This report outlines the challenges faced and solutions implemented for the change management. This project report details the successful implementation of a transformative change management initiative aimed at establishing a digital part inspection and automated rejection process within an engine assembly operation. The core purpose of the project was to achieve rigorous process confirmation, eliminate the outflow of defective parts, and establish comprehensive traceability for recall scenarios. Previously, part inspection relied heavily on individual operator skill and experience, leading to inherent uncertainties, a lack of data for defect identification at the manufacturing stage, and an inability to stop out-of-specification parts from progressing. The project addressed these critical shortcomings by designing new gauges capable of inspecting part parameters and simultaneously scanning unique QR codes on each part. A sophisticated IT infrastructure was built to store and retrieve data for 2500 parts daily. Critically, the system implemented an interlock mechanism, ensuring that an engine could only be declared successfully assembled if all its component parts met specified parameters. This ultimately guaranteed that only OK parts were assembled into the engine, a significant achievement in quality assurance. The project's success hinged on a meticulously planned change management strategy. Upon initial assessment, it became clear that the initiative was not merely a technological upgrade but a challenge to existing production practices and a potential source of fear regarding increased rejection rates and associated costs. The introduction of laser marking, a new technology for the maintenance team, also presented a hurdle for buy-in. Stakeholder analysis revealed a diverse group with varied concerns, from production managers fearing heightened scrutiny to maintenance personnel skeptical of new equipment reliability. The communication plan strategically shifted from mail to face-to-face interactions to build comfort and trust, conveying the project's incremental improvements and alleviating fears of immediate, drastic impacts. Resistance was overcome by demonstrating the system's reversibility, assuring personnel that the goal was not targeting individuals, and leveraging the Plant Head's authority to maintain momentum As the project leader, I cultivated an environment of mutual trust and open discourse within the cross-functional team, which included representatives from Production, Quality, Standard Room, Maintenance, and IT. This continuous engagement was vital in navigating cultural shift

1. Project Report: Process Confirmation and Product
Traceability
1. Executive Summary
 Project Overview: Project’s Purpose was to achieve process confirmation, eliminate
defect outflow and establish traceability in case of a recall. To achieve this Inspection
data needed to be stored for each part which was achieved by new design of the gauges
and scanning the QR code on each part. To ensure zero defect outflow Engine assembled
status is interlocked with the correctness of the individual part data. Upon completion of
the project, assurance of OK parts being assembled is established. Moreover, the
individual part data is available for traceability purposes if needed.
 Key Achievements: Only OK parts are assembled into the engine as a matter of hygiene
without any extra supervision.
 Team Leadership: In this project, I took on the role of team leadership and cultivated an
environment of mutual trust and open discourse to explore all challenges and find
consensus on solutions. All risks of the unknown and technological transition were
managed with collaborative approach while achieving the project’s common goal.
2. Introduction
 Background:
o Previously part inspection was done by an operator with about 6 months of
average experience. If an out of spec part slipped from that person, there was no
way to stopping it thereafter.
o Such a situation created an environment of uncertainty and doubt when the
customer complaints happened. And yet, there was no way to identify the part
specifications at the time of manufacturing.
 Project Objective: To establish a process confirmation mechanism so that only the
correct parts can be assembled into the engine and also maintain inspection data for
probable traceability requirements.
 Scope: Scope of the project included as below
o Establishing a laser marking machine to mark each part
o Design new gauges to inspect the part parameters and scan the QR code at the
same time
o Build IT infrastructure to store and retrieve data for each part (2500 parts per day)
o Build a mechanism to trace every part and all its specifications that are assembled
into any given engine
o Ensure that no engine is termed successfully assembled if any specification oof
any part is NG

