Manufacturing Example2
-
Upload
ana-hidayah-syuhada -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Manufacturing Example2
11
Process Owner: AKGreen Belt: DSSigma Trac ID # : 200601193715
Project Title : Reduction Torn Defect at 1J line
Project Schedule
Definition: 16/02/06 16/02/06Measure: 08/04/06 08/03/06 Analyze: 31/05/06 23/05/06
Improve: 23/06/06 05/07/06
Control: 28/07/06 Validation: 29/09/06
Plan Actual Completion Date Completion Date
2
Project Charter/Statement of Work
CI Statement of WorkDate printed: 5/15/06
Form rev.: 2006_0202a
Project Title:
Location:
Phase Analyze Project # 200601193715
Originator: Jamilah HaronCustomer Quality Focus: NoCreate Date: 2/2/06
Rollout Type:
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONProcess / Product Being Improved:
Project Scope and Boundaries:
Customer Y (s):
Business Y (s):
Problem Statement:
Project Objective / Suspected Root Cause: Primary BBP metric impacted:BBP Product Line:
ESTIMATED SAVINGS (from COPQ)
Est. Hard Savings: 23 Est. Soft Savings:
TEAMProcess Owner: Azhari Kayoon Black Belt: Dewa Shahril MohdNamsah
CI Manager: Mohd Ibrahim Packeer Green Belt:
Type: Black Belt
#N/A#N/A
BB 2006 - JCAI CPPM : Reduction of Door Panel torn defects
Malaysia - KL
1J line process for Door Panels
JCAI Door Panels
Standard
2.00601E+11
Quality
90 pieces of door panels are returned to JCAI due to torn caused by hitting delivery rack
To reduce torn defect 70%
4 - Scrap and Inv Loss Per EQU
Quality
Interiors: Door Panels
Y1= CPPM for door trim (torn defect)
Problem: 90pieces Door trim was send back to JCI due to torn defect. This jeopardizes JCI supplier ranking at Proton
Process: 1J line for door trim
Deliverable: Usable door trim
Objective: Reduce number of defects by 70%
3
Measurement System AnalysisM
easu
re2 (b) Validate measurement System
Appraiser
Perc
ent
21
100
95
90
85
80
75
95.0% CI
Percent
AppraiserPerc
ent
21
100
95
90
85
80
75
95.0% CI
Percent
Date of study: Reported by:Name of product:Misc:
Assessment Agreement
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard
Each Appraiser vs Standard Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 30 27 90.00 (73.47, 97.89) 2 30 27 90.00 (73.47, 97.89) # Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.
Within Appraisers Assessment Agreement Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI 1 30 27 90.00 (73.47, 97.89) 2 30 29 96.67 (82.78, 99.92) # Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.
4
Cost of Poor Quality D
efi
ne
Number of reject: 246 pieces/3month (Jan 06 – Mar 06)Price for 1 piece of 1J Door Trim = RM 170.68
Cost Of Poor Quality:246 X 170.68 = RM 41987.28/3months
Annualized Cost Of Poor Quality:41987.28 X 4 = RM 167949.12 ~ RM 167949 (USD 44197)
5
Measu
re3 Quantify current performance and
estimate improvement target.
Estimated Improvement Target = 70% Target Sigma = 2.87
Process Sigma Level
Sigma Level (Short-term) = 2.07
Sigma Level (Long Term) = 0.57
From z table :
Baseline PPM (Long-term) = 284,339
Sample
Pro
portion
654321
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
_P=0.01921
UCL=0.02574
LCL=0.01267
1
1
Tests performed with unequal sample sizes
P Chart of Return Rejec (Torn)
6
Process FlowM
easu
reSupply raw material
PP sheeting
Forming and trimming
Lamination and trimming
Assembly and Inspection
Storage and delivery
1J product line Process Flow
7
1
PP SHEETING PP sheet no according to size Some area of PVC no laminated/not covered with PP
3 Wrong blade setting/blade broken
2
Not laminate with non woven PVC cannot stick to PP 3 non woven roller not function 2
Thickness not same PVC torn after lamination 3 Roller worn out 1
2 STORAGE WIP Warping Stuck in Oven Conveyor 3Too many layer/some area outside of pallet
3
3 HEATING & FORMING Board too soft Part become soft 3 Heating time too short 2
Board overheat PP become shining/hard 3 Heating tome too long 2
Board offsetSome area of PVC not covered with PP
3PP sheeting not set according to guide
2
Board have sharp edgePVC will easy to torn after lamination process
4 mould design too sharp 3
4 TRIMMING Board have sharp edgePVC will easy to torn after lamination process
4Operator miss to trim sharp edge
3
An
aly
ze4 Identify causes (Xs) of variation and defects.Potential Causes
PotentialItem Process Potential Potential Cause(s)/ Current Current Recommended Responsibility Action Results
# Functions Failure Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) Process Process Actions & Target Actions S O D R.Requirement Mode Failure of Failure Controls Controls Completion Taken e c e P.
