.0% CI for median(C) - median(N): (-0.693,0.356)

P > 0.05 No

Impact over Y

Evident that there is no impact of Catg. over YEvident that there is no impact of Catg. over Y

Statistically Significant X’s

Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Shift

* ERROR * All values in column are identical.

Shows that No Impact of Shift Over YShows that No Impact of Shift Over Y

Statistically Significant X’s

Functional NosElement Breakage 10

Wrong Selection of Element 5Improper Spot Welding of Elements 5

Soldering Improper 5Length Variation of Body 10Raw Material Variation 38

Measurement System not proper 19Operator Mistake 27

Indicator Wire Breakage 9Contact Length Variation 5

Brass Cup assembly Loose 13Hole in Brass Cup not as per specs. 19

Assembly Screw Loose 18Improper Packing Gasket 10

Variation in Dim of Slot of End Plate 10Variation in Contact Thickness 25

Body Chip Off 10Transit Breakage 10

Breakage due to Inclined Hole 10Dim. Variation of Threaded Hole 10

Improper Handling 10Alignment Issue 10

Back up Pressure of ind. Spring not Proper 9Indicator Breakage 13

Nos 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5838 27 25 19 19 18 13 13Percent 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1912 9 8 6 6 6 4 4Cum % 59 62 65 68 72 75 78 8110012 21 29 35 41 47 51 55

Actionable

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nos

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Functional

Actionables P- Primary S- Secondary

Process Failure Mode Effect on EDR (end desired result) Current Controls Financial Impact of Rejection & Rework in HRC Sev. Occ Det

RPN(risk priority number)

Risk Management Strategy RMS Risk Treatment Plan-RTP/Controls Responsible End Date Financial Requirement for Correction Sev. Occ . Det. RPN Proposed (Risk

priority number) Status As on 22.07.13

Assembly & Sub Assembly Issue ( Resistance Variation )

Element Breakage in Dewa Case Resistance Variation ,leads to defective.Presently using the element after doing silver plating in barell ,which leads to breakage.

> 7 Lacs

7 6 3 126

Reduce

Suggested to do the plating on R,M & then elements to be made. P-Yeshveer /S- Sanjeev 20.07.13 0 7 2 2 28 Trail satisfactory

Improper Spot Welding of Elements Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. Control on one machine only and in others No Control 4 6 7 168

Reduce

Controller to be installed.( Quotation to be arranged )P- Maheswari / S- BNC 20.08.13

0.75 4 2 2 16

Soldering Improper Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. No Control 6 6 4 144

Reduce

Controller to be provided on the machine ( Quotation to be arranged ) P- Maheswari / S-

BNC 20.08.13

0.75 6 3 2 36

Length Variation of Body Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. Only Sampling inspection. 6 5 8 240

Reduce

Receiver gauge to be provided at receipt inspection & Tightened the insp. Level P- Maheswari / S -

BNC Oct 2013 ,End

1 6 2 1 12

Raw Material Variation ( Copper Foil) Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. Currectly getting the same as per IS 1897 7 7 4 196 Reduce Specification to be freezed by PDD P- Sanjeev 0.2 7 2 2 28

Measurement System not proper ( Resistance Meter ) Variation in resistance Not Accurate & No control 7 3 6 126 Reduce Shunt to be arranged for verification of meter.( alternatively getting

the same tested from third party 1-6 Months) P- Sanjeev / S- BNC 0.1 7 2 2 28

Indicator Wire Breakage Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. No control on thicness tolerance 6 5 4 120 Reduce Mater ref to PDD and ECN to be released. P- Sanjeev 0 6 2 2 24

Contact Length Variation Resistance Variation ,leads to defective. Sampling Insp. 6 5 7 210 Reduce New Blanking / Shaving tools to be arranged . P- SM / S- BNC Oct 2013 ,End 0.3 6 2 2 24

Assembly & Sub Assembly ( Sand Leakage )

Brass Cup & End plate assembly Loose Loss in Productivity & Quality Score Manual assembly. 8 6 3 144 Reduce Planned to introduceed receiver gauge at receipt inspection. P- Maheswari / S- BNC Oct 2013 ,End 0.5 8 2 2 32

Hole in Brass Cup not as per specs. Loss in Productivity & Quality Score Only Sampling Insp. 6 6 7 252 Reduce Planned to introduceed receiver gauge at receipt inspection. P- Maheswari / S- BNC Oct 2013 ,End 0.5 6 2 1 12

Assembly Screw Loose in forged contact Plate Loss in Productivity & Quality Score Insp. By sampling 6 3 6 108 Reduce Insp. Gauges introduceed at receipt insp.for 00,000 & 01 & balnce

under process. P-Yeshveer / S- BNCOct 2013 ,End 0.3 6 2 1 12

Improper Packing Gasket & Disc Washer Sand Leakage ,leads to defective. Visual Insp . 8 6 4 192 Reduce New tools to be made from New supplier ( Dazzels ) P- Jeevan 0 8 1 1 8 Implementated

Assembly ( S.S. Indicator )

S.S Indicator Breakage because specification not clear in drawing. Loss in Productivity & Quality Score No Control.( Specification not Clear ) 6 6 8 288 Reduce Mater ref to PDD and ECN to be released. ( Receiver gauge to be

provided ) P-Sanjeev / S - BNC July End 0.03 6 2 2 24 Implemented

Assembly & Sub assembly ( Body Breakage )

Brass contact brazing not as per specification & Out from Centre Loss in Productivity & Quality Score Visual Insp. 5 4 7 140 Reduce All Fix needs to be modified P- S M Oct 2013 ,End 0.5 5 2 2 20

Interferance tolerance issue in contact & Locking Plate assembly.( Size 000 ) Body Breakage & Loss in Quality Score. Sampling Insp. 8 6 6 288 Reduce Planned to introduceed receiver gauge at receipt inspection also

mater ref to PDD to revise the tolerance P- Jeevan / S- BNC Oct 2013 ,End 0.25 8 1 1 8

Dim. Variation of threaded Hole of body & inclined holes Loss in Productivity & Quality Score Only Visual Control. 6 4 8 192 Reduce Planned to introduceed receiver gauge at receipt inspection. P- BNC Sep End 0.25 6 2 1 12

Total Fund Requirement 5.43

Size 000 Body Breakage

Holes Observed Inclined leads to breakage , while

assembly .

Holes Observed Inclined leads to breakage , while

assembly .

Breakage ,While Assembly

Breakage ,While Assembly

BEFORE AFTER

SAND LEAKAGE

SAND LEAKAGE

BEFORE AFTER

WITHOUT HOLE WITH HOLE

BEFORE AFTER

SERRATION FOR DENT & SCRATCHES

Body / Element Breakage SW-000

BEFORE AFTER

1.6 mm Thickness 1.5 mm Thickness

Body Breakage SW-000

BEFORE AFTER

Uneven GapSame gap both side

Indicator Breakage

Breakage Stress relieving process added.

Body Breakage (Transit Damage ) BEFORE AFTER

Tolerance revised for Indicator Wire Dia

Process Change For Dewa to Avoid Element Breakage ( High Resistance ).

Element Breakage – High Resistance . (Handling Improved)

After Before

Poky Yoke For Measurement Mistake

GAUGE FOR END PLATE SW-00

GAUGE FOR SW-00 & SW-01c CONTACT

Inspection Gauges Required For Din.eml

Target.

THANK YOU