2. 3. Change Management Strategy
 Understanding the Need for Change: Upon picking up the project and holding
discussions with all the stakeholders, I realised that this project is not just about a change
in technology. It was much more than that.
o We were challenging the correctness of the parts being produced by the
production team.
o Also, since part rejection is a primary KPI for the production team, the new
project created a fear of increase in rejection cost due to elimination of any wiggle
room or subjectivity in part OK/ NG decision.
o Laser marking was a new technology for the maintenance team and it was a
challenge to get their buy-in.
o Our lines are robotic lines and therefore the inspection is done at the end of the
robotic line. This causes a presence of unchecked but finished parts within the
line. This increased fear of all parts getting rejected if the new gauge decided that
the part was out of specification even by 1 micro-meter.
 Stakeholder Analysis: Stakeholder analysis was performed and is summarised as below-
o Production team managers – Responsible to run the system. Scared that even a
small mistake will be high-lighted.
o Production Section Head – Influential. Can say the system is not user friendly for
the production team. Scared that too much transparency may take away any
wiggle room from the production team.
o Plant production head – Highly influential. Sceptic that system is not designed for
reliability and his team will have to put in extra efforts to make it operational.
o Standard room team managers – New design gauges are their responsibility. They
are not confident of its reliability.
o Quality section head – Primary customer. Wants the project to be completed asap.
o Maintenance team managers – They are responsible of maintaining the Laser
marking machine. They have never seen this technology before and are sceptic
that they might not know much about this machine.
o Maintenance section head – Influential. Finds it easier to declare that the machine
is not reliable. Knows that no one else is anyway aware about the skills needed to
maintain the equipment.
o IT representative – They are responsible for the scanning of each part. Never had
the pressure of production loss if any scanner malfunctions.
o Engine assembly team managers – They are responsible for verifying the
incoming parts before assembling to the engine. The verifying computers will be
operated by operators with average experience of 6 months in the shop. Risk of
wrong passwords and/or wrong operation.
o Engine assembly Section Head – Only challenge is that defective parts should not
outflow to his shop.
 Communication Plan: Once I analysed all stakeholders, their needs and their influence
on the project, I tried to shape a common narrative that will bring everyone on board. I
communicated the need of the project, along with the incremental improvement in the

3. overall system that we can achieve by implementing one practice at a time. This allowed
everyone to get used to the new system without the pressure of final interlock that could
increase the risk for all stakeholders responsible for running and maintaining the system.
o Most important strategy was to shift from mail communication to face to face
communication
o Face to face meetings allowed all stakeholders to get comfortable with the project
requirements and their fears.
 Overcoming Resistance:
o As an incentive to get into the change, I also demonstrated ability to reverse the
interlock if any issue occurs after the interlock.
o I utilised the face to face meetings to alleviate any fears about personnel targeting
and ensured that we will achieve project objectives with best possible solution for
all stakeholders
o I also utilised the Plant Head’s authority to nudge each stakeholder to accept the
change. I organised monthly meetings with the plant head and kept the
momentum towards project completion.
4. Project Implementation
 Team Formation and Leadership:
o Cross functional team was built including members from Production, Quality cum
Standard room, Maintenance and IT.
o Given the cultural change involved along with multiple technological firsts for
everyone, it was prudent for a project leader to engage the team continuously.
 I made sure regular conversation regarding every members’ doubts and
insecurities and led the team towards a mutually agreeable solution.
 New Process Design:
o Laser Printing: Process was established to print a unique QR code on each part
before machining in the machine shop.
o The QR code was created to include information on model, variant, part name,
plant of manufacturing, date of manufacturing and a unique identity.
o New gauges were designed to ensure the required parameters are measured and
sent to the ERP system along with the scanned QR code.
o A validation stage is designed to ensure specification data is available in ERP and
is correct before assembling the part to downstream sub-assembly.
o A marry stage is established to link the assembled parts and create one part as
master.
o A final marry stage is established to assemble the sub-assembly to the Engine.
o Interlock is executed with the final Engine scan after the engine is completed with
all required tests and inspections. This stage ensures that if and only if all parts
assembled are within specification, then only the engine will be declared fit for
vehicle assembly.
 Training and Development:

