National Workshop on “Enabling MSME

to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

WELCOME METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

TO Cluster Approach
Pricol and Tier -2 Vendors Top Management
MSME Commitment And Active Involvement
Goal Setting Based On The Future Challenges
UPGRADATION Monthly Visits At Genba Along With MACE
THROUGH MACE Counselor
Step by Step Activities Implementation As Per
CLUSTER APPROACH AT Decided 4 Phase Model
 Monthly Progress Review
GENBA USING Trainings and Motivation
QC TOOLS Two way communication
1 4

PRICOL LIMITED OVERVIEW DEMING CYCLE FOLLOWED IN EACH ACTIVITY

PLAN DO CHECK ACT
Selection of Suppliers

Implementation
Action Plans
Data Collection Checking Of Results
(Supplier’s Standardization
Target Setting Performance)

Phase wise Improvement Plan

FORMATION OF CLUSTER-1

Selected 7 Vendors Based On Share Of Business

(Approx 60 % of Total Buying),Criticality Of Components
Supplied & Past Performance of At Least One Year.
Cluster was launched in May-2009.
Commodity of Vendors – Plastics, Sheet metal & Wiring
Harness
2 5

MACE ROADMAP FOR WORLD CLASS EXCELLENCE

PRICOL LIMITED OVERVIEW •TPM Cluster
•Certified Quality Engineer
•Six Sigma Black Belts. PHASE4
•Benchmarking Visits.
•Horizontal Deployment of Cluster
Activity through Tier-2.
•Complete 5-S
•Up-gradation through advance Quality Tools
•Hoshin-Kanri (MFO).
•Autonomous Maintenance; OEE
•Yield Improvement PHASE-3
•Implementation of 8 Pillars Check sheet
•Training on advance tools like DOE, DMAIC
•TEI through SSQC activities. & OEE
•Single Piece Flow using Model Line;
identifying Lean Manufacturing Projects
(MPS) based on Customer Requirements.
•Inventory Turns Ratio Management
•Energy Consumption Management
•Cost of Poor Quality PHASE-2
•Initial Supply Control
•Value added per employee cost (VAPCO)
•Training on SSQC, MPS, EMS, QMS, NPD.
•Capturing Customer Voice
•1-S,2-S and Visualization
•Customer Concern (QCD) through why-why
Analysis.
•Red Bin Analysis using basic QC Tools
•Daily Work Management for Target
Monitoring.
•Monthly Performance Review at Gemba &
Collaborative Learning
PHASE 1
•5 New Kaizen/month/vendor.
3 •Training on 5S, VUD, 7 QC tools, CAPA 6

1
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

TARGET SETTING (2009~10) 1S & 2S

Target Setting for PPM Target Setting for Defects Before Improvement After Improvement
( Photo or Explanation Drawing ) ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )
20000 120
14960 90
100
15000
10472 80 63
10000 60
40
5000
20
0 0
2008~09 2009~10(Target) 2008~09 2009~10(Target)

ACTIVITIES INITIATED
PHASE-1
•Capturing Customer Voice (CSR Review)

•Customer Concern Analysis (CSR Analysis Using Basic QC Tools)

Bins for in-process
•Red Bin Analysis by using basic QC Tools Bins for in-process rejection,power cut and
rejection,power cut and lumps are kept in Multi
•1-S,2-S and Visualization (Red Tag, Basic House keeping) lumps are kept on shop storage rack on shop
floor near machine. floor near machine.
•Monthly Performance Review & Collaborative Learning

•Delivery Failure analysis BENEFITS

•Daily Work Management implementation (Managers Only) 7 SPACE SAVING 10

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION REPORT AND GAP ANALYSIS 1S & 2S

Before Improvement After Improvement
( Photo or Explanation Drawing ) ( Photo or Explanation Drawing )

Despatch area.

Receiving material
area.

Gang way

Previously receiving Separate Location identified

material,despatch material, and demarkation for
rejections and slow moving receiving and despatch
mold kept in same place. area.
8 11

DAILY RED BIN MEETING MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REVIEW BY

RED BIN ANALYSIS - Procedure TOP MANAGEMENT
Step No. Activity
1 All members of CFT to meet at defined time to discuss previous days rejections.

2 All members should sign the daily attendance sheet.

3 RBA leader should start the brainstorming session regarding the top defect of
previous week.
4 Views / Comments should be noted down in cause/effect diagram on board which
includes 4-M analysis.
5 Treat all the above views as a probable causes.
6 Now list out these causes with controlled / non controlled activities.
Red Bin Analysis 7 Now start elimination of probable causes to reach at only potential causes.

