CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The study of quality as a branch has been in focus since the industrial revolution. Quality gurus like Juran and Deming have contributed their visions to the study of quality. It has been pointed out in literature time and again that quality is a key competitive advantage for any organization.

1.1

COMPANY PROFILE

XYZ was incorporated in the year 1984 by the collective efforts of ABC Group of India. The company was incorporated with the objective of generating alternate power solutions and to upgrade general living conditions in the remote areas, where electricity has not reached yet. The company acquired the stake of PQR Company, in 2002, thus becoming one of the few Indian companies to buy out the equity of its MNC partner. XYZ entered into the higher KV segments of generators in 2003. The modern manufacturing unit is established near Dehradun (Uttaranchal) in a very scenic and serene backdrop of hills & forest, with a capacity of 125,000 Smaller Gensets and 75,000 Multi Purpose Engines & Higher KVA Gensets of 20000 units per annum. The total area of the factory is 150000 sq. mtrs and the covered area is 17000 sq. mtrs. The connected load is 1550 KVA. Though the power availability in the region is good, Company has DG sets of 850 KVA as stand by captive power. It was the 1st Company to roll out Self Start Gensets and became the 1st Company to launch emission compliant Generators under the brand name XYZ Ecogen, once again taking a step ahead, to launch low noise gensets, complying with phase-II noise norms and entering a new era of silent technology gensets. The company has launched power tillers under the brand name XYZ Harit. The product is

expected to be very popular in the farming community because of its reliability, compatibility, low maintenance and low running cost. Birla Power tied up with TMTL (Eicher) for manufacturing of DGs with Eicher brand of Engines. Eicher Engines produces a wide range of world class air cooled & water cooled engines ranging from 17.8 BHP to 57 BHP in technical collaboration & tie-up with 'Valtra" Finland, 'Ricardo' England, AVL and other reputed companies.

1.2 PRODUCT & SERVICES

At present the company is producing a wide range of products from portable generator sets to multipurpose engines of capacities 0.5-2.5KVA and 1.5 to 4HP respectively. The Company is presently producing a wide range of Generators catering to the power requirements of 500W to 40K.W, being fuelled by variety of fuel options like Kerosene, Petrol, Diesel, LPG, CNG, Biogas etc. BPSL is committed to provide Total Power Solution depending upon customer needs by manufacturing Portable Generators, Inverters, HKVA Generators, and Home UPS. XYZ banks upon not only advanced innovative design, best raw material, technology and quality control but also has strong dedicated, qualified and trained work force of 535 employees, who have helped the company achieve its objectives and target outputs, with their hard work and sense of involvement. The BPSL mainly identify three type of following products: Power & Allied Products: Manufacturing Higher KVA & Portable Generators, Engines, Pumps, Inverters and Trading of Allied Products. Electrical Appliances: Trading of Electrical appliances & Miscellaneous Components. Others: Wind Mill Energy Generation

The XYZ also has elite institutional clients spanning amongst the major educational

institutes, telecom operators, oil majors, banks and government organizations. Its products are not only fully emission compliant and ISI marked but also enjoy a strong brand image. With increasing urbanization industrial growth and per capita power consumption the demand for power will continue to outstrip the supply. This scenario augurs well for the manufacturers of power generating equipment manufacturers amongst which XYZ is one of the leading players. The company has been awarded ISO 14001 certification. XYZ recently diversified into multipurpose engines and its application products such as pumpsets, sprayers, vibrators and lawn mowers etc. Going ahead the company is looking at tapping the demand for higher quality products and has entered into strategic tie-ups with companies across the globe to stay ahead of competition in terms of technology. Apart from the domestic market the company also has presence in international market particularly to various countries in African, Middle East and Far East countries.

