Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Content expectations

Revision 6.34_eng

Quick Response PDCA Assignment / Breakdown Factor Tree Analysis 5 Why Analysis PDCA Check-list

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

QUICK RESPONSE PDCA


Valeo incident number [3] Leader [1] R. SEENITAMILVEL Customer Incident number [4] Date of customer notification [5] Revision 6.36_eng [7] Group [2] R.KARTHIKEYAN , S.GUNASEELAN(APU), GOPAL(PQ),VELMURUGAN(APU),SURESH,N.DHEENA VEHICLE/ENGINE/REF. CUSTOMER [9] Indica Marina PRODUCT (Designation + Ref) VALEO [10] Cover Assembly - TCIC - 793939 / B S N PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BY CUSTOMER / LOCATION OF THE PROBLEM [12] Diaphragm Finger tip broken PRODUCT SOP DATE [13] 30.10.06 LAST MODIFICATION DATE [14] Cover Assy R N Y N Y N
Quantity of defects

Q-VT/Chennai-AVCL-20090930-KLA 01T/09 19.09.2009 30.09.09

Opened date & Time [6] [11]


1 0.9
0.8 0.7 0.6

CUSTOMER / Contact name [8] TML / Prasad Parchure


X

TOTAL LINE REJECT SITUATION (Defect related) [33]


1

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ? > Use 5W + 2H to know what is the Current Situation (C/S) ? CUSTOMER VIEW VALEO VIEW
- What happened? [15] Diaphragm finger tip broken before fitment - What is the difference between good and bad parts? [22] - Was part produced in the standard process? [23] - When was it manufactured at Valeo? [24] - Who manufactured? [25] 1. Bad Part: Crack observed in Diaphragm finger tip 2. Good Part : Finger tip free from crack Yes, Cover Assembly in as per the control plan no: PCA - CP - 011,Diaphragm in Induction hardening line, as per the control plan no: PCA-CP- 653, Cover Assembly - 6/9/2009 No traceability for Diaphragm Cover Assembly - Nagaraj, Velmurugan, Boominathan Induction Hardening - Jaishankar Product is not applicable for other models

0 19.09.09 21.09.09 22.09.09

Defect quantity

Total Line reject PPM

Which LLC was already issued on similar problem? [34]


VTES Reference: LLC-VT/AmiensCEPN-20090422-GCC

- Why is it a problem? [16] - When detected [17] - Who detected? [18] (name of operator) - Where detected? [19] - How detected? [20] - How many bad parts? [21]

Assembly cannot be used, part not as per drawing

18/09/2009 Assembly Line Operator - TML Assembly Line - TML PCBU Visually 1

- In which other application or processes product is used? [26] - Are we capturing the defect when Yes, Diaphragm finger tip breakage was found in visual reinjecting product in normal process? [27] inspection area. - Did a similar problem happen previously at customer or internally? [28] No, QIM Reference : Q-VT/AmiensFranceAuto20070320-BLN, Q-VT/AmiensFranceAuto-20070404M9L

WHAT DID YOU LEARN from sorting (shift related, period related, operator related)? [35]
1. Customer Consumed all the part in the lot, so there is no immediate segregation in customer end. 2. NG part Cover Assembly was manufactured in 06.09.09 and there is no traceability for the Diaphragm. 3. Diaphragm is hot formed at inhouse. 4. Control Plan no : PCA-CP- 653 verified for tip hardness, it is addressed. 5. PFMEA no: PCP-FM-001 Verfifed for tip hardness it is addressed and checked at 1.First Off, Last Off Per setup. 6. Diaphragm tip hardness is checked in the defective part oberved is 81 HRA against the spec of > 79 HRA 7. Induction hardening line self inspection report verified for last one week of NG Cover assembly batch code production ( 1.09.09 - 06.09.09 ) and QRAP board verfied, no issues addressed. 8. Polymer Concentration checklist verified for last one month and found ok. 9. Cover assembly Self inspection Report verified for 06.09.09 and QRAP board verified, no issues reported.

BAD PART [29]

GOOD PART [30]

Origin of the part [31]

SORTING ACTIVITY to protect customer [32]


Nb. NG Parts Nb. Sorted PPM Sorting date WHO Identification OK parts

WHAT ARE THE IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES (24 hours)?


1. IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES IN VALEO PERIMETER ? [36] WHO DATE WHERE

-Results of sorting in Customer plant -Results of sorting in Transport -Results of sorting in Logistics platform -Results of sorting in Valeo plant -Results of sorting in after-sales stocks TOTAL SORTING

0 0

140 140 To 22.09.09 Most recent part 6/9/2009

= = = = = =

'----' '----' '----' 0 '----' 0

PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM

----19/09/2009

----RKN

1. Quality Alert displayed in Line


Green mark on Diaphragm

RKN / ND RST / ND MV / SM

19/9/2009 19/9/2009 19/09/2009

AVCL AVCL AVCL

2. Diaphragm tip hardness verified in WIP and FG


Number 96 Date 21.09.09

Production dates of sorted parts Period of NG parts

From 19.09.09 Oldest part 6/9/2009

3. Polymer concentration verified in Induction hardening machine.

First certified good shipment:

Identification OK parts

ok mark in cover assembly

2. IMMEDIATE COUNTERMEASURES IN CUSTOMER LINE ? [37]

WHO

DATE

WHERE

THE CUSTOMER CAN DETECT THE DEFECT ON THE PRODUCTION LINE AT 100% : YES
If not, Valeo must set up a control at 100% on the customer line (describe the control made) :
1

1. Verification of Defect Sample


Sorting results
500

AJAY AJAY

19/9/2009 19/9/2009

AVCL AVCL

0.9 0.8

450 400

2. All the Cover Asssembly verified for finger tip breakage by visually

Defects per shift

0.7 0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1 0 19.09.09 21.09.09 22.09.09

Produced per shift

350 300 250

200 150
100 50 0

PLANT Manager [38]

DEPARTMENT Manager [39]

QUALITY Manager [40]

DATE [41]

LIMIT TIME: 24 Hrs

LRR

KS

BS

25.07.09

Def. Shift 1 in sorting

Def. Shift 2 in sorting

Def. Shift 3 in sorting

Def. Shift 1 at customer

Def. Shift 2 at customer

Def. Shift 3 at customer

Total qty sorted Shift 1

Total qty sorted Shift 2

Total qty sorted Shift 3

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

Total Line Reject

Warranty 0 km Return Internal Supplier Logistic Project Safety

2 / 10

DATABASE 2 / SHIFT BY MANUFACTURING DATE [42] Date Def. Shift 1 in sorting Def. Shift 2 in sorting Def. Shift 3 in sorting Def. Shift 1 at customer Def. Shift 2 at customer Def. Shift 3 at customer Total qty sorted Shift 1 Total qty sorted Shift 2 Total qty sorted Shift 3 Prod Shift 1 Prod Shift 2 Prod Shift 3 Escaped 1 Escaped 2 Escaped 3 Escaped total 19.09.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 467 370 467 370 0 0 0 21.09.09 22.09.09

Revision 6.36_eng

188 0 0 188 0 0

0 0 412 0 0 412

0 0

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

3 / 10

FACTOR TREE ANALYSIS FOR OCCURRENCE


Why the problem occured
Revision 6.36_eng

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
LEVEL [2]
4M [3] FACTORS [4]

(Valeo view) [1]

Crack observed in Diaphragm finger tip

Level: 1
JUDGMENT CONTROL POINT [5] STANDARD [6] OK PARTS [7] BAD PARTS [8]
Std OK [9] Meet std [10] Direct link [11]

POTENTIAL ROOT CAUSES [12]

COMMENTS [13]

METHOD Unloading

Where : Hi Temp Hotforming Furnace

Component Auto unloading to the candle trolley

Unloaded directly on to the trolley

not Unloaded directly on to the trolley

Component fallen due Improper alignment between loading arm and candle trolly

MATERIAL

Diaphragm Surface Hardness

Where:Diaphragm Tempering / When:PCA- CP - 755 / 5 Nos. per set up Who: Line operator

44 - 50 HRC

46 48

46 48

MATERIAL

Where:Diaphragm induction hardening / Diaphragm When:PCA-CP- 653 / Finger Tip broken 5 Nos. per set up Who: Line operator Polymer Concentration in Where : Induction hardening Quench OIL coolant

79 HRA min

80 81

79 81

METHOD

Refractro index (3-5)