8 Start validating the points one-by-one.

9 Find out the root cause of defect.
10 Prepare action plan to take countermeasure with target date of completion & define
the responsibility of a person.
11 Note down all the points of countermeasures taken in RBAsummary sheet.
12 Record the effectiveness of lots after countermeasure taken in RBA summary sheet.

13 Make / Prepare the weekly Pareto Graph.

14 Put the graph on board for display purpose to all the employees.
15 There should be two Pareto-graphs: 1)
GENBA Visit by MACE, Pricol and Cluster Members Part - Wise 2) Defect - Wise.

9 12

2
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

RESULTS – 2009~10 BEST POKA-YOKE

PPM AT PRICOL DEFECTS AT PRICOL

26%
20000 120 BEFORE AFTER

60%
14960 100 90
15000
80
10472 63 67
10000 60
6064 40
5000
20
TURN LENS TILT
0 0
2008~09 2009~10(Target) Achieved 2008~09 2009~10(Target) Achieved TURN LENS TILT HOLE PROVIDED
BOTH SIDES IN
MOLD FOR LEG

TARGET SETTING (2010~11) FITMENT LEG PROVIDED

WITH OUT LEG

Target Setting for PPM Target Setting for Defects Receiver Gauge
used to measure
8000 100 Dimensions
6064
6000 80 67
4244 60
4000 47
40
PROBLEM SOLUTION
2000
20 1.Provide hole in both side of Visor
No fool proofing is done in the Visor molds
0 P17/21/DLX molds..
2009~10 2010~11
0 So,Turn lens fitted in any directions.
2009~10 2010~11(Target) 2.Leg to be provided in all cavity of Turn lens.
Delivery Rating criteria was added in Focus area from April-2010
Cluster-2 was launched in Jun’’2010 in which we added different commodity vendors i.e.Bulb and Electronics
13 16

ACTIVITIES INITIATED QUALITY CIRCLE STATUS-2010~11

PHASE-2
No. of Quality Circles formed 14
•Deep Analysis of Defects by using 7 QC Tools.

•Monitoring of PPM & Reduction by using 7 QC Tools. No. of Projects Completed 26

•Poka Yoke Implementation.

•Implementation of QC Circle activities (One QC Circle in each area).

•Starting of Suggestion scheme & implementation of Kaizens.

•Daily Work Management implementation in entire plant.

•Inventory Turns Ratio Calculation & Monitoring.

•Delivery Failure Analysis in Deep way.

•Direct On Line

14 17

POKA -YOKE TREND RESULTS – 2010~11

CUMULATIVE POKA YOKE TREND 2010-11

35 29
30 29
25 26
22 22 PPM Defects
NOS.

20 20
15 15 16 17 17
10 12
9
5 5
31%

19%

0 8000 120
.
H

6064
E

T
IL

LY

C
V
G

R
N

B
Y

C
N

O
R

JA

E
E

E
U
A

A
JU

100
O
JU

D
P

M
S

N
A

L
A

6000
T
O

FY 2010-11
T

4244 4156 80 63
KAIZEN TREND 51
CUMULATIVE KAIZEN TREND 2010-11
4000 60 47
40
450 393
393
2000
313
352 20
300
271
NOS.

211 237
167 189 0 0
150 135 2009~10 2010~11(Target) Achieved 2009~10 2010~11(Target) Achieved
106
78
36
0
.
H
T
E
IL

LY

C
V
G

TA R
B
Y

EP

C
N

AC
JA
O

FE
PR

E
U
A

TO MA
JU

O
JU

D
S
M

N
A
A

FY 2010-11
15 18

3
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

TARGET SETTING (2011~12)

CLUSTER
Target Setting for PPM Target Setting for Defects

5000 4156 60 51
3500

ACHIEVEMENTS
4000 50
35
40
3000
30
2000

SINCE START OF
20
1000 10
0 0

CLUSTER
2010~11 2011~12(Target) 2010~11 2011~12(Target)

Target Setting for Delivery

120 97 100
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010~11 2011~12(Target)
19 22

FOCUS AREAS FOR 2011~12 REJECTION PPM AT PRICOL

CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2
•Lean Projects Implementation Cluster-1 Rejection PPM Trend Cluster-2 Rejection Trend

14965
Overall -72% 30%
•Strengthening of QC Circle activities 15000 15000
11328
•Implementation of Direct On Line Activity 10000 59% 12000
7960
31. 5% 20% 9000
6064
5000 4156 3929 6000 Overall -29%
.Daily Work Management implementation in entire plant at all level
3000
0
2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ 0