1.2

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The role of purchase department is to get right quantity of material in right quality. Otherwise, bargaining, negotiations and procurement will be in vain, since the material couldnt be used. Moreover, if substandard materials are used, the end of product will lose its creditability in market and entire organization will suffer. In addition, any quality control or quality improvement programme will lose all its meaning if quality is not maintained, since in majority of organizations, almost 60 percent of the manufacturing cost is contributed by the purchased materials. The purchased items we inspections relevant quality standards, Process data sheet and drawings/ specification then found items lot are rejected. Company are making many

different type of product, every product for many items has purchased from market. We are trying to reduce purchased items rejection from supplier. After items lot rejection we have items send for rework and segregation. Here lot of time consume for rework and segregation, so we cannot get good quality items then it is effecting on product performance.

1.3

OBJECTIVE

The company has a limited inspection facility including number of machine available for items inspection and also different skills of worker and also available every items inspection data sheet, drawing and specification. The company has limited investment on every product, a product for maximum items has supply from vendor and this items we inspection as per quality specification. Our main goal is improve inspection process for items, establish long term relation with vendor for supply a good quality items. The company cannot paying for rework and segregation but this process we are delay process on production. Thus, under this scenario, when no new invest is allowed, we have identified some of the below mention areas where we seek improvements. The main objective of our study comprises of the following: To suggest acceptance sampling plans for inspection of components. To minimize the effort of rework and segregation. To establish long term relation with vendor.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 VENDOR SELECTION Umit Akinc (1999) he has proposed a decision support approach to selecting vendors under the conflicting criteria of minimizing the annual material costs, reducing the number of suppliers and maximizing suppliers delivery and quality performances. Evertt E. Adam and S. Thomas Foster (2000) both have studied to identify the contextual variables within a firm, which affect quality performance and other financial variables. They study was conduct in five manufacturing plants of a supplier to many large automotive firms. Results suggests that quality improvement is enhanced by following a processoriented, quality control approach to improvement, emphasizing product design, and stressing conformance to specification. To increase the chance of improved financial performance, the firm would follow a process-oriented, quality control approach to improvement and introduce external quality information. W.L. Pearn, Chin-Wei Wu (2006) both propose an effective sampling plan based on process capability index Cpk to deal with product acceptance determination for low fraction of defectives. This proposes method to determine the number of required inspection units, the critical acceptance value, and make reliable decision in product acceptance. In this paper worked on designing Cpk acceptance sampling plans a specified OC curve. This designing mainly depend on AQL and LTPD with consumer risks and producers risk.

 P.K. Humphreys, W. L. Li and L.Y. Chan (2003) they have examine the role of supplier development in the context of buyer supplier performance from a buying firm's perspective a survey was conducted of 142 electronic manufacturing companies in Hong Kong. Factor analysis yielded eight factors including

transaction-specific supplier development and seven infrastructure factors of supplier development: strategic goals, effective communications, long-term commitment, top management support, supplier evaluation, supplier strategic objectives, and buyer trust in the supplier. Correlation analysis indicated that transaction-specific

supplier development and its infrastructure factors significantly correlated with the perceived buyer supplier performance outcomes. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses suggested that transaction-specific supplier development, trust, supplier strategic objectives and effective communications significantly contributed to the prediction of buyersupplier performance improvement.

Chung-Chi Hsieh and Yu-Te Liu (2009) both suggested a serial supply chain that consists of one supplier and one manufacturer, each having imperfect production and inspection processes. Both the supplier and the manufacturer invest

in quality improvement actions in their production processes to reduce defective items being produced. In addition to quality investment, the supplier engages in outbound inspection before sending the components to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer engages in inbound inspection, when receiving the components from the supplier, and outbound inspection, before sending final products to customers. VijayWadhwa and A. Ravi Ravindran (2006) they have developed model the vendor selection problem as a multi-objective optimization problem, where one or more buyers order multiple products from different vendors in a multiple sourcing network.