4. o Laser marking - A huge challenge emerged in laser marking’s smooth transition
to operation.
 The Laser marking supplier abandoned the project after machine delivery.
 The machine commissioning was left incomplete without knowledge
transfer to enable reliable upkeep of the equipment.
 To ensure smooth running, the CFT was aligned to pick up the remains
and rebuild the requisite knowledge after initial few days of storming.
 I lead CFT to understand the equipment technology by breaking it down in
major chunks and start with low hanging fruits.
 The mechanical part and electrical specifications were studied with
Maintenance Subject matter experts and appropriate maintenance regime
was established.
 The laser marking technology was studied with the external technology
experts and knowledge inculcated in the system.
 The software part was replaced with a new vendor and corresponding
support established with operations team.
 With some changes to the timelines and budget, the complete knowledge
transfer was achieved and the issue was resolved.
o Gauging & Scanning – Gauging drawings were handed over to the standard room
team. The electronic gauging unit operation and maintenance training was
imparted. Scanning operation is under IT team scope.
5. Results and Impact
 Quantitative Results:
o Improved Accuracy: From an unknown and unmeasured value to 100%.
 Qualitative Results:
o Increased Confidence: The most satisfied people are Production and Quality
Section Heads. They are both responsible for quality compliant part being
provided to the Engine Assembly and with this system in place they have zero
doubts.
o Enhanced Quality Control: This project has effected a pragmatic shift in how
quality is perceived. From the best we can do to zero tolerance, quality
perception has evolved within the whole team and has become a benchmark for
whole organization.
6. Lessons Learned
 What Went Well:
o Power of Liaison: Establishing a good rapport with the stakeholders helped us to
try out a few things without committing to the permanent change. Such trials
helped shape the final process in a big way.

5. o Effective Cross-Functional Collaboration: Despite seemingly competing
priorities, the cross-functional team was mobilised by a sense of mutual respect. A
repeated commitment of each stakeholder to others that mistakes are allowed that
the team will learn from the failures and cherish small successes went a long way
in unleashing the collaborative potential.
o Successful Management of Resistance to Change: Even though the project was
initiated and planned as a waterfall project, the magnitude of change was such
that it was executed in an agile manner. Building consensus on and
implementing small increments of change allowed for confidence building and a
smooth transition to the new normal.
 Areas for Improvement:
o Risk Management: Supplier abandoning the project was not identified as a risk
and led to a lot of unforeseen issues. Risk register should include such scenarios.
o Culture as a stakeholder: Accounting for cultural change and not just
technological change is a learning for the stakeholder analysis process. This
would allow for a better selection of project delivery cadence.
o Communication technology: Balance of written word and face to face
conversation. Too much mail communication erodes trust among team members
and too much reliance on verbal communication creates confusion and rework.
o Change management within the project plan: Recognise a risk has manifested
and need for change management in the after math of the issue. We took too many
deadlocked meetings and weeks of mistrust before realising that a strategy should
be devised to handle the supplier non-availability issue. A project manager must
realise such change in project landscape and act quickly.
 Key Takeaways: Below are the key takeaways from the lessons learned:
o Strong stakeholder relationships are crucial for iterative development:
Building good rapport with stakeholders enables flexible trials, which are vital for
refining processes and adapting to project needs.
o Trust and mutual respect foster effective cross-functional collaboration:
Creating an environment where mistakes are seen as learning opportunities and
small successes are celebrated can unlock a team's full collaborative potential,
even when priorities seem to conflict.
o Agile execution can smooth large-scale change, even in waterfall projects:
Implementing change in small, incremental steps builds confidence and facilitates
a smoother transition, especially when the project's magnitude is significant.
o Comprehensive risk management must include supplier abandonment:
Failing to identify and plan for supplier issues can lead to significant unforeseen
problems. Risk registers should explicitly consider such scenarios.
o Cultural change is a vital, often overlooked, stakeholder: Integrating cultural
shifts into stakeholder analysis allows for more appropriate project delivery
methods and a smoother adoption of new technologies or processes.
o Balanced communication is essential for team trust and clarity: Over-reliance
on either written or verbal communication can erode trust or create confusion;

6. finding the right balance is critical for effective team dynamics and preventing
rework.
o Proactive change management is critical for unforeseen project landscape
shifts: Project managers must quickly recognize when risks manifest and adapt
their strategy, rather than allowing issues to fester and lead to mistrust and
deadlocks.
7. Conclusion
 The project successfully established a robust digital part inspection and automated
rejection process, moving from an unmeasured state to 100% accuracy in ensuring only
correct parts are assembled.
 This initiative significantly enhanced quality control, transforming the perception of
quality within the team from "best we can do" to "zero tolerance," and provided crucial
traceability for every part assembled into the engine.
 Effective change management, characterized by strong stakeholder liaison, cross-
functional collaboration, and an agile approach to implementation, was instrumental in
overcoming initial resistance and building confidence in the new system.
 Ultimately, the project not only eliminated defect outflow and ensured process
confirmation but also fostered confidence among key stakeholders, particularly the
Production and Quality Section Heads, in the quality of parts being delivered.