INTERNAL QC CIRCLE COMPETION (NOV-2011) De c'11 2010~11 Apr~ De c'11

FOR PROMOTING QC CIRCLE ACTIVITIES NO. OF DEFECTS AT PRICOL

CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2
Cluster-1 De fe ct/m onth Cluster-2 Defect/Month

8 7.5
1.18
Overall -76% 1.17
7 1.17
1.16
5%
6 5.3
4.6 1.15
5
4
25% 1.14
23% 1.13
3 2.3 1.12 1.11
2 58% 1.11
1.1
1
1.09
0
1.08
2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 2011~12 upto
2010~11 2011~12 upto Dec'11
de c'11

Winner- Aar- Aar Technoplast 1st Runner up- ADPL 20 23

LEAN PROJECTS IDENTIFIED 2011~12 DELIVERY RATING TREND AT PRICOL

S.No Project Title No. of Project Project Under CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2
10% 100
. vendors Completed (till Progress 100
Dec-11) 80 10%
80 Delivery 97
1. SMED 5 3 2 60 Rating
98 60 91 92
Calculation
2. Tool Break down 4 1 3 40 Started in
40
Reduction 20 FY2010-11
20
3. Machine Break down 3 1 2 0
0
Reduction 2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11
2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11
4. Inventory Turn Over Ratio 4 1 3
Improvement NO. OF DEFECTS AT MSIL
5. Productivity Improvement 4 1 3 CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2
through idle time 15000 15000
reduction 12000
10000
6. Quality Improvement 4 1 3 No Defect due to Cluster-1 9000 No Defect due to Cluster-2
7. Energy Consumption 4 1 3 5000 6000
Reduction 0 0 0
0
3000
0
TOTAL 28 9 19 2008-09 2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ 0
0 0

Dec'11 2010~11 Apr~ De c'11

21 24

4
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

NO. OF KAIZENS IMPLEMENTED RECOGNITION BY MSIL

CLUSTER-1 CLUSTER-2
120
350 310 105
299 4% 100 90 16%
300 242
250 80
200 60
150
40
100
50 20
0 0
2009~10 2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11 2010~11 Apr~ Dec'11

NO. OF POKA YOKE IMPLEMENTED

50 CLUSTER-1 10 CLUSTER-2
40 8
9% 32
29 6
30 6 5 20%

20 4

10 2

0 0
2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec 2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec 25 28

NO. OF DIRECT ON LINE COMPONENTS WINNER OF QUALITY CIRCLE

COMPETITION AT MSIL – OCT-2010
DOL Data
50
45
45
40
35
30
25
20 17
15
10
5
4
0
2009-10 2010-11 11-12 Upto Dec

26 29

1ST RUNNER UP OF QUALITY CIRCLE

COMPETITION AT MSIL – NOV-2011

ACHIEVEMENT
&
AWARDS

27 30

5
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

KAIZEN CONVENTION AT MSIL – SEP-2011

AAR-AAR CASE
STUDY
PRESENTATION

31 34

WINNER OF TOPS CASE STUDY

PRESENTATION AT MSIL

18/1, MATHURA ROAD FBD.

32 35

WINNER OF CASE STUDY IN MANUFACTIRING

EXCELLENCE STREAM AT 4TH CII NATIONAL SUMMIT-2011
MR.M.S. DUGAL
FACILITATOR

LEADER

DEEPA PUSHPA

NEEL KAMAL

MAMTA MEENU

DETAILS OF QUALITY CIRCLE MEETING DAY & TIME

• Date of Formation : 25TH Nov 2010 Frequency : Once in a Week

• No of Projects Completed : 05 • Every Wednesday
• Current Project started : 5TH APR 2011 • 3:00 to 03:30 pm
• Tgt for Completion : 26TH JUNE 2011 36 36
• Attendance : 97.86%
33 • Team Working Area : MOULDING 36

6
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

Period Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 “TO ELIMINATE REJECTION

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Activities Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk. Wk.
ON ACCOUNT OF WARPAGE &
Problem Identification CRACK IN BACK COVER YG8 ’’
Pboblem selection
Problem Definition
Data collection & target setting
Root cause analysis
Developing solution
Trial of counter measures
Checking result
Implementation of counter measures
Effectiveness
Standardisation
Horizontal development
Payback period analysis 37 37
PLAN DONE 37 40

55000
54260 99000
54000
53810
97850
53650 52980 98000 97560
53000 53267
52747
PPM

52456 52480
52750
53140 97254
52000 97000 97564
51456 51468
95680 96056
51000 51246 96000 96417 96541
95840 96124
50000
Y N L T V R M
95000
R A G P C N B P
P JU JU E C O E A
A M A
U
S O N D JA F
E
M P
G
PPM