Price, lead-time and rejects (quality) are explicitly considered as three conflicting criteria that have to be minimized simultaneously. In this paper Zeger Degrave, Eva Labro and Flip Roodhoot (2005) proposed to use the concept of total cost of ownership as a basis for comparing vendor selection models. A total cost ownership perspective mathematical programming models outperform rating models and multiple item models generate better results than single item models for this specific case study. Srinivas Talluri and Ram Narasimhan (2001), this paper proposed a unique approach for vendor selection by incorporating performance variability into the evaluation process. The maxmin approach for vendor selection presented in this paper allows for comprehensive evaluation of vendor performance by estimating both maximum and minimum efficiencies based on ideal targets set by the buyer. Another key element of this approach is that groups of homogenous vendors can be identified, which provides the buyer with effective alternative choices in making the final selection. Daniel R. Krause, Robert B. Handfield and Thomas V. Scannell (1999), In an exploratory study based on data collected from 84 companies, the authors develop a process model for supplier development. Using this process model as a framework, the authors then compare two approaches buying firms use in supplier development: 1. Reactive efforts to increase the performance of laggard suppliers, 2. Strategic efforts to increase the capabilities of the supply base to enhance the buying firms long-term competitive advantage. Strategic efforts were found to significantly increase the buying companys involvement in suppliers processes, and required greater dedication of resources, personnel and communication.

 Ashutosh Sarkarand and Pratap K.J. Mohapatra (2006), they both have proposed a systematic framework for reducing the supply base to a predefined level and considered many a number of supplier-related factors in the evaluation process and have classified them into short-term performance factors and long-term capability factors based their effects on the achievement of supply chain objectives. They use fuzzy set approach to overcome the difficulty of measurement imprecision associated with qualitative factors. Qing Caoa and Qiong Wang (2006), they have focused on vendor selection, one of the two basic issues of vendor management in outsourcing. Due to the limitation of the classic one-stage vendor selection model, they propose a two-stage vendor selection research framework in outsourcing. The first stage is a trial phase that helps the client to find the best match between the vendor and the outsourced project. In the second stage, the client employs the chosen vendor for the full implementation of the project. Decision making approach for purchase materials Kyle A. Crawford and Osama K. Eyada (1998), when quality assurance programs in several instance have failed to stop the influx of fraudulent materials. In many cases only physical inspection and test can guard against defective purchased materials. They both have solved how knowledge engineering techniques can be applied to assist in solving this problem. By formulating commonly available and diverse industry information, a knowledge based system becomes a tool that allows users to focus quality verification efforts on highly suspect materials. Douglas K. Macbeth (1996) this paper aims to explore the nature of partnership sourcing or partnering and the implications for the changing role of the purchasing function in the new situation. Partnering has evolved as a solution to changing market requirements. The change to collaboration as the operating paradigm changes the

required operational job roles within the purchasing function. The paper concludes that purchasing becomes central to the whole cost-reducing, innovation-enhancing, market-competitive positioning of an organization. Ajay Das and Robert B. Handfield (2000), they both that dissertation research in purchasing is still largely exploratory, lacking in dominant paradigms and unifying theories. On a more positive note, our analysis reveals an encouraging trend towards casual and confirmatory research design and the growing use of organizational, marketing and economic theory to explain purchasing phenomena. Linda L. Stanley and Joel D. Wisner (2002) they both are researched about in this paper analyze internal communication patterns, service quality initiatives, supplier management strategies and internal performance in organizations providing high levels of service quality to their external customers. Both have concluded that greater implementation of strategic supplier activities will lead to higher levels of performance. Additionally, they found a higher level of service quality among internal suppliers and internal customers linked to better external service quality. Javier Gonzalez-Benitoa, Angel R. Martnez-Lorente and Barrie G. Dale (2002), the objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it analyses the relationship between different purchasing system variables and supplier quality assurance practices. Secondly, it explores both the connections between supplier quality assurance practices and other quality assurance practices used for internal processes, and examines the relationship of such practices with supply operational results. Ding-zhong Feng, Lei-lei Chen and Mei-xian Jiang (2001), this paper, based on fuzzy decision theory and characteristics of supply chain management, proposes a comprehensive evaluation method for optimal combination selection among candidate vendors and outsourced parts.