Prevention Detection Date v c t N.
R P
N
S E
V
CLA
SS
OC
CU
R
DE
TE
CT
3 HEATING & FORMING Board have sharp edgePVC will easy to torn after lamination process
6 mould design too sharp 6 4 144wk2 March 06 (ME) Modify Mold 6 2 4
48
4 TRIMMING Board have sharp edgePVC will easy to torn after lamination process
6Operator miss to trim sharp edge
5 4 120Wk2 July 06 (CI) New jig 6
22STORAGE AT DELIVERY RACK
Hit rack pillar scratch/torn
6
Door Trim was hit during stacking by workers/hit during transportation
5 3 90 Wrap rack pillars
8
Provide statistical evidence that causes are real.Commit to improvement target for Y.5 Cause Verification
No
Potential Cause
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
Data to verify
Data Type
Verification Method
Results / Conclusion
Cause
1. Molding shape too sharp
Defect ratio no change
Defect ratio lower
Reject data Attribute 1-proportion P-value = 0.00 Yes
2.Delivery rack too hard/sharp edge
Defect ratio no change
Defect ratio lower
Reject data Attribute 1-proportion P-value = 0.00 Yes
3. Rough surface (after trimming)
Defect ratio no change
Defect ratio lower
Reject data Attribute 1-proportion P-value = 0.00 Yes
An
aly
ze
9
Imp
rove
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.7
Improvement is statistically significant
Test and CI for One Proportions ( = 0.05)
Test of p = 0.0259476 vs p < 0.0259476 95%
Upper ExactSample X N Sample p Bound P-Value
1 13 4016 0.003237 0.005142 0.000
Y = Torn Defect (CPPM) 1J
Action Taken = Mould shape modification
Verified action
10
Imp
rove
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.7
Improvement is statistically significant
Test and CI for One Proportions ( = 0.05)
Test of p = 0.0671463 vs p < 0.0671463 95%
Upper ExactSample X N Sample p Bound P-Value
1 8 642 0.012461 022371.0 0.000
Y = Torn Defect (CPPM) 1J
Action Taken = Wrapping Rack Pillars
Verified action
11
Imp
rove
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.7
Improvement is statistically significant
Y = Torn Defect (CPPM) 1J
Action Taken = Trimming jig
Verified action
Test and CI for One Proportion Test of p = 0.00324 vs p < 0.00324 95% Upper Exact Sample X N Sample p Bound P-Value 1 0 3726 0.000000 0.000804 0.000
12
Imp
rove
Y= Torn defect at 1J product (CPPM)
Potential Actions
Y Cause Potential Action
Effective -ness
(High/Med/ Low)
Ease to Implement (High/Med/
Low)
Cost to Implement (High/Med/
Low)
Safety Impact
(High/Med /Low)
Torn defect
Molding shape too sharp
Modify mould shape (more curve) High Med Low Med
Delivery rack too hard/sharp edge To wrap all rack High Med Med Low
Rough surface (after trimming) Provide trimming jig High High Med Low
13
Imp
rove
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.7 Completed Action
Before After
Wrapped rack pillars
14
Imp
rove
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.7 Completed Action
Before After
Trimming Jig
Use conventional knife
15
Con
trol
Y = Torn Defect (CPPM) 1J
Monitoring Process Y
Sample
Pro
port
ion
10987654321
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
_P=0.00132
UCL=0.00444
LCL=0
Oct Apr
1
1
1
Tests performed with unequal sample sizes
P Chart of Return reject (torn)
77% reduction
16
Next Activities in My Project
Description of tasks Who Due date
1. To monitor implementation of trimming jig and wrapped rack.
2. To monitor CPPM trend
Azhari End of Aug 06
Dewa End of Aug 06
17
Results Summary
Before After % change
Cost of Poor Quality (Cost Reduction)
Y1 = Torn defect CPPM
Sigma Level (ST) 2.07 3.10
PPM (LT) 284,339 65,522
Before After
284,339ppm (LT) 65,522ppm(LT) 77%
RM 44,197 RM 0 100%
18
Next Steps
Issue List
Issue / Request Suggested Action Owner Est Due date
1 To ensure all rack that use is wrapped properly.
Monitor by production member.Any wrapping damage need to repair prior using.
AK On going
Countermeasure is implementedcontinuously.
To issue new FMEA for process Control.
DS(CI)
3rd wk of Aug 062
Trimming process is using trimming jig
Include in ODS for tool needed. WF ME
3rd wk of Aug 063