TIME PERIOD
A
V
94000 94562 94687

93000
92587
300000
93%
97% 100%100% 92000
90%
250000 85%
80% 80%
200000 66%
71%
76%
91000
61% 60%
56%
150000 49%
90000
PPM

98382 41% 40%

100000 34%

50000 20689 20568 19960

20% 89000
15738 14540 14009 13820 13426 13260 12740 10833 10499 8818
10
0

G
0

11
10

11

1
0

10

10
10
0 0%
r-1

-1

-1
l-1

t-1

AV
g-

n-
n-

b-
W

p-
8

TI
V4

c-
R

v-
L

R
I

ay
E

SE

ar
M

90
G

IA
TE

Ap
U
VE

07

Oc
Ju
E

Au
Y
E

Y
Y

De

Ja

Fe
Ju

No
Se
R
N

P-
A
D

A
C

M
M
S

R
O
L
R

A
IN

C
PA
LU

VE
IA

SE
VE

M
VE

H
N

R
Y.
SE

A
D

S
K
O

O
-C

L
O

A
O

41 41
S

M
C

IA
R
T

C
A

C
S
C

SE

A
N

A
IF
C

D
K

Y
K

B
O
A

MONTHS
C

T
N

SE
C

38 41
FR
C

N
M

A
A

O
B
B

FR

COMP. NAME

100000 99% 100% 100% 2200

98%
2156
2150

2100 2068 2087

80000 80%

2050
2054 2014 2016
P 64%
60000 60% 2000 1987
P 2005 2007
PPM

M 1985
1950 1963
1963
3
56
62

40000 40% 1900

1899
1850 PPM HIGH
3
49

20000 20%
1800
33

1750
68

58
12

10

0 0%
0

1
0

10

11
10

11
10

10
0

G
0

10
-1

l- 1

-1
r -1

t -1
LD

T
E

AV
CK

g-

n-
O

n-

b-
p-

c-
v-
G

ay

ar
O

SP
A

Ju

Oc
Ap
M
RA

De
Au

Se

Ja
Ju

Fe
No
RP

M
O

M
CK
C
A

RT
W

LA

39 39 42 42
O

DEFECT
B
SH

39 MONTHS 42

7
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

We Produced 500 Pcs

in Moulding and
found 19 pcs reject
during Injection
molding Stacking
Injection
Moulding
100000

80000
Remaining 481 Final Inspection
98072
PPM
60000
Pcs checked after
40000 Injection molding
20000
and found 24 pcs
0 NG
0
AVG. TARGET
Packing &
Despatch

43 43 INFERENCE: WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO STAGES OF DEFECT

43 OCCURRENCE MOULDING & STACKING. 46

UNDERSTANDING BACK COVER MAN MACHINE

OF PROBLEM UNSKILLED CYCLE TIME.
COOLING TIME
VARIATION MOLD TEMP.
ILLNESS
CASE YG4
UNAWARNESS MOULD
NEGLIGENCE
COOLING LINE BLOCK

WARPAGE
BACK COVER YG8 FITMENT WITH CASE YG8
WARPAGE DEVELOPED HIGH.
AFTER MOLDING CONTAMINATION
BARREL TEMP.
INJECTION
LOW. PREHEATING
PRESSURE
HIGH.
HOLDING TIME
LESS DEGRADATION
COOLING TIME

LOW.
OK COMPONENT NG COMPONENT 44 METHOD MATERIAL 47
RESULT: WARPAGE OBSERVED

np ≥ 5
Where n = sample size
p= proportion of rejection
Our PPM is 98072
p = 98072 = 0.098072
1000000
n * 0.098072 ≥ 5
n =5 = 50.98
0.098072
MINIMUM 51 PCS ARE REQUIRED BUT WE
n ≥ 51 DECIDED TO TAKE 500PCS FOR ANALYSIS
45 45 48 48
45 RANKING MORE THAN 10 IS CONSIDERED AS POTENTIAL CAUSES 48

8
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

Why Why Analysis for Warpage Developed after

Moulding
S.NO. STAGES POTENTIAL CAUSES RANKING Why-1 Why? Warpage developed after Moulding
Answer: Because –No Cooling Fixture after moulding
1 MAN UNSKILLED 4TH Why-2 Why? No Cooling Fixture after moulding
Answer: Because – Not Considered during Devlopment.
2 COOLING TIME 1ST
MACHINE
3 MOLD TEMPERATURE 5TH Root Cause Not Considered during Devlopment