At first, some useless information is filtered bp the judgment of process and production capacities. Then a hierarchical fuzzy model for vendor selection is developed. At the same time, a progressively-simplified approach is presented to deal with the order-combination optimization problem. L.B.Foker (2003) he has researched about the inconsistent association between practice and performance is accounted for by considering the process view of quality management. Process management links quality management with process optimization to address both effectiveness and efficiency concerns. Performance is also affected by transaction-specific investments (asset specificity) in the buyer/supplier relationship that lead to poorer component quality and higher transaction costs. Asset specificity and organizational efficiency at implementing Total Quality Management hold great promise for resolving the mixed practiceperformance findings in the quality management literature. Cees J. Gelderman, and Janjaap Semeijn(2006), little work has been undertaken to examine the organizational mechanisms used by MNC headquarters for knowledge leveraging across subsidiaries, especially in the area of purchasing and supply management. Based on an in-depth case study, focusing on a chemical company, the actual buying systems for managing the global supply base are explored. Kraljics purchasing portfolio approach appears useful, both for developing effective purchasing strategies as well as for managing a global supply base. Henrik Brandes (2001) In this study two important strategic tracks are identified and the underlying causes analyzed. The first track entails an increased degree of purchasing, following from make-or-buy decisions: so-called outsourcing. The second track entails decentralization of and coordination within the purchasing function.

 Chih-Hsiung Wang, Tadashi Dohi and W.C. Tsai (2010), they investigate integrating the acquisition of input materials, material inspection and production planning, where type I and type II inspection errors are allowed, and the unit acquisition cost is dependent on the average quality level. This study aims to find an optimal purchase lot size (or here, equivalently, the fixed production rate multiplied by the production run time), input quality level and the associated inspection policy that minimize the total cost per item including the order cost, materials purchase cost, setup cost, inventory holding cost, and the quality-related cost. Furthermore, the boundaries, conditions and properties for the optimal production run time are obtained under an optimal inspection policy when the input material quality level is fixed. These findings will facilitate the establishing of an efficient algorithm for an optimal solution. John F. Affisco, M. Javad Paknejad and Farrokh Nasri (2002) this paper relaxes this assumption and proposes a quality-adjusted JELS (joint economic lot sizes) model. In addition, classical optimization methods are used to derive models for the cases of setup cost reduction, quality improvement, and simultaneous setup cost reduction and quality improvement for the quality-adjusted JELS. This suggests a synergistic impact of continuous improvement programs that focus on both setup and quality improvement of the vendors production process. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the simultaneous model is robust and representative of practice. Zhiying Liao and Jens Rittscher (2006), this paper studies the integration of the supplier selection, the procurement lot sizing and the carrier selection decisions under dynamic demand conditions. A multi-objective programming model is developed to help to decide when and how much to order in dynamic demand case, which supplier

to select and how much to order from the selected suppliers in each replenishment cycle and which carrier to select for the selected supplier in each replenishment cycle. William Ho, Xiaowei Xu, and Prasanta K. Dey (2010), this paper is based on a literature review on the multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection from 2000 to 2008. First, it was found that numerous individual and integrated approaches were proposed to solve the supplier selection problem. They are all capable of handling multiple quantitative and qualitative factors. Ceyhun Araz_, Irem OzkarahanIn(2007) this paper, they have been proposed a supplier evaluation and management methodology for the product development process, in which suppliers are categorized and compared according to their performances on several design based criteria, potential reasons for differences in suppliers performances are identified, and performances of the suppliers are improved by applying supplier development programs.

CHAPTER III 3.1 STUDY OF EXSITING SYSTEM

Whenever a new order comes for products, it goes through different departments and some value addition is done at each department. Each department process the order, does its corresponding task, review it and send it to the next department in the hierarchy. If in the review, some error is caught, it again assigns the task to the same department. If the error is caused for some previous departments in the hierarchy, it returns it back to that previous department. The following step are using a product complete 1. Order placed by purchase department- This department order taken by marketing department how much products we produces. 2. Store & PPC- All types of raw material are stored in the stores. Castings, forgings, plastics, rubber, hardware, chemicals and items for Maintenance are kept in the stores. Production planning and co-ordination (PPC) with the respective shop have done by PPC. 3. Quality assurance is carried out at the incoming material stage, in process manufacturing stage and the final assembly stage. Inspection at the various stages is done against relevant quality standards, Process data sheets and drawings/ specifications. 4. In house production consists more departments like generator shop, m/c shop, paint shop, welding shop etc.

