Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. Operational
Definition Problem: 5mm area of flash on Datum II preventing the lamp from seating and causing a gap to the body
of 4mm and above. Injection Moulding Inspection Standard page 5 of 9 states: 2) Dimension of Gap and
What's Step 1a) gap points 5 thru 11 Gage +/- 0.5mm. Includes Datum II.
wrong with what?
Why?
2. Description
IS IS NOT GET INFO ON
of Problem
WHAT
Object Verified through
Datum II on injection moulded part # Datum II from other injection moulded parts
quality/inspection
81550/60-0C040-00 from like or similar moulding cells.
records from other cells.
Defect
Flash elsewhere on the part or on other
5mm of flash
parts from like or similar injection moulders
WHERE
Seen on object Flash and tear
in datum II
WHEN
First seen No records exist of this
problem for this or like /
May 31st, 2007 Before this time
similar processes to
date.
When seen in
process (life cycle)
Shifts 3, 1, and 2 beginning 5/27 Before 5/27
HOW BIG
Initial Containment Information
How many objects 45
have the defect?
40
35
21
30
Qty
25
Ro
w5
More than this in first lot
Ro
w4
20
15 8
10 21
5 11
0 1
How many defects
per object?
1 = Datum II on injection moulded part #
More than 1
81550/60-0C040-00
1200
1000
Qty
612
800 Ro
w In any lot previous to 4723391
10
Ro
600 w9
400
610 159
200
239
0 11
8
% Target Actual
D3 CHOOSE AND VERIFY INTERIM CONTAINMENT ACTION(S) (ICA):
Effective: Date: Date:
100% Inspect moulding cell 3, lot 4723397, for defect on Datum II. One found. Verify lots from
4723396 back to last known good lot 4723391 from same cell
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ICA? 100% 31-May-07 31-May-07
Verified customer records of successful lamp seating (fitness for use) of all parts prior to containment
activity internally. No parts were identified with like or similar issue on any cell or prior to 5/31
identification or problem.
D4 DEFINE AND VERIFY ROOT CAUSE(S): % Contribution:
Retractor was damaged, Why- Retractor mechanism became gaulled, Why- Normal wear and tear of tool, Why-
Preventive Maintenance Schedule is currently at 90 days, Why- 90 days is II Stanley Internal Standard for
retractors Why not enough- poorly lubricated
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE ROOT CAUSE(S)?
100%
Retractor was damaged, Why- Cleaner sprayed in the tool while the tool was running, Why- Cleaner sprayed to
remove grease from the surface of the tool, Why- Cleaner was able to get into retractor area, Why- Lubrication
of retractor minimized, Why- Friction of retractor increased due to minimal or no lubrication, Why- Operator not
following II Stanley SOP for mould cleaning
D5 CHOOSE AND VERIFY PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA): % Effective:
1) Repair retractor that was damaged, 2) Modify Preventive Maintenance schedule from 90 days to 30 days
temporarily to determine required preventive maintenance, 3) Develop Predictive Maintenance schedule based
on results of #2, 4) Retrain ALL Set-Up personnel on Engineering Standard for cleaning of mould surface
100%
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PCA?:
100%
Verified through testing cases that each corrective action 100% effectively serves to address the IS case identified
through Problem Analysis. Evaluated potential poke yokes at other Chilco locations and observed 100% success
rate for sensors.
Target Actual
D6 IMPLEMENT AND VALIDATE PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA):
Date: Date:
1) Repair retractor that was damaged, 2) Modify Preventive Maintenance schedule from 90 days to 30 days
temporarily to determine required preventive maintenance, 3) Develop Predictive Maintenance schedule based
on results of #2, 4) Retrain ALL Set-Up personnel on Engineering Standard for cleaning of mould surface
6-Jun-07 6-Jun-07
HOW WILL YOU VALIDATE THE PCA?
- Verify Preventive Maintenance results each 30 days and status of retractors, - Verify moulding fixture built and
utilized, - Verify assembly fixture built and utilized, - Verify each department has been provided revised
documents, trained to new documents, and using, - Update Lessons Learned documents including FMEA
D7 SYSTEM PREVENTION ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: Target Actual
Mistake Proofing: How are you going to ensure it can't happen again? Date: Date:
1) Add sensors and / or mechanical check in moulding and / or assembly process, 2) Modify Inspection
6-Jun-07 6-Jun-07
Standards; Moulding, Assembly, Final Inspection, and 200% to include this issue.
Seen D
geographically Found during final
inspection in shipping Seen in lot 4723391 or Inspection standard does not specify this
department packaging before. defect
area in lot 4723397.
WHEN E
First seen
May 31st, 2007 Before this time Not considered in PFMEA or Control Plan
When seen in G
process (life cycle) Shifts 3, 1, and 2
Before 5/27
beginning 5/27
HOW BIG
How many objects 5. Test causes for probability (+, -, ?) Page 2
1 Part More than this in first lot
have the defect? Does it explain Is/Is Not fact?
be
g
ctin
ay
rac th to
ten y m
ret ctio rican mpa
the
a.
rea the
r e t e in e d
tor e
are
sis sit
uld ars eem
t.
of
u ld r a i n
s ow
fun lub r is i
mo racto nality t
on sco
mo ry sp nt s
eo e-H
e c vi
the ane
t b nt
ve brica
Th ang
Cle
r ie
no brica
.
Lu
Ch
Lu
0
"IS's" A B C D E F G
1 - + +
2 - + +
3 - + +
4 - + +
5 - + +
6 - + +
7 - + +
8 - + +
9 - + +
10 - + +
11 - + +
12 - + +
13 - + +
14 - + +
15 - + +
16 - + +
17 - + +
Comments/ Verified on 17 Introduced Verified that
Follow-Up additional cleaner into lubricant
Items recreations of lubricant mix viscosity is not
the flash- and found it to an issue unless
lubricant is an counteract cleaner is
issue desired function introduced into
of lubricant the retractor
area of the
mould.
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6
Relative MERIT (total score) 0 0 0 0
6,000
Updated By: A. Body Update Date: Update Rev #: 3
8-D page 7 of 9 Rev. 3.0 4-Jun-07