Lean Six Sigma Project to Improve Quality Score of Din Fuse By Advance Innovation Group

1,967 views

Published on

(http://advanceinnovationgroup.com)

This Lean Six Sigma Project done by student from Advance Innovation group which is posted to provide for benchmarking and best practices sharing purposes.

This is a Lean Six Sigma Project on Improvement of Process Quality.

Quality Improvement is imperative for the growth of any organization today. but bottlenecks around how to do, what tools to use, what methodology to follow etc.can hamper the growth and revenue of any organization.

This Lean Six Sigma Project to Improve Quality Score is a step by step description intended to help students understand the improvement using Six Sigma following the DMAIC framework.

Additionally, it is advisable that you also visit and subscribe Advance Innovation Group Blog (http://advanceinnovationgroup.com/blog) for more Lean Six Sigma Project, Case Studies on Lean Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma Videos, Lean Six Sigma Discussions, Lean Six Sigma Jobs etc.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

Lean Six Sigma Project to Improve Quality Score of Din Fuse By Advance Innovation Group

  1. 1. DMAIC
  2. 2. Project Tracking Define Control Control plan
  3. 3. 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. 4. 4 HRC Business Jan. – Apr. 2013 ITEM QUANTITY % Contribution Cum % CYCLINDERICAL 133422 31.35 31.35 DIN 115035 27.03 58.37 FGN 105938 24.89 83.26 FSS 20508 4.82 88.08 FSA 14465 3.40 91.48 SMJ 10616 2.49 93.97 FSDCP 6282 1.48 95.45 FSF 4454 1.05 96.50 SPJ 3908 0.92 97.41 FMF 2460 0.58 97.99 NIT 2210 0.52 98.51 FSDC 1205 0.28 98.79 FSK 992 0.23 99.03 TCP 820 0.19 99.22 TIA 800 0.19 99.41 TFP 660 0.16 99.56 TC 550 0.13 99.69 TIS 550 0.13 99.82 FTS 337 0.08 99.90 JP 125 0.03 99.93 TKF 120 0.03 99.96 FSFP 66 0.02 99.97 FTM 52 0.01 99.99 TM 40 0.01 100.00 TTM 20 0.00 100.00 TOTAL 425635 ActionableActionable
  5. 5. Din Rejection 2012 5
  6. 6. 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 date D 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.
  7. 7. 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 I Champion I &A I &A I &A I &A I &A BB / Guide A & I A & I A & I A & I A & I Team Leader I & R I & R I & R I & R I & R DGM I & M I & M I & M I & M I & M Quality 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 & Champion E-mails or Meetings Yeshveer As per Project Plan Project Deliverables or Activities Members Emails, Meetings Yeshveer Weekly
  8. 8. 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)
  9. 9. SIPOC
  10. 10. Data Collection Plan KPI Operational Definition Defect Def Performance Std Specification Limit Opportunity LSL 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 databa se 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, Componen t 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
  11. 11. Data Collection Plan Calibration Status of Main Measuring Instruments Pertains to HRC. S No. Instrument Certificate No. Calibration Date Calibration 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.21 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
  14. 14. 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 Discrete 0.83 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
  15. 15. Normality Test As the p value is < 0.05. it shows that Data is Not Normal 15
  16. 16. Stability :- Summary for Rejection Jan to Apr. 2013 . It is evident that data is Not Random & Non StableIt is evident that data is Not Random & Non Stable 16
  17. 17. 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. 18. 18
  19. 19. Probability Plot 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Din Fuse Group Details 22 Frame Size Frame 00 = 1 Frame 000 = 2 Frame 01 = 3 Frame 02 = 4 Frame 03 = 5
  23. 23. 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. Score Chi-Square = 33.38 DF = 4 P = 0.000 Frame Individual 95.0% CIs Size 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
  24. 24. Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Month Mood median test for Q. Score Chi-Square = 5.87 DF = 3 P = 0.118 Individual 95.0% CIs Month 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
  25. 25. Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Rating (Amp) Mood median test for Q. Score Chi-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 Rat in g (Amp ) Q.Sco re Mat r i x Pl ot of Rat i ng ( Amp) , Q.Scor e
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Q. Score_1, Q. Score_2 N Median Q. Score_1 158 100.00 Q. Score_2 29 96.71 ( Size 000 ) Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 3.23 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (2.13,4.14) W = 16574.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs. ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0000 The test is significant at 0.0000 (adjusted for ties) Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Q. Score_3, Q. Score_4 N Median Q. Score_3 63 99.500 Q. Score_4 64 99.485 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 0.000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-0.060,0.330) W = 4138.5 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.6093 The 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) StatisticallySignificant X’s
  28. 28. 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 99 400 99 425 100 500 99 630 100 800 99 Count 13 6 9 8 5 Sum 1295 578 889 790 497 Mean 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  
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. Mood Median Test: Q. Score versus Catg. Mood median test for Q. Score Chi-Square = 2.66 DF = 1 P = 0.103 Individual 95.0% CIs Catg. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. Functional Nos Element Breakage 10 Wrong Selection of Element 5 Improper Spot Welding of Elements 5 Soldering Improper 5 Length Variation of Body 10 Raw Material Variation 38 Measurement System not proper 19 Operator Mistake 27 Indicator Wire Breakage 9 Contact Length Variation 5 Brass Cup assembly Loose 13 Hole in Brass Cup not as per specs. 19 Assembly Screw Loose 18 Improper Packing Gasket 10 Variation in Dim of Slot of End Plate 10 Variation in Contact Thickness 25 Body Chip Off 10 Transit Breakage 10 Breakage due to Inclined Hole 10 Dim. Variation of Threaded Hole 10 Improper Handling 10 Alignment Issue 10 Back up Pressure of ind. Spring not Proper 9 Indicator Breakage 13
  33. 33. Nos 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5838 27 25 19 19 18 13 13 Percent 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1912 9 8 6 6 6 4 4 Cum % 59 62 65 68 72 75 78 8110012 21 29 35 41 47 51 55 Actionable O ther Length Variation of Body Im proper Packing Gasket Im proper Handling Elem ent Breakage Dim . Variation of T hreaded H ole Breakage due to Inclined H ole Body Chip O ff A llignm ent Issue Indicator Breakage Brass Cup assem bly Loose Assem bly Screw Loose M easurem ent System not proper Hole in Brass Cup not as per specs. V ariation in Contact T hickness O perator Mistake Raw M aterial V ariation 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 Nos Percent Pareto Chart of Functional
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36.  BEFORE  AFTER SAND LEAKAGE
  37. 37. SAND LEAKAGE  BEFORE AFTER WITHOUT HOLE WITH HOLE
  38. 38.  BEFORE  AFTER SERRATION FOR DENT & SCRATCHES
  39. 39. Body / Element Breakage SW-000  BEFORE AFTER 1.6 mm Thickness 1.5 mm Thickness
  40. 40. Body Breakage SW-000  BEFORE AFTER Uneven Gap Same gap both side
  41. 41. Indicator Breakage Breakage Stress relieving process added.
  42. 42. Body Breakage (Transit Damage )  BEFORE  AFTER
  43. 43. Tolerance revised for Indicator Wire Dia
  44. 44. rocess Change For Dewa to Avoid Element Breakage ( High Resistance ).
  45. 45. Element Breakage – High Resistance . (Handling Improved) AfterBefore
  46. 46. Poky Yoke For Measurement Mistake GAUGE FOR END PLATE SW-00 GAUGE FOR SW-00 & SW-01c CONTACT
  47. 47. Inspection Gauges Required For Din.eml
  48. 48. Target.
  49. 49. THANK YOU

×