5. Assembly shop consists of conveyorised 4-Stroke lines where 4-Stroke generators are assembled respectively. The following are the major parameters tested in assembly shop by Quality Assurance a. Frequency

b. Voltage at no load and rated load c. Current at no load and rated load d. Starting and stopping of generators / engines e. Oil warning function f. Abnormal sound g. Aesthetics etc.

Order Placed b

Componen Store

3.2 Quality Assurance Department

The work of QAD is focused, first of all, on preventing the claims from customers. In case of receiving such claims on quality of provided products and services, the department starts searching the reasons and effects of the revealed discrepancies. Quality Assurance means the completion of a project in accordance with the previously agreed specification and functionality required without defects and possible problems. The BPSL at QAD is responsible for a set of procedures and processes which minimize unintentional errors and occurrence of defective goods. Because of the importance of quality assurance department, it takes the central role in structure of the enterprise. At BPSL how to material inspection incoming quality (parts inspection)

a. RAW MATERIAL
Test certificates received from suppliers

b. PARTS / COMPONENTS
DEMENISONAL

Few selected in direct on line category based on minimum rejection rates good quality in past. Few parts selected to check as per specified inspection plans and sampling. Other parts selected to check as per specified inspection plans and sampling. Test certificates/reports are received from vendors for critical components.

Visual inspection is done on most of the items. Fitment verification are done where it is important. Functional test done when considered necessary ie in electrical item. Proper packing verified at the time of receipt.

c. SAMPLE INSPECTION
Done thoroughly as per drawing, standards and fitment, endurance trials are carried out wherever it is necessary. performance

INSPECTION OF BOUGHT PARTS Inspection activities are divided into 3 categories DIRECT ON LINE COMPONENTS A list of 90 selected components is enclosed which are passed directly. Only audit is done time to time. CONTROLLED COMPONENTSA list of 100 selected components is enclosed which are to be checked as per quality standards. OTHER COMPONENTSAll components are only to be verified for quality parameters. There is no need of specific inspection plan. Reports are not mandatory.

INSPECTION / AUDIT The quality assurance department responsible for audit inspection on machine shop, welding shop, paint shop, and finally assembly shop. A. Machine Shop Components checked Machined Castings & Forgings e.g. 1. Crank Case 2. Crank Shaft etc. Inspection reports generated First of Piece inspection report Verification of In process Inspection Report Daily Audit Report Monthly Audit Report Rejection reports (verified by QA) Monitoring of rejections on monthly basis

Disposal of Non conforming parts Rejection sent to Rejection stores after QA verification Verification and authorization of rework able material Audit of scrap being sold / dispatched to scrap dealers

B. Paint Shop
Components checked All painted items e.g. Painted fuel tanks, Case Fan, Frame Assy., Air Shroud etc. Inspection reports generated 1. Daily audit report of painted parts 2. Titration of pre treatment chemicals e.g. point age of de greasing solution, de rusting solution, phosphating solution etc.

3. Monitoring of paint shop conveyor speed and temperature of baking oven. 4. Salt spray testing of painted parts 5. Film thickness, pencil hardness testing, checker testing, gasoline resistance testing, alkali resistance testing of painted parts 6. Rejection reports (verified by QA) Disposal of non conforming parts Rejection sent to rejection store after QA verification Verification and authorization of rework able material

3.2 PRODUCT STRUCTURE

Product structure is a hierarchical decomposition of a product, typically known as the bill of materials (BOM). As business becomes more responsive to unique consumer tastes and derivative products grow to meet the unique configurations, BOM management can become unmanageable. Advanced modelling techniques are necessary to cope with configurable products where changing a small part of a product can have multiple impacts on other product structure models. Concepts within this entry are all caps locked in order to indicate these concepts. We know our products, so first we are making product structure of every product then find out all products for how much components are required. This product structure mainly depend BOM list of product.