3 4

3 3.5

In judgment column, put "Y" (YES),"N" (NO) or "D" (DOUBT)

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

4 / 10

FACTOR TREE ANALYSIS FOR NON DETECTION


Why the problem was not detected
Revision 6.36_eng

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
LEVEL [2]
4M [3] FACTORS [4]

(Valeo view) [1]

Crack observed in Diaphragm finger tip

1
JUDGMENT CONTROL POINT [5] STANDARD [6] OK PARTS [7] BAD PARTS [8]
Std Meet OK [9] std [10] Direct link [11]

POTENTIAL ROOT CAUSES [12]

COMMENTS [13]

METHOD

Component falling Hi Temp Hotforming on the floor Furnace

Falling Component visually to be checked

Visually No Crack obeserved

Visually No Crack obeserved

Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye

In judgment column, put "Y" (YES),"N" (NO) or "D" (DOUBT)

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

5 / 10

5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE


Revision 6.36_eng

5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 1st Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence
Component fallen due Impoper movement

5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 2nd Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2]
Evidence
[4] Y

Discharging arm rapid movement

By Checking visually

How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5]

Evidence
[4] Y

Rotar actuator failure

By Checking the movement

Evidence Y

How was it verified? 3rd WHY

Evidence Y

Wear in the vane assembly

By dismantling

Evidence Y

How was it verified? 4th WHY

Evidence

By metal to metal contact caused the wear (by Design)

Evidence Y

How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?

Evidence

Evidence

Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause

5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 3rd Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
[4]

5 WHY FOR OCCURRENCE: 4th Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
[4]

Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

6 / 10

5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION


Revision 6.36_eng

5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 1st Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence Evidence Evidence Y
Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye

5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 2nd Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2]
Evidence
[4] Y

Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye

By verification with microcrack checking

How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5]

Evidence
[4]

Thin crack in diaphragm finger

By verification with magnifying lens

Evidence Y

How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Evidence

Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause

5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 3rd Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
[4]

5 WHY FOR NON DETECTION 4th Factor


POTENTIAL CAUSE [1] 1st WHY [2] How was it verified? [3] 2nd WHY [5] How was it verified? 3rd WHY How was it verified? 4th WHY How was it verified? 5th WHY How was it verified ?
Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
[4]

Verification is based on tests, measurements, data to confirm the cause. PUT "Y" (YES) in "Evidence" cell if this is a real cause, put "N" (No) if this is not the real cause

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

7 / 10

ANALYSIS PDCA
Leader: Valeo incident number : R. SEENITAMILVEL Customer Incident number : Date of customer notification : R.KARTHIKEYAN , S.GUNASEELAN(APU), GOPAL(PQ),VELMURUGAN(APU),SURESH,N.DHEENA Opened date & Time: Q-VT/Chennai-AVCL-20090930-KLA 01T/09 19.09.2009 30.09.09

Revision 6.36_eng

Group:

REPRODUCE THE DEFECT


1.Drop the component from machine height in the floor immediately after hardening.(2 Nos) - WHAT WAS DONE TO REPRODUCE THE CONCERN? [1] 2.Same component used for induction hardening and check the visual aspects and hardness. - WHY WAS IT DONE? [2] - HOW WAS IT DONE? [3] - WHEN WAS IT DONE? [4] To Reproduce the crack Drop the component from 1meter height from floor immediately after hardening,same component moved to tempering and then induction hardened the part and checked for microcrack with operator Velmurugan skill level 4 10.10.09 - Ist shift

CHECK THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTIONS [14]


1
0.9 0.8

EFFICIENCY CONTROL

0.7 Rejects
Due date [11] Done date [12]

- WHAT WAS THE RESULT? [5]

1,Diaphragm TIP hardness found ok. (Measurement: 80 81 HRA , Spec: 79 HRA Min.) 2.Air line crack observed in one diaphragm finger using Magnifying lens.

0.6

0.5
0.4

- IS THE ROOT-CAUSE VERIFIED? [6] Yes, Air line crack observed in one diaphragm finger using Magnifying lens.

