Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a measure of the Maximum Potential Ability of a production equipment to perform in a particular production environment. It does NOT drop when production is reduced nor does it rise when production volume is increased. It is stable. It is like the inherent HP of an automobile engine. An increase in OEE may be compared to a successful modification of an automobile engine to increase its HP. Improvement is permanent. The task assigned was to improve overall equipment effectiveness of outer tube machining cells. There were 6 outer tube machining cells, each machining cell had 3 machines first was 2T machine to machine both ends of outer tubes, second was 5T machine to deep boring operation and VMC machine to milling and drilling operations. The task was to be completed in 5 steps. First step was production data collection of the month MAY 2016, Second step was to calculate OEE, third step was to analyze data to find the reasons of losses, fourth step was to find the root causes and the last step was to submit the action plan to improve on the losses.

1. Chetana’s R. K. Institute of Management & Research
Title of the Project
Summer Internship Project
With
GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Master of Management Studies
(University of Mumbai)
Academic Year: 2016-2017
Submitted By
PRANAV DORLE
Roll No. 75
MMS-Batch: 2015-17

2. Declaration
I hereby declare that this report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the award
for the Master of Management Studies to Chetana’s R.K. Institute of Management and
Research, is my original work and not submitted for award of any degree or diploma fellowship
or for similar titles or prizes.
I further certify that I have no objection and grant the rights to Chetana’s R.K. Institute of
Management and Research to publish any chapter/ project if they deem fit in
Journals/Magazines and newspapers etc. without my permission.
Place : Mumbai
Date : (INPUT THE CORRECT DATE)
Name : PRANAV DORLE
Class : M. M. S; Sem. – II
Roll No. : 75

3. Certificate
This is to certify that the project submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of Master of
Management Studies of Chetana’s R.K. Institute of Management and Research is a result of the
bonafide research work carried out by Mr. PRANAV DORLE under my supervision and
guidance, no part of this report has been submitted for award of any other degree, diploma,
fellowship or other similar titles or prizes. The work has also not been published in any
Journals/Magazines.
Date:
Place: Mumbai
Dr. J. A. Bhakay Project Guide : Prof. Kamlesh Tiku
Director
C R K I M R

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This entails my feeling and gratitude to those personalities without whom it was not possible for
me to finish this project.
I am very thankful to my industry mentor Mr. Prashant Deshpande to allot me this wonderful
project also for guiding and helping me to achieve the objective of the project within the
stipulated time.
I would also like to thank my faculty project guide and mentor Prof. Kamlesh Tiku to help me
at every stage of the project. Also thank you to Prof. Sandeep Nemlekar for guiding
throughout the project. Without their help it was not possible to complete my work successfully.
I am also grateful to all my colleagues from the company and all my friends from the institute to
help me in my summer internship program because of your help it was easy task to complete the
project successfully.
Signature of the Student
Pranav Dorle

5. Executive Summary
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a measure of the Maximum Potential Ability of a
production equipment to perform in a particular production environment. It does NOT drop
when production is reduced nor does it rise when production volume is increased. It is stable. It
is like the inherent HP of an automobile engine. An increase in OEE may be compared to a
successful modification of an automobile engine to increase its HP. Improvement is permanent.
The task assigned was to improve overall equipment effectiveness of outer tube machining cells.
There were 6 outer tube machining cells, each machining cell had 3 machines first was 2T
machine to machine both ends of outer tubes, second was 5T machine to deep boring operation
and VMC machine to milling and drilling operations.
The task was to be completed in 5 steps. First step was production data collection of the month
MAY 2016, Second step was to calculate OEE, third step was to analyze data to find the reasons
of losses, fourth step was to find the root causes and the last step was to submit the action plan
to improve on the losses.

6. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
……………
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION …..……….
1.1 Introduction to the Task …………….
1.2 Introduction to the Sector/Industry …………….
1.3 Introduction to the Organisation …………….
1.4 Introduction to the Project …………….
Chapter 2 SUMMER INTERNSHIP TASK DETAILS ………….
2.1 Objective of the project …..……….
2.2 Detailed description of task …..……….
2.3 Related literature review …..……….
2.4. Application of class room learnings …..……….
Chapter 3 PRIMARY DATA &ANALYSIS/INTERPRETATIONS
…
Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ………….
4.1 Conclusions derived ….……….
4.2 Learnings emerged .….………
Chapter 5 SUMMARY (as a Case Study) ……..….
ANNEXURES
Tabular data ………….
Questionnaire Copy ………….