4 HOLDING TIME 3RD

WARPAGE DEVELOPED AFTER

5 METHOD 2ND
MOLDING

6 BARREL TEMP. 49
6TH49
49 52

Validation of Potential Cause Validation of Potential Cause

POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA
S. VALIDATION POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA
CAUSE JUDGMENT S. VALIDATION
NO METHOD SPEC: OBSRV: CAUSE JUDGMENT
NO METHOD
SPEC: OBSRV:
We checked the relationship
THROUGH between Cooling Time & Warpage
1 COOLING TIME 50 ± 5 We checked the relationship
SCATTER DIAG through Scatter which has been shown
below 3 HOLDING TIME SCATTER DIAGRAM 3±1 between Holding
ValidTime &
Cause
Warpage through Scatter which
SCATTER DIAG OF COOLING TIME VS WARPAGE has been shown below
2 HOLDING TIME VS RESULT
1.6
1.5 1.4
y = -0.0524x + 3.1402 Warpage :-1 mm Max y = -0.1173x + 1.362
WA R PA GE

Spec:- 50 ± 5 2
1.2
2
WARPAG

R = 0.8856 1 R = 0.8854
1
0.8
Warpage :-1 mm Max 0.6 Spec:_3 ± 1
0.5
0.4
0.2
0
0
30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
COOLING TIME HOLDING TIME

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30 Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.63, Where N = 10

INFERENCE:- Since R² is 88.5% which is greater than 36%.So there is a relationship b/w INFERENCE: Since R² = 88% which is greater than 63% means there is a relationship
cooling time and Warpage but our spec is 45-55.As shown in graph within our spec50there
50 is between Warpage & holding time.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within 53 53
no rejection .So, this cause is not significant 50 spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause. 53

Validation of Potential Cause Validation of Potential Cause

POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA
S. VALIDATION JUDGME S.N VALIDATION
CAUSE CAUSE JUDGMENT
NO METHOD SPEC: OBSRV: NT O METHOD SPEC: OBSRV:
We checked 500 pcs
CHECK
WARPAGE PCS
immediately on m/c In- Valid
DIMENSIONAL REPORT MADE found no ng pcs,then 4 UN SKILLED THROUGH
DEVELOPED SHOULD Valid Cause
2
FOR 500 PCS TO CHECK THE after 5 min no SKILL MATRIX
AFTER WARPAGE AFTER IMMEDIATE NOT rejection,but after 1 hr Cause
MOLDING & AFTER 5 MIN, 1 HR some pcs were getting
MOLDING WARP rejected due to
warpage

MIN MAX
DIMENSIONAL TREND NEW OPERATOR CAN WORK UNDER GUIDANCE,HE UNDERSTANDS
1.2 AFTER 1 HR KEY POINTS OF PROCESS
SOME PCS GOT 1.04 CAN WORK INDEPENDENTLY,UNDERSTAND
1 CAN TEACH OTHERS THE ENTIRE PROCESS
REJECTED 0.86
0.8 0.74
DIMENSIONO

0.62
0.6 0.54
OPERATOR NAME SHIFT PRODUCTION QTY REJECTION QTY. PPM
0.4 0.36

0.2 RAMVILLAS A 500 11 22000

0 ANIL B 500 10 20000

IMMEDIATE ON After After
MACHINE 5 MIN 1 HR. INFERENCE: AS THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN REJECTION OF
TIMINGS 51 51 OPERATORS SO THIS IS NOT THE SIGNIFICANT CAUSE
51 54

9
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

Validation of Potential Cause

POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA
S. VALIDATION
CAUSE JUDGMENT SCATTER DIAG OF Z2 TEMP VS WARPAGE
NO METHOD 1.6
SPEC: OBSRV:
1.4
We checked the relationship
MOLD THROUGH
5 42 ± 5 between mould Temp & Warpage through 1.2
SPEC. OF WARPAGE= MAX. 1MM
TEMPERATURE SCATTER DIAG Scatter which has been shown below

WARPAG
1
y = 0.0304x - 5.7414
SCATTER DIAG OF MOLD TEMP VS WARPAGE 0.8
1.2
y = 0.0294x - 0.6733 R2 = 0.9543
2
R = 0.831 Warpage :-1 mm Max
1 0.6
0.8 0.4 TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10
WAPAGE

0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2 0
Spec:_42 ± 5
0 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232
30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 TEMPERATURE
MOLD TEMP.