ACTION PLAN FOR PERMANENT COUNTERMEASURES - OCCURRENCE


ROOT-CAUSE [7] CORRECTIVE ACTION [8]
EXPECTED RESULT EFFICIENCY [9]

0.3
0.2 0.1

WHO [10]

Component fallen due Improper alignment between loading arm and candle trolly

Discharging arm actuator to be replaced

100%

RT / RST

3.10.09

3.10.09

0 M-2 M-1 Actual Situation W+5 days W+10 days W+1 month Target

ESTABLISH THE NEW STANDARD


1. DOCUMENTATION PRODUCT FMEA PROCESS FMEA LOGISTIC FMEA INSTALLATION FMEA NO y y y ND RT RST 05.11.09 05.11.09 05.11.09 3. Warn other sites / Divisions / Customer sites [18] y DS 05.11.09 YES Y/N [15] WHO [16] Due date [11] Done date [12] 2. Generalization of countermeasures to similar lines / products [17]

Lines: Products:

Hotforming line

ACTION PLAN FOR PERMANENT COUNTERMEASURES - NON DETECTION


ROOT-CAUSE [7] CORRECTIVE ACTION [8]
EXPECTED RESULT EFFICIENCY [9]

CONTROL PLAN MAINTENANCE PLAN


PROCEDURE: Workinstruction

All Diaphragm

WHO [10]

Due date [11]

Done date [12]

DESIGN STANDARD LESSONS LEARNED CARD YES


Valeo Sites & Divisions:

Micro crack cannot be detected with naked eye

Magnifiying lens to be provided in line for crack checking

100%

RST

05.11.09

Name Confirmation [19] Date

NO

Customer Sites:

PLANT Manager

Department Manager

QUALITY Manager

CLOSURE DATE

10 DAYS MAX [20]


L.R.Rajakumar S.Venkatesh S.Balasubramanian 27.10.09

External distribution list [21]

PLANT Manager

Department Manager

QUALITY Manager

DATE

MONTH MAX 1 PERFORM FOLLOW UP AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF [CORRECTIVE ACTION [22

L.R.Rajakumar

S.Venkatesh

S.Balasubramanian

DAYS Max 5 Audit checklist documented [action validated [13

PLANT Manager

Department Manager

QUALITY Manager

DATE

L.R.RAJAKUMAR

S.Venkatesh

S.BALASUBRAMANIAN

27.10.09

Comment and decisions if efficiency of corrective actions not OK [23]

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

8 / 10

Revision 6.36_eng

PDCA ANALYSIS : EFFICIENCY CONTROL M-2 Rejects M-1 Actual Situation W+5 days W+10 days W+1 month Target 0

EFFICIENCY CONTROL
1

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 M-2 M-1 Actual Situation W+5 days 0 W+10 days W+1 month Target

#REF! Rejects 0

9 / 10

CHECK-LIST
Revision 6.36_eng
CHECKS

CONFIRMATION CHECKS [1]


1- HAVE PARAMETERS BEEN CORRECTED IN SAFETY / WORKING INTRUCTIONS? 2- DO WORKING INSTRUCTIONS MATCH WITH QUALITY CONTROL PLAN? 3- IS ALL DOCUMENTATION COHERENT? 4- ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS CLEAR? 5- ARE CRITICAL POINTS CLEARLY DESCRIBED? 6- DOES ACTUAL PROCESS MATCH WITH THE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS? 7- DOES ACTUAL PROCESS MATCH WITH EXPECTED CORRECTIVE ACTION? 8- ARE OPERATORS AWARE OF THE DEFECT? 9- ARE OPERATORS AWARE OF THE EXPECTED CORRECTIVE ACTION? 10- HAS THE SOLUTION BEEN PROPERLY VALIDATED ON THE FLOOR? 11- IS THERE A VISUAL AID? 12- IS IT POSTED ON A VISIBLE SPOT? 13- IS THE CONTENT CLEAR? 14- IS IT COHERENT WITH THE CONTENT OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION? 15- HAS IT BEEN MODIFIED? IS PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE RECORD MODIFIED?

CHECK BY QUALITY PER SHIFT

A [2]

WE

DATE OF THE AUDITS [3]

EQUIP MENT

VISUAL AID

PHYSICAL CHECK OF OPERATION

CONFIRMATION OF INFLUENT FACTORS

AUDITOR'S NAME [4]

DECISION [5]

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

COMMENTS [6]

\\vboxsrv\conversion_tmp\scratch_1\143381551.xls.ms_office

10 / 10