7. Bibliography ………….
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction to the Task
The task was to get the daily production data for the month of MAY 2016 and note down
the time and reasons of breakdowns. After collection of the data the Overall Equipment
Effectiveness is calculated to find out the areas to concentrate for improvement of the
OEE. The data then should be classified in 16 losses which are mentioned in the Kobetsu
Kaizen pillar of TPM. Classification of the losses help in analyzing the data and finding
out the root causes.
1.2 Introduction to the Sector/Industry
Sector: The Indian auto-components industry
It has experienced healthy growth over the last few years. Some of the factors
attributable to this include: Improved consumer sentiment and return of adequate
liquidity in the financial system. The auto-components industry accounts for almost 7%
of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs as many as 19 million people,
both directly and indirectly. A stable government framework, increased purchasing
power, large domestic market, and an ever increasing development in infrastructure have
made India a favorable destination for investment.
Market Size
The Indian auto-components industry can be broadly classified into the organized and
unorganized sectors. The organized sector caters to the Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) and consists of high-value precision instruments while the
unorganized sector comprises low-valued products and caters mostly to the aftermarket
category. Over the last decade, the automotive components industry has scaled three
times to US $40 billion in 2015 while exports have grown even faster to US $11 billion.

8. This has been driven by strong growth in the domestic market and increasing
globalization (including exports) of several Indian suppliers. According to the
Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), the Indian auto-
components industry is expected to register a turnover of US $100 billion by 2020
backed by strong exports ranging between US$ 80- US $100 billion by 2026, from the
current US $11.2 billion. Investments The Cumulative Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
inflows into the Indian automobile industry during the period April 2000 – December
2015 were recorded at US $14.32 billion, as per data by the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (DIPP). German luxury car maker Bayerische Motoren Werke
(BMW) announced it will start sourcing parts from at least seven India-based auto parts
makers in response to promote ‘Make in India’. Hero MotoCorp is investing Rs 5,000
crore (US $733.59 million) in five manufacturing facilities across India, Colombia and
Bangladesh, to increase its annual production capacity to 12 million units by 2020.
Government Initiatives the Government of India’s Automotive Mission Plan (AMP)
2006–2016 has come a long way in ensuring growth for the sector. It is expected that
this sector's contribution to the GDP will reach US $145 billion in 2016 due to the
government’s special focus on exports of small cars, multi-utility vehicles (MUVs), two
and three-wheelers and auto components. Separately, the deregulation of FDI in this
sector has also helped foreign companies to make large investments in India. Road
Ahead The rapidly globalising world is opening up newer avenues for the transportation
industry, especially while it makes a shift towards electric, electronic and hybrid cars,
which are deemed more efficient, safe and reliable modes of transportation. Over the
next decade, this will lead to newer verticals and opportunities for auto-component
manufacturers, who would need to adapt to the change via systematic research and
development. The Indian auto-components industry is set to become the third largest in
the world by 2025.
1.3 Introduction to the Organization
Gabriel India Limited is the flagship company of ANAND Group and a leading name in
the Indian Auto Component Industry. Established in 1961, the company provides the
widest range of ride control products in India, including Shock Absorbers, Struts and
Front Forks, across every automotive segment with over 300 product models on offer.
Information at a Glance:

9. Gabriel was the pioneer of Ride control products in India in 1961
Manufacturer and supplier of high quality Ride control products: Shock absorbers, Struts
and Front Forks
India’s leading Original Equipment Market supplier providing the widest range of Ride
control products in the country
Established - February 1961
Turnover - INR 1274 Crores for 2014-15
People – 2700
Public Listed Company in 1978 and has 38,694 shareholders as on 31st Mar 2014
Manufacturing facilities: 6 plants (Pune, Nashik, Hosur, Dewas, Khandsa, Parwanoo) &
3 Satellite plants (Sanand, Malur, Aurangabad)
R&D facilities: 3 ultra-modern, state-of-the-art R&D Centres at Pune, Hosur & Nashik
Gabriel supplies to almost every vehicle manufacturer in India
Gabriel India is the 1st company in the Asia Pacific region to offer the high-tech
‘Dynachrome’ technology for chrome plating.

10. Table 1.1
Struts
Shock
Absorbers
Front Fork

11. Table 1.2
Segments Products Offered OEM Customers
Motor cycles & scooters
Front Forks
Gas & hydraulic shock
absorbers
Bajaj Auto Limited,
India
Honda Motorcycles &
Scooters
Mahindra Scooters &
Motorcycles
Royal Enfield
Suzuki Motorcycles &
Scooters
TVS Motors
Yamaha Motorcycles
Limited
3 wheelers Shock absorbers
Bajaj Auto Limited
Mahindra
Piaggio (PVPL)
TVS Motors
Passenger cars & SUV
McPherson struts
Gas shock absorbers
Cartridges
Ford Motors
General Motors
Honda Cars
Hyundai Motors
Mahindra
Maruti Suzuki India
Limited
Renault
Tata Motors
Toyota Kirloskar
Volkswagen
Railways Shock absorbers Indian railways