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = , Where N = 30

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30
INFERENCE: Since R² = 95 % which is greater than 36% means there is a relationship
INFERENCE:- Since R² is 83% which is greater than 36%.So there is a relationship b/w
between Warpage & Zone 2 Temp.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within
Mold temp and Warpage but our spec is 37-47, as shown in graph within our spec 55
there
55 is spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause. 58 58
no rejection .So, this cause is not significant 55 58

Validation of Potential Cause

POTENTIAL VALIDATION DATA SCATTER DIAG OF Z3 TEMP VS WARPAGE
S. VALIDATION
CAUSE JUDGMENT
NO METHOD SPEC: OBSRV: 2.5
y = 0.0568x - 11.543
We checked the 2 2
Z1 - 210 ± 10 relationship R = 0.8503
between barrel 1.5
THROUGH Z2 - 220 ± 10 temperature &
BARREL SPEC. OF WARPAGE= MAX. 1MM
6 SCATTER Warpage through
TEMP. 1
DIAGRAM Z3 - 220 ± 10 Scatter which has
been shown in next
slides
0.5
Z4 - 210 ± 10 TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10
0
Z4 Z3 Z2 Z1 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238
TEMPERATURE

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30

INFERENCE: Since R² = 85% which is greater than 36% means there is a relationship
between Warpage & Zone 3 Temp.As shown in graph there is rejection developed within
spec.It means our spec. needs to be revised. So, this is a significant cause. 59
56 59

SCATTER DIAGRAM FOR ZONE 1 TEMPERATUREVS WARPAGE SCATTER DIAG FOR Z4 TEMP VS WARPAGE
1.00 0.90
0.95 y = -0.0016x + 1.1358 TEMP. SPEC :- 210 ± 10 y = -0.0014x + 1.1079 SPEC. OF WARPAGE= MAX. 1MM
0.85
R2 = 0.0226 2
0.90 R = 0.0307
0.80
0.85
ARPAG

ARPAG

0.80 0.75
0.75
0.70
W
W

0.70
0.65
WARPAGE SPEC:- 0.65 TEMP. SPEC. :- 220 ± 10
1MM MAX
0.60 0.60
190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240
TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE

Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30 Decision Criteria:- R² ≥2 ⁄ √N = 0.36, Where N = 30

INFERENCE: Since R² = 2% which is lesser than 36% .So that there is INFERENCE: Since R² = 3% which is lesser than 36% .So that there is
no relation b/w Z1 temp. & Warpage . It means this cause is not significant. no relation b/w Zone 4 Temp. & Warpage . It means this cause is not
57 57 significant. 60 60
57 60

10
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

COUNTERMEASURE NO. 3
S.N IMPLEMENTAT VERIFICATIO
COUNTERMEASURE LOCATION STATUS
O. ION DATE N DATE
SL.
VALID CAUSE PICTURE BARREL TEMPERATUR FOR ZONE
PROCESS
NO. 3 III IS FROZEN ie: 210 ± 5°C
DATA SHEET
04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK
EARLIER IT WAS 220 ± 10°C

As shown in graph
HOLDING TIME.
1 Equation Y = m x + c, hence
Y = 0.0568 x – 11.543
Warpage = 0.0568 * zone 2 Temp. – 11.543

BARREL TEMPERATURE OF ZONE Custumer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm

2
II & III. RR Tgt = 0.80 mm
0 = 0.0568 * Zone Temp. – 11.543
Spec as per Equation :- 203 -
Zone 2 Temp. = 11.543 / 0.0568 = 203ºC 217ºC
WARPAGE DEVELOPED AFTER
3
MOLDING so we decided to revised this
0.8 = 0.0568 * Zone 2 Temp – 11.543
61 61
61
spec is 210 ± 5 64
64
Zone2 Temp = 11.543 +0.8 / 0.0568 = 217ºC

COUNTERMEASURE NO. 1
S.N IMPLEMENTAT VERIFICATIO
COUNTERMEASURE LOCATION STATUS
O. ION DATE N DATE

70000
1 HOLDING TIME FROZEN 62580 62500 64580 62400 62570
ON MACHINE 04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK 61736 62563
FROM . 3 ± 1 i.e. 5 ± 1

58%
60000
63542 61450 64280
60580 61258 63280
As shown in graph, Equation Y = m x + c 50000
Y = 0.1173 x – 1.362 PROCESS
40000 OPTIMISED 36286
Warpage = 0.1173 *Holding Time – 1.362 36305
36266
Customer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm 30000
PPM

RR Tgt = 0.80 mm 20000

Spec as per Equation :- 11.61 – 8.18
0 = 0.1173 * Holding Time – 1.362
10000
Holding Time. = 1.362 / 0.1173 = 11.61
But on this spec Cycle Time 0