First we make product structure for EG 2800.This is main structure of Birla Ecogen EG2800, that is consume 335 component same structure I have make different subassembly.
P r
B E

c t

t r

t u

i E l ca o g e n r G 2( 3 8 3 0 5 0 )

F A

u e l T a n k P a c k i n s s e m b l y ( 2 0 )

g B ( 1o 4d ) y

( 1

C y

o s

n t r o E n g i n e G l e n e t e m A ( s 4 s 1e m) b l A y ( s 1 s0 e 2 m)

r a Mt o i r s c e l l a n b Cl y o (m 4 p5 o ) n e n

Figure Product Structure

1. Engine Assembly (102)

Engine assembly one of the very important parts of the product so here these subassembly using 102 types of components.

2. Generator Assembly (45)

This generator subassembly consists 45 types of components.

3. Control System Assembly (37)

Control system assembly mainly electrical type of components so it is using 37 types of materials.

4. Fuel Tank Assembly (20)

This subassembly assembles very few components oil tank are here main materials.

5. Body or Hood(103)

6. Packing(14)

This product structure we find out which assembly parts of components maximum rejected.

CHAPTER IV

4.1 DATA COLLECTION

Mainly these five products consume 543 type of component and this component supplied 126 vendors, so we make list vendor versus items. We have collected BOM list for every product. We have collected product wise data how many components are required one product. Listed every product how much component required. No. of Components

S.No. Product Name Required 1 Birla Ecogen EG 3000A 405 2 Birla Ecogen EG 2800A 335 Pump Set Birla Ecoshakti 3 4 5 (2WS2020K) Multi-Purpose Engine 180K Birla Ecogen EG 700 225 218 278

We have collected last six month data for how much component lots are coming then how many components lots inspection in rejected.

Items Month April May Jun July August Sep. come 1367 1245 1456 1345 1132 1235

lots Rejected 38 41 60 57 32 47

4.2 METHODOLOGY
First we are doing pareto analysis at QAD all types components of supplied by the supplier, So we can determine which supplier supplied poor quality materials. Pareto analysis: Pareto Analysis is a statistical technique in decision making that is used for the selection of a limited number of tasks that produce significant overall effect. It uses the Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) the idea that by doing 20% of the work you can generate 80% of the benefit of doing the whole job. Or in terms of quality improvement, a large majority of problems (80%) are produced by a few key causes (20%). This is also known as the vital few and the trivial many. First we pareto analysis for final product, In this analysis we seen which product demand more in market. In this table we show which product consists number of components,

Model Name EG700 EG2800A EG3000A EG2000A Multi-Purpose Engine 180K EGD15EICA1 EGD5LDMM 1 Portable Pump Set Ecoshakti (2WS2020K)