12. The Gabriel Vision
Gabriel India shall be a global manufacturing and marketing company of ride control
products respected by customers and other stake holders for our benchmarked
performance in product engineering, quality, cost, delivery and speed of response. We
shall earn and sustain the status of being the “preferred supplier” of ride control products
from our customers.
Gabriel Values: Customer First, Waste Elimination, Respect for the Individual
Establishment
The history of Gabriel dates back to 1961, when Mr Deep C Anand (Founder of the
ANAND group of companies) launched his very first business venture - Gabriel India in
collaboration with Maremont Corporation (now Gabriel Ride Control Products of Arvin
Meritor Inc., USA) for manufacturing of shock absorbers. Starting with a single plant in
Mulund (Mumbai).
LOCATIONS
Nashik, Maharashtra
Two wheelers and Three Wheelers
The facility commenced Production in 1990, and manufactures shock absorbers as well
as front forks for two wheelers. The technology is provided by Yamaha Motors
Hydraulic Systems, Japan - a 100% subsidiary of Yamaha Motor Company, Japan. The
plant also has quality certifications for TS16949.
Hosur, Tamil Nadu
Two wheelers and Three Wheelers
The Hosur plant was commissioned in 1997 for the manufacture of shock absorbers,
front forks and tubes. Substantial investments have been made to develop innovative
products for the 2-wheeler market supported by Yamaha and KYB of Japan. The Hosur

13. Plant also exports its products to Japan and supports TVSM, Indonesia in its Indonesian
operations.
Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh
Two &Three Wheelers, Passenger Cars and Commercial Vehicles
Set up in 2007, this plant manufactures the widest range of products including, shock
absorbers for commercial vehicles and 2 wheelers, struts for passenger cars and front
forks for motorcycles. This facility was created primarily to meet the requirements of the
replacement market. The technology for this plant has been supplied by Yamaha Motors
Hydraulic Systems, Japan.
Dewas, Madhya Pradesh
Commercial Vehicles
Set up in 1992, the Dewas facility has capacity to manufacture shock absorbers. It meets
requirements of all our commercial vehicles customers in India. The Dewas plant is
certified for QS9000, ISO14001, OSHAS18001, TS16949.
Chakan, Maharashtra
Passenger Cars
Set up in 1997, this facility delivers suspension products for Passenger cars, catering to a
large number of Original Equipment Manufacturers. This facility is supported by
technology mainly from KYB Japan and KYBSE, Spain. It also manufactures
customised products for International automobile manufacturers in India. Gabriel has a
fully equipped Product Validation Centre at Chakan, allowing it to design and develop
indigenous solutions for its customers. This Central unit for Equipment Design &
Process Development provides "best in class" manufacturing technology and know-how
for production of suspension products across all its facilities.
The Chakan plant has several quality certifications such as QS 9000, ISO 14001,
OHSAS 18001 and TS 16949, and has also received many prestigious awards for
Innovation and Customer Satisfaction.

14. Khandsa, Haryana
Passenger Cars
The Khandsa Plant is a fairly new facility located most strategically in close proximity to
its key customers. The plant has implemented a comprehensive and Integrated
Production System [IPS] for manufacture of gas charged shock absorbers.
Here, Gabriel has deployed several hi-tech manufacturing processes targeted to meet
stringent EU standards and to stay a step ahead of the industry. These new technologies
are focussed on improving product lifetime under severe weather conditions, particularly
faced in Europe. Our Hard Chrome Plating facility for piston rods has been especially
designed and built in Germany with unparalleled quality, product performance, and
environmental care.
It is the first of its kind facility in the Asia Pacific Region (including Japan). Our in-
house Electro-deposition painting system ensures that product resistance to corrosion is
enhanced several times over as compared to the conventional system.This plant
commenced production in April 2008.
Satellite Manufacturing Plant, Malur, Karnataka
Two Wheelers
Located in Kolar district of Karnataka, the Gabriel Malur plant commenced production
in 2013. The plant manufactures shock absorbers for two wheelers. The major OEM
customer is HMSI.
Sanand, Gujrat
Passenger Cars

15. Located in Sanand, Gujrat, the major OEM customer for the plant is Tata Motors.
Servicing segment of passenger cars, the plant commerce production in 2010. The plant
produces shock absorbers and struts (final assembly).
Operations
Gabriel India that commenced operations with a single plant in Mumbai today has seven
manufacturing facilities across the country. With a combined capacity of over 24 million
Shock Absorbers & Struts and 2.7 million Front Forks, these facilities cater to the
requirements of all market segments, making Gabriel the leading Automotive OEM
supplier for ride control products in the country. Gabriel also caters to the requirements
of Defence, Railways and the Aftermarket segments in India. Our manufacturing
footprints ensure timely deliveries while optimizing the availability of material.
Gabriel has three state of the art R&D centres at Chakan, Hosur and Nashik to develop
new products, further optimizing product performance and capability. These facilities
provide value-added services to Gabriel customers in areas of noise measurement, value
engineering, and improving product quality by root cause analysis of customer
complaints, as well as cost reduction through localization efforts. These centres also
provide customers with a facility to conduct on-site ride tuning exercises through custom
built mobile ride tuning vans.
Our Manufacturing Engineering capabilities have allowed us to design and build our
own machinery and equipment. This has not only provided us with a unique competitive
advantage but has also ensured that we are able to offer the best customised technology
and solutions to our customers.
Our Central Technical Services have so far designed over a 125 Special Purpose
Machines and built more than 500 specifically to adapt and customize global technology