0.8 = 0.1173 * Holding Time – 1.362 Increased. So that As per

0

5- VG

VG
0

10

0
10

11
0

11

7- 1 1

11
-1
-1

-1
-1
l-1

-1
-1

-1
p-
n-

n-

b-

n-

n-
A

A
ct
pr

ov
ug

ec
ay

scatter plot we decided to

ar
Ju

Se
Ja

Ja

Fe

Ju

Ju
O
A

M
N

D
M

Holding Time = 1.362 + 0.8 / 0.1173 = 8.18 62 MONTHS 65 65

revised this spec is 5 ± 1 62 65

COUNTERMEASURE NO. 4
COUNTERMEASURE NO. 2 S.N
O.
COUNTERMEASURE LOCATION
IMPLEMENTATIO
N DATE
VERIFICATION
DATE
STATUS
S.N IMPLEMENTAT VERIFICATIO
COUNTERMEASURE LOCATION STATUS 200 GMS OF WEIGHT PROVIDED ON
O. ION DATE N DATE 4 COMPONENT FOR PROPER COOLING ON MACHINE 11 JUNE 2011 11 JUNE 2011 OK
AFTER MOULDING
BARREL TEMPERATUR FOR ZONE
2 PROCESS
II IS FROZEN ie: 205 ± 5°C 04 JUNE 2011 04 JUNE 2011 OK
DATA SHEET
EARLIER IT WAS 220 ± 10°C

As shown in graph,
Equation Y = m x + c, hence

Y = 0.0304 x – 5.7414
Warpage = 0.0304 * zone 2 Temp. – 5.7414
INFERENCE: After putting the weight no pcs were rejected because of warpage
Customer spec of warpage = Max- 1mm MIN. MAX.
MIN MAX DIMENSIONAL TREND
DIMENSIONAL TREND 0.8

RR Tgt = 0.80 mm 1.2

1.04
0.7
0.63
0.67
0.62
1 0.6

0 = 0.0304 * Zone Temp. – 5.7414 Spec as per Equation :- 189 - 215ºC 0.8 0.74
0.86
DIMENSIONO

0.5
0.62 0.42
0.6 0.54
Zone 2 Temp. = 5.7414 / 0.0304 = 189ºC We produce 500 pcs on this spec. ,
0.4 0.36 0.37

0.4 0.36
0.3

but pcs were rejected because of 0.2 0.2

0.8 = 0.0304 * Zone 2 Temp – 5.7414 short mould so we decided to revised 0

IMMEDIATE ON After After
0.1
O

this spec is 205 ± 5 63

N

0
MACHINE 5 MIN 1 HR.
SIO

IMMEDIATEON MACHINE After After

Zone2 Temp = 5.7414 +0.8 / 0.0304 = 215ºC

EN

63 66
5 MIN 1 HR.
IM

TIMINGS
D

TIMINGS

11
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

110000
96541 97560
70000 64580 96056
62580 62500 61736 62400 6257062563 100000 97850
97254 97564

100%
92540
95840 96417 96124 94687
60000 63280 90000 94562 92587 95680

100%
63542 61450 64280 89680
60580 61258 80000
50000
PROCESS 70000 65897
40000 OPTIMISED 36305 36286 TEMPERATURE &
60000
36266 HOLDING TIME
50000 FROZEN
PPM

30000

PPM
40000 36286
20000 WEIGHT
30000
PROVIDED ON
POLISHING
10000 COMPONENT 20000
DONE
0 0 10000
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
Se 0

5- V G

-J G

G
0

Ja 0
De 0
Ju 0

Au 0

10

Fe 1

7- -11

11
10

M 1
1

1
No 0
1
r-1

-1

l- 1

1
1

1
-1

-1
-1

K
K

EK
K
1 3 AV

AV

VG

UG
LY

T
E
11

PT
0
10

11

1
10

10

11

1
g-

p-

c-

EE
EE
v-
n-

b-

EE
n-
n-

-1

C
-1

-1

-1

-1

N
l-1

-1

-1
A
ay

ar

n
ct

un

E
-

b-

JU
n-

n-

O
p-

SE
A

JU

A
Ju

ov
ay

ay
pr

ug

pr
Ap

ct

ar
ec

W
W

W
Ju
Ju

Ju

Fe
Ju

Ja
Se

O
A

A
O

M
A

D
M

J U RD

H
T
1S

2N

4T
3
E

E
E

E
MONTHS

N
N

N
MONTHS

JU

JU

JU
NOTE: THERE WAS NO SIDE EFFECT OF THESE COUNTERMEASURES 67
NOTE: THERE WERE NO SIDE EFFECTS OF THESE COUNTERMEASURES. 70