16. to suit Indian requirements. Some of these machines include the Nut Torquing &
Caulking Machine, Tube Bulging Machine and Oil & Gas Filling Equipment.
HR Practices
With a highly trained workforce of over 3000 people, high performance products and
world class manufacturing facilities, Gabriel continues to be recognized with a series of
Industry awards and accolades. Gabriel India was recently listed in the 'India's Best
Companies to Work For 2012’ study conducted by the Economic Times and The Great
Place to Work Institute, India. Gabriel was recently awarded with the ‘Golden Peacock
Eco-Innovation Award’ for the Hollow -Tube Strut specially developed for one of its
premium passenger car customers.
1.4 Introduction to the Project
The project focuses on Improvement of Overall Equipment Effectiveness. Equipment
plays a very important role in manufacturing goods hence it is very important to utilize
full capacity of the equipment to improve productivity of the firm. Higher productivity
plays very important role in achieving competitive advantage. OEE measures the
maximum potential of the equipment. It is the best tool which points to the areas for
improvements and gives the direction to work for utilizing the full possible capacity of
the equipment.
Project was at the Outer Tube machining cell at the Front Fork Shop. Improve the
Overall Equipment Effectiveness of the outer tube machining cell in the Front Fork
Manufacturing shop at Gabriel India Ltd. Nashik. Front Fork is a suspension component
used to ride control in two wheeler and four wheeler vehicles. Front Forks are shown in
the following figure.

17. Fig. Outer Tube
Following shown is the Front Fork assembly for two wheelers consisting inner tube and
outer tube.

18. Fig. Front Fork Assembly

19. The outer tube machining cell is shown as below. In one cell there were 3 different
machines first was both end processing machine then second was deep hole processing
machine and the third was virticle machining centre. There were total 6 cells viz. Cell-A,
Cell-C, Cell-D, Cell-E, Cell-F, Cell-G. One operator was operating one cell.
Fig. - Outer Tube Machining cell

20. The operations performed on the outer tube casting on both end processing machine are
facing operation on both the ends and drilling hole on the bottom of the outer tube. In
deep hole boring machine, a boring operation is carried out and in vertical machining
centre milling, drilling and tapping operations are carried out. The operations performed
are shown with the pictures below.
Fig. - Outer Tube Machining Cell Operations

21. Chapter 2
Summer Internship Task Details
2.1 Objective
The objective of the project was to Increase the Overall Equipment Effectiveness of
outer tube machining cell by Identifying the scope of improvement in the losses
associated with the equipment.
There were 6 outer tube machining cells, each machining cell had 3 machines first was
2T machine to machine both ends of outer tubes, second was 5T machine to deep boring
operation and VMC machine to milling and drilling operations.
The task was to be completed in 5 steps. First step was production data collection of the
month MAY 2016, Second step was to calculate OEE, third step was to analyze data to
find the reasons of losses, fourth step was to find the root causes and the last step was to
submit the action plan to improve on the losses.
There are total 16 types of losses mentioned in the Kobetsu Kaizen pillar of total
productive maintenance. These 16 losses are mentioned in the table below.
The table specifies the different losses. These losses are classified in 3 different
categories depending upon their influence on efficiencies. From these 16 losses first
eight losses impede the equipment efficiency next five losses impede human efficiency
and last three losses impede effective use of production resources.
The objective was to classify the production data in these sixteen losses and analyze
them to find the root causes of the problems.

22. Table 2.1: Classification of Losses
LOSSES CATEGORY
1 Failure / Breakdown loss
Losses That Impede Equipment Efficiency
2 Setup loss
3 Start-up loss
4 Minor stoppage loss
5 Speed loss
6 Defect loss
7 Scheduled downtime loss
8 Tool changeover loss
9 Management loss
Losses That Impede Human Efficiency
10 Operating motion loss
11 Line Organization Loss
12 Logistics loss
13 Measurement and adjustment loss
14 Energy loss
Losses That Impede Effective Use of
Production Resources
15 Consumables (jig, tool, die) loss
16 Yield loss

23. 2.2 Literature Review
Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) is a metrics to evaluate how successfully a
manufacturing operation is managed. OEE can be seen as a process of culture
transformation through which the existing elements of the culture are modified, replaced
or strengthened with better elements. These elements encompass values and attitudes,
systems and procedures, operational practices organization structure and so forth. At this
stage, OEE will be reflected in many ways in the organization such as effectiveness of
management, ability of the employees, efficiency of the operational systems and the
authority responsible for implementing it. Due to global competition, companies have to
integrate effectiveness into all aspects of their products and services.
OEE is a term that carries important meaning to manufacturing plant. In the global
marketplace today, many manufacturing organizations realized that their survival in the
business world depend highly on obtaining competitive OEE. Due to the global
competition, some manufacturing companies have indeed stressed that OEE indicators
have to be put in place and integrated into all of its components in their production
operation and management. In the late 1990s, OEE was bounded only as measurement
tool for Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), but now it is viewed as a standalone tool
for measuring true performance of the production in any department or organization.
Managing OEE in the automobile industry is needed as a strategy for continuous
improvement of on time delivery and service quality in order to meet customers’
satisfaction and expectation. The meeting of customers’ satisfaction depends
significantly on the vendor’s performance, reliability, responding to customers’ needs
and continuous improvement. In order to efficiently deliver products and services to
customers, companies need to reengineer their supply operations to meet the requirement
of speed and flexibility. To improve the responsiveness of the supply operations, it is
important to have the integration from last tier suppliers to the end customers. Such an
integration or

24. coordination will result in managing an extensive system which includes customers,
customer’s customers, suppliers, supplier’s suppliers, segmentation, communication,
information, productions, inventories, transportations, qualities, prices, partnerships, and
interdependencies. All these elements are linked to the supply change management.
Operational quality must pervade the entire supply chain management.
The OEE measurement tool was developed from the TPM concept launched by
Nakajima (1988). The goal of TPM is to achieve zero breakdown and zero defects
related to equipment. The consequence of reducing breakdowns and defects is
improvements in production rate, reductions in costs, reductions in inventory, and
eventually increases in labour productivity. The TPM concept puts much attention on
production equipments, since they have a high influence on quality, productivity, cost,
inventory, safety and health, and production output. This is especially true for highly
automated processes. OEE is defined as a measure of total equipment performance, that
is, the degree to which the equipment is doing what it is supposed to do (Williamson
2006). It is a three-part analysis tool for equipment performance based on its availability,
performance, and quality rate of the output. It is used to identify for an equipment 3518
P. Muchiri and L. Pintelon the related losses for the purpose of improving total asset
performance and reliability. It categorizes major losses or reasons for poor performance
and therefore provides the basis for setting improvement priorities and beginning of root
cause analysis. It can point to hidden capacity in a manufacturing process and lead to
balanced flow. OEE is used to track and trace improvements or decline in equipment
effectiveness over a period of time (Bulent et al. 2000). Confusion exists as to whether
OEE indeed measures effectiviness (as depicted by its name) or whether it is an
efficiency measure. In the literature (US Department of Energy 1995), effectiveness is
defined as a process characteristic that indicates the degree to which the process output
conforms to the requirements. It indicates whether things are done correctly. Efficiency,
on the other hand, is defined as a process characteristic indicating the degree to which
the process produces the required output at minimum resource cost. It indicates whether
things are done correctly. The three measures (availability rate, performance rate, and
quality rate)

25. captured by the OEE tool indicates the degree of conformation to output requirements.
Therefore, indeed the OEE tool is a measure of effectiveness. This is in agreement with
the definition in literature that OEE measures the degree to which the equipment is doing
what it is supposed to do, based on availability, performance, and quality rate
(Williamson 2006). The OEE tool is designed to identify losses that reduce the
equipment
effectiveness. These losses are activities that absorb resources but create no value.
According to Jonsson and Lesshammar (1999), the losses are due to manufacturing
disturbances that are either chronic or sporadic. Chronic disturbances are small and
hidden, and are a result of several concurrent causes. Sporadic disturbances on the other
hand are more obvious since they occur quickly and have large deviations from the
normal state. It is a bottom-up approach where an integrated workforce strives to achieve
overall equipment effectiveness by eliminating six large losses (Nakajima 1988). The six
large losses are given below, with some examples from a palletizing plant in a brewery
as analyzed by Pintelon et al. (2000).
The quest for improving productivity in the current global competitive environment has
led to a need for rigorously defined performance-measurement systems for
manufacturing processes. In this paper, overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) is
described as one such performance-measurement tool that measures different types of
production losses and indicates areas of process improvement. Analysis is done on how
OEE has evolved leading to other tools like total equipment effectiveness performance,
production equipment effectiveness, overall factory effectiveness, overall plant
effectiveness, and overall asset effectiveness. Two industrial examples of OEE
application are discussed, and the differences between theory and practice analysed.
Finally, a framework for classifying and measuring production losses for overall
production effectiveness is proposed. The framework harmonizes the differences
between theory and practice and makes possible the presentation of overall
production/asset effectiveness that can be customized with the manufacturers needs to
improve productivity.