UNDERSTANDING OF
PROBLEM BACK COVER YG8 2500

2156
2054 2005 2014
2016
1985 1987

100%
2000 2068 2087 1978
1963 2007 1963
1899

CASE YG8 1650

1500

BACK COVER YG8

PPM

FITMENT WITH CASE YG8 1000

CRACK
500

0 0 0 0 0
Being cracked after scerewed 0
10

Se 0

11

Se 1
A 0

A 1
N 0

1
M 0

D 0

Fe 1

M 1
Ju 0

Ju 1
11
10

11
VG
-1

-1

-1
l-1

l-1
-1

-1
-1

-1

-1
Root Cause identified for crack – Ejector Speed High due to
-1

-1
-1
n-

n-
n-

b-
p-

p-
ug

ug
ar
ct

ct
ov
pr

pr
ay

ay
ec

A
Ju

Ju
Ja
O

O
M
A

A
Catching developed in Mould at Rib Area
MONTHS 71 71
(Same Methodology was used for analysis as used for Warpage) 68 71

COUNTERMEASURE TAKEN
IMPLEMENTA VERIFICATIO
S.NO COUNTERMEASURE LOCATION STATUS
TION DATE N DATE S.no What When Where Who
High polish done in mould and 25 JUNE PROCESS DATA
1 Inhouse 08 june 2011 08 june 2011 Ok 1 PROCESS DATA SHEET UPDATED NEEL KAMAL
frequency decided i.e. 20,000 shots . 2011 SHEET
PM CHECK SHEET AND HISTORY
CARD UPDATED FOR (RIB AREA 29 JUNE PROCESS DATA
2 NEEL KAMAL
POLISHING FREQUENCY 20K 2011 SHEET
SHOTS)
28 JUNE WORK
3 WORK INSTRUCTIONS UPDATED NEEL KAMAL
40000 2011 INSTRUCTIONS
34121 34560
35000 34456 33254 33560 33493 PFMEA AND CONTROL PLAN 28 JUNE
33245 4 PFMEA NEEL KAMAL
33586 33465 32980 33672
32870 UPDATED 2011
30000 32146

25000
POLISHING
DONE &
100%

20000
FREQUENCY
PPM

15000 DECIDED
S.no What When Where Who
10000
HOUSING FRONT
SEPARATE POLISHING
5000 05 JULY FOG LAMP AND
1 FREQUENCY DECIDED FOR RIB MR. R.L.DOGRA
0 0 2011 ROOM LAMP
0
AREA
SWIFT
11
10

0
10

10
0

11
0

10

G
0
-1

-1

-1
-1

-1

-1
-1

V
n-
g-
r-

v-
l-

n-
ec
ay

ep
n

ar

69 69
ct
Ju
p

Ju
u

o
Ju

Ja

Fe

M
O
A

D
A

N
S

9-

MONTHS 69 72

12
 National Workshop on “Enabling MSME
to be Competitive through Quality Tools”

•Customer rejection ppm reduced from 2016 to 0 on account of Warpage & Crack.
• Inhouse Rejection reduced from 96056 PPM avg to 0. Per month to 0 PPM on account of
CRACK & WARPAGE.
•Productivity increased by 9.6 %(Man per unit per hour)
•Spray Consumption Minimized & save Rs. 2170 per Year after polishing done
•Direct cost saving =1440*12* 8.96 = RS. 154829 (approx) Rs per Year on Account of
Saving by Eliminate Warpage & Crack from Back cover YG8

 COOLING FIXTURE SHOULD BE

•Most intractable problem resolved THERE AFTER MOLDING TO
•Horizontally Deployment done benefiting ELIMINATE DEFECT WARPAGE
other Component FOR MATERIAL PPTF.
•Computer skill developed for making  POLISHING FREQUENCY SHOULD
Presentation BE SEPERATELY DECIDED FOR
•Knowledge of new tools & techniques EACH AFFECTED AREA OR
•Knowledge gain for all REMOVAL ITEMS.
•Team morale high to take up  PROCESS PARAMETER
More challenges. OPTIMISATION SHOULD BE DONE
DURING DEVELOPMENT
73

CHECKSHEET PARETO DIAGRAM PROCESS FLOW SCATTER DIAG.

BRAIN
CAUSE & EFFECT GRAPH CAUSE & EFFECT STORMING
DIAGRAM DIAGRAM 74

THANK YOU

75

13