26. Downtime losses:
(1) Breakdown losses categorized as time losses and quantity losses caused by
equipment failure or breakdown. For example, a breakdown of palletizing plant motor in
a brewery leads to downtime and thus production loss.
(2) Set-up and adjustment losses occur when production is changing over from
requirement of one item to another. In a brewery plant, this type of loss is encountered
during set-ups between different products, testing during start-ups, and fine tuning of
machines and instruments.
Speed losses:
(3) Idling and minor stoppage losses occur when production is interrupted by temporary
malfunction or when a machine is idling. For example, dirty photocells on palletizing
machines cause minor stoppages. Though they are quickly fixed, much capacity is lost
due to their frequency.
(4) Reduced speed losses refer to the difference between equipment design speed and
actual operating speed. In a palletizing plant, the use of un adapted pallets leads to longer
processing times for the same number of bottles leading to speed losses.
Quality losses:
(5) Quality defects and rework are losses in quality caused by malfunctioning production
equipment. For example, some pallet types get stuck in between de palletizer and
unpacker and are damaged.
(6) Reduced yield during start-up are yield losses that occur from machine startup to
stabilization. For example, in the brewery, poor preparation for morning shift by night
shift leads to problems with the filling taps and thus leads to reduced yields.

27. The OEE is calculated as the product of availability losses, performance losses and
quality losses. The formula for calculating OEE is shown as below
The OEE formula = Availability Rate x Performance Rate x Quality Rate
Availability rate, performance rate and quality rate can be calculated as follows.
 Availability Rate - Unplanned Equipment Downtime.
 Performance Rate - Slowed Equipment Performance.
 Quality Rate - High Scrap from poor quality.

28. 2.3 Methodology
For continuing the project, the data should be collected for carrying out the the analysis.
The data of the month May 2016 was collected from the production log book and in the
format given in the following table.
Table 2.3
Cell
Total
Available
Time
(min)
Planned
Down
Time
(min)
Down
Time
(min)
Loading
Time
(min)
Actual
Production
Actual
Cycle
Time
(Sec)
Standard
Cycle
Time
(Sec)
Good
Quality
Bad Quality
OT A 32760 15960 2405 14395 7931 109 105 7477 81
OT C 32760 14640 3775 14345 9501 91 72 9454 47
OT D 32760 25840 1100 5820 2865 122 70 2837 28
OT E 32760 2460 1960 28340 10921 156 96 10921 6
OT F 32760 2615 2615 27530 16313 101 77 16307 6

29. OT G 32760 3600 4055 25105 39944 38 35 39793 151
There were six outer tube (OT) machining cells viz. Cell-A, Cell-C, Cell-D, Cell-E,
Cell-F, Cell-G. The production was carried out in three shifts each shift of eight hours.
In the calculation of total available time for production the weekly holidays are not
considered.
The planned downtime was also recorded. Planned downtime occurs because of reasons
like low order from customers, no material available for the production, etc. All these
reasons were because of lower human efficiency hence the time of planned downtime
was subtracted from the total available time and only the downtime which was because
of equipment efficiency was considered in the further calculations.
With the above collected data the Overall Equipment Effectiveness was calculated. The
result is shown in the table below.
Table 2.4
Cell
Availability
Rate
(A)
Performance
Rate
(P)
Quality
Rate (Q)
Efficiency
OT A 86% 96% 94% 78%
OT C 79% 79% 100% 63%
OT D 84% 57% 99% 48%
OT E 94% 62% 100% 58%

30. OT F 91% 76% 100% 69%
OT G 86% 93% 100% 80%
The table above shows the availability rate, performance rate and quality rate for the
month of May, it also shows the Overall Equipment Efficiency of each cell for the same
month.
From the above calculations shows the areas on which we have to focus for the
improvement purpose. We can see in the above table that the performance rate for many
cells is very less and we can focus on that area for improving the OEE but in the month
of May there was training of the new operators was conducted on the Cell-C, Cell-D,
Cell-E, Cell-F hence the performance rate was low in that month.
For the availability rate the following reasons were recorded from the production log
book

31. Fig. Reasons for availability
The bar graph above shows the reasons for the availability rate. One of the reasons
include management loss which was occurred because of human inefficiency hence this
reason was eliminated during further analysis.
For the quality rate the defects which were occurring and their frequency noted down
and a defect graph was plotted. This defect graph is shown below.

32. Fig. Quality Defect Graph
From the above graph we can see that M6/M8 hole shift and milling defect are the major
quality defects which occurred in the month of May.
2.4 Applications of Classroom Learnings
While carrying out the research I have found the classroom learning about causal
research methodology very useful. I could use the concept very effectively. And also
classroom teaching about Pareto analysis helped me doing the analysis effectively

33. Chapter 3
Primary Data & Analysis/Interpretations
The project mainly focuses on the efficiency which gets affected because of equipment
efficiency hence the management loss which occurred because of human inefficiency
was eliminated for the further analysis. The figure below shows the reasons which were

34. causing the availability of the equipment for the production. The reasons involved setup
loss, breakdown loss, tool changeover loss, consumables loss, etc. From all these losses
majority of the time was affected because of setup loss and failure / breakdown loss. For
the further analysis only these two losses are considered.
Fig. Reasons of Availability of Equipment
From the above graph we can see that setup loss and breakdown loss are the greatest
contributors to the availability loss. Therefore, for the further analysis these 2 losses are
considered. The Pareto analysis is done to know the reasons for the setup loss and also
for the breakdown or failure loss.

35. Fig. Pareto Analysis for Reasons of Setup Loss
The above figure shows the reasons of setup loss. Pareto analysis is done to know that
which reason is contributing to how much percent of loss. According to the above
analysis we can see that time required for die setting and time required for chips cleaning
is contributing to major portion of the setup loss. We can say that die setting and chips
cleaning these 20 percent of the reasons contributing to the 80 percent of the problem of
setup time. So for the further analysis these two reasons are taken into consideration.

36. Similar to the above graph also the reasons for breakdown are found and plotted on the
graph. The graph is plotted and shown below.
Fig. Pareto Analysis for Reasons of Failure/Breakdown Loss
The above figure shows the reasons of failure or breakdown loss. Pareto analysis is done
to know that which reason is contributing to how much percent of loss. According to the
above analysis we can see that time required to solve the clamping problem, time
required to solve the clamping problem and time required to solve the coolant problem
together is contributing to major portion of the failure or breakdown loss. So for the
further analysis these three reasons are taken into consideration.

37. Similar to the above two graphs also the reasons for quality defects are found and plotted
on the graph. The graph is plotted and shown below.
Fig. Pareto Analysis For Reasons of Quality Defect
The above figure shows the reasons of quality defects. Pareto analysis is done to know
that which reason is contributing to how much percent of loss. According to the above
analysis we can see that M6/M8 hole shift problem, milling defect and wallthickness not
ok problem these 20 percent of the problems are contributing to the 80 percent of the
quality defects. So for the further analysis these three reasons are taken into
consideration.

38. Following shown is the defect M6/M8 hole shift.
The above figure shows the defective parts manufactured. The required quality is as
shown in the left side of the image while the defective part is shown on the right side.
The hole which must be drilled at the center is not drilled properly. This was one of the
major defects.
To find out the root causes of the above all mentioned problems from setup loss,
breakdown or failure loss and quality defects the why? why? analysis tool is used
Performing the why? why? analysis on the major problems found from the Pareto
analysis is shown below
Why? Why? analysis for the problem clamping pressure not as per requirement.
Reason 1
Required M6/M8 hole Shifted M6/M8 hole
Clamping pressure not as per requirement
Hydraulic cylinder not working properlyHydraulic oil level lowOil level was not checkedOperator doesn’t know when to check the oil
WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?
No frequency decided to check the oil
WHY?

39. Why? Why? analysis for the problem setup time requirement is more.
Reason 2
Setup Time required is more
Operator has to leave the cell
To get the required tools for setup
There are no tools in the cell
There is no provision for the tool box in the cell
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

40. Why? Why? analysis for the problem coolant flow not as per requirement.
Reason 3
Coolant flow in the machining cells is low
There is no coolant in the tank
Coolant not reached in the tank from the drain
line
Drain Line Chock up
Cotton Wastes & Long Chips gets stuck in the drain line
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

41. Why? Why? analysis for the problem M8/M6 Hole Shift.
Reason 4
M8/M6 Hole Shift
Change in the facing length of the raw material
Change in the raw material
Change in the die of casting
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

42. Why? Why? analysis for the problem milling width undersize.
Reason 5
Milling Undersize / Oversize
Change in the facing length of the raw material
Change in the raw material
Change in the die of casting
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

43. Chapter 4
Conclusions & Recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
From the above analysis we can conclude that the main reasons of low effectiveness of
equipment are Die Setting, Clamping Problem, Coolant Problem, etc. And quality issues
include wall thickness problem, M8/M6 shift and milling undersize or oversize, etc. The
root causes of these issues are mentioned above. For high die setting time the root cause
there is no provision for the tool box in the cell. For Clamping issue the root cause is no
frequency decided to check the oil. For coolant issue root cause is Cotton Wastes &
Long Chips gets stuck in the drain line. And for quality issues like milling undersize and
oversize, M6/M8 hole shift have a root cause of need of change in the die.
For all these root causes the actions must be taken to correct the problems and improve
the productivity and effectiveness.
4.2 Recommendations
For the above root causes the following recommendations are provided to the company.
All these recommendations were approved by respective departments. The two
recommendations for the problems Setup time required is more and the problem for
clamping require less time to implement the solution, hence the date given for the
completion of the task is after the first week of submitting the recommendations.
For the problem of low coolant flow the root cause was Cotton Wastes & Long Chips
gets stuck in the drain line. For this problem the solution provided was to install the
chips cutting machine. This was partially approved as the management was going to test
the effectiveness of this machine and then use it for all the machines.
All the recommendations which were provided to the company are given below.

44. Sr.
No.
Where?
Which
M/C?
WhatProblem?
HowMuch?
(Min/Month)
Why? How?(Action)
Who?
(Responsibility)
When?
(Target
Date)
Status
1
OT
Machining
Cell
AllOT
machines
Timerequiredforsetupis
more
500
NoprovisionfortheToolsin
theMachiningCell
ProvideaToolBox
containingallenkeysin
eachcell
TSG 08-Jul-16
2
OT
Machining
Cell
AllVMC M6/M8holeshift 880
SlightvariationintheOuter
TubeCastingfordifferentdies
MeasuretheDistanceof
thebottomendofOT
fromfacingedgeofthe
formtoolforalldifferent
dies,notethemdown
anddisplaythemonthe
2Tmachines.
Production 28-Jul-16
3
OT
Machining
Cell
AllVMC
andMillingundersizeor
oversizesetting
880
SlightvariationintheOuter
TubeCastingfordifferentdies
MeasuretheDistanceof
thebottomendofOT
fromfacingedgeofthe
formtoolforalldifferent
dies,notethemdown
anddisplaythemonthe
2Tmachines.
Production 28-Jul-16
4
OT
Machining
Cell
AllOT
machines
lowCoolantflow 240
Drainlinechockupbecauseof
longchips
Usechipcuttingmachines
onallcellstocutthelong
chips
Maintenance 01-Oct-16
5
OT-FCell,G
Cell
2TMachine
andRobo1
Clampingpressurenotas
perrequirement
130 Hydraulicoillevellow
Setthefrequencyto
checkthehydraulicoil
level
Maintenance 04-Jul-16

45. Chapter 5
Summary (as a Case Study)
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a measure of the Maximum Potential Ability
of a production equipment to perform in a particular production environment. It does
NOT drop when production is reduced nor does it rise when production volume is
increased. It is stable. It is like the inherent HP of an automobile engine. An increase in
OEE may be compared to a successful modification of an automobile engine to increase
its HP. Improvement is permanent.
The task assigned was to improve overall equipment effectiveness of outer tube
machining cells. There were 6 outer tube machining cells, each machining cell had 3
machines first was 2T machine to machine both ends of outer tubes, second was 5T
machine to deep boring operation and VMC machine to milling and drilling operations.
The task was to be completed in 5 steps. First step was production data collection of the
month MAY 2016, Second step was to calculate OEE, third step was to analyze data to
find the reasons of losses, fourth step was to find the root causes and the last step was to
submit the action plan to improve on the losses.
The task was to get the daily production data for the month of MAY 2016 and note down
the time and reasons of breakdowns. After collection of the data the Overall Equipment
Effectiveness is calculated to find out the areas to concentrate for improvement of the
OEE. The data then should be classified in 16 losses which are mentioned in the Kobetsu
Kaizen pillar of TPM. Classification of the losses help in analyzing the data and finding
out the root causes.
There are total 16 types of losses mentioned in the Kobetsu Kaizen pillar of total
productive maintenance.
The objective was to classify the production data in these sixteen losses and analyze
them to find the root causes of the problems.

46. After classifying the downtime in 16 losses the losses which impede the human
efficiency are not considered in further classification.
The reasons involved setup loss, breakdown loss, tool changeover loss, consumables
loss, etc. From all these losses majority of the time was affected because of setup loss
and failure / breakdown loss. For the further analysis only these two losses are
considered.
From the analysis we can conclude that the main reasons of low effectiveness of
equipment are Die Setting, Clamping Problem, Coolant Problem, etc. And quality issues
include wall thickness problem, M8/M6 shift and milling undersize or oversize, etc. The
root causes of these issues are mentioned above. For high die setting time the root cause
there is no provision for the tool box in the cell. For Clamping issue the root cause is no
frequency decided to check the oil. For coolant issue root cause is Cotton Wastes &
Long Chips gets stuck in the drain line. And for quality issues like milling undersize and
oversize, M6/M8 hole shift have a root cause of need of change in the die.
For all these root causes the actions must be taken to correct the problems and improve
the productivity and effectiveness.
For the above mentioned root causes the following recommendations are provided to the
company. All these recommendations were approved by respective departments. The
two recommendations for the problems Setup time required is more and the problem for
clamping require less time to implement the solution, hence the date given for the
completion of the task is after the first week of submitting the recommendations.
For the problem of low coolant flow the root cause was Cotton Wastes & Long Chips
gets stuck in the drain line. For this problem the solution provided was to install the
chips cutting machine. This was partially approved as the management was going to test
the effectiveness of this machine and then use it for all the machines.

47. ANNEXURES
A. Bibliography
• “Kobetsu Kaizen – its value and application” Electronic International
Interdisciplinary Conference 2012.
• “Implementing overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) and Sustainable competitive
advantage” 2006-2016 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN).
• “Performance measurement using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE): literature
review and practical application discussion” International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 46, No. 13, 1 July 2008, 3517–3535.
• “TPM Development Program: Implementing Total Productive Maintenance” Seiichi
Nakajima
• http://www.oee.com/calculating-oee.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_equipment_effectiveness
• http://www.leanproduction.com/oee.html