No. of Set Sold 1103 760 735 514 345 266 232 139

Fre. No. of Set Sold 26.94 18.78 18.16 12.70 8.52 6.57 5.73 3.43

Cumm. No. of Set Sold 26.94 45.72 63.88 76.58 85.11 91.68 97.41 100.00

First we make pareto chart for rejection of items lots, Fre.of S.NO. Items Name&Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 76T COVER 16 CASTING 76T CRANK CASE 17 18 19 20 CASTING 1.622 1.622 1.081 0.541 93.514 95.135 96.216 96.757 CRANK CASE 4 3 700K PIPE EXHAUST BAR 3 PIPE EXHAUST - I (YB) 2 COVER CRANK CASE 1 CASTING 700K 2.162 91.892 FINISHED 700K COLLER(76R 1917) CRANK CASE CASTING 76R GEAR RING 76TS FORK GOVERNER 76R HEAD CYLINDER CASTING ARM GOVERNER 76T CRANK CASE CASTING 76T PISTON All GRADE CAM SHAFT FINISH 76R CAM SHAFT FINISH 76T ARM GOVERNER 76R CAM SHAFT FOR 700K ARM GOVERNOR 76U All Piston rings CONNECTING ROD J/W Total 28 18 17 15 14 13 11 9 9 8 6 6 4 4 4 lot(%) 15.135 9.730 9.189 8.108 7.568 7.027 5.946 4.865 4.865 4.324 3.243 3.243 2.162 2.162 2.162 (%) 15.135 24.865 34.054 36.216 49.730 56.757 62.703 67.568 72.432 76.757 80.000 83.243 85.405 87.568 89.730 Cum.Fre.of lot

COVER 21

CRANK

CASE 1 0.541 0.541 0.541 0.541 0.541 0.541 97.297 97.838 98.378 98.919 99.459 100.000

CASTING 76R CIRCUIT BREAKER DC 15 A 22 23 24 25 26 76M GEAR DRIVE 76R GEAR DRIVE 76T GEAR DRIVE FOR 700K WIRE HARNESS FOR 700K 1 1 1 1 1

We can see here first 11 components lot rejection more from other components.

We make Pareto chart for vendor supplied lot rejection components, here we consist all components supplied by vendor.

VENDOR S.NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

NO. OF SUPPLIED FRE.OF ITEMS(%) 10.16 9.38 9.38 4.69 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34

CUM.FR.of ITEMS(%) 10.16 19.53 28.91 33.59 37.50 41.41 45.31 48.44 51.56 54.69 57.81 60.94 64.06 66.41 68.75 71.09 73.44 75.78 78.13

NAME ITEMS RAXMECH IND. 13 GLIDE ENGG. 12 VENUS MFG. 12 CO. TABSONS 6 AUTO SUPER AUTO 5 ELE. MANU MOULD 5 UMRAO 5 PRECISION T. PARISHUDH 4 MACHINES SAMKRG 4 PISTONS SUNRISE 4 TOOLING KAPSONS 4 INDUSTRIES SPIKE 4 CONTROL FRIENDS AUTO 4 ANIL TECHNO 3 STAR SINTER 3 D.A RAJA 3 FORGINGS SUPER AUTO 3 INDIA KUNDAN 3 INDUSTRIAL PEE CEE 3

Poores t

Poor

CASTING CHAND 20 21 3 INDUSTRY ARKEY ENGG. 3 JAY CEE STEELS 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 GHAZIABAD SENS IND. RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS NATIONAL 2 ENGINEERING ELETROSPARK 2 AUTO MATE 2 PRODUCT DYNAMIC INDIAN UCAL 2 FUEL 2 1 1 1 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 0.78 0.78 0.78 91.41 92.97 94.53 96.09 97.66 98.44 99.22 100.00 3 3 3 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 80.47 82.81 85.16 87.50 89.84
Fair

SYSTEM LTD SUPER ALLOY MAHEE ENGG. BIRLA ACCUCAST

32

LTD

This pareto chart based we consider three major categories of vendor make categories of vendors, this categories are following. 1. Poorest supplied items lots a. Raxmech Ind. b. Glide Engg. c. Venus MFG. Co. 2. Poor supplied items lots a. Tabsons Auto. b. Super Auto ELE. c. Manu Mould d. Umaro P. Recision T. e. Samkrg Pistons. f. Sunrise Tooling. g. Kapsons Industries h. Spike Control i. Friends

3. Fair items supplied lots a. Anil techno. b. Star Sinter D.A. c. Raja Forging d. Super Auto India e. Kundan Industrial f. Pee Cee Casting g. Chand Industrial h. Arkey Engg. i. Jay Cee Steels j. Sens. Ind. k. Rubber Udyog Vikas.

This categories based we found why items lots are many time rejected. Poorest Performance categories In this categories components are some special specification are required like components of hardness, surface roughness, specification performance, fitment problem, co-ordination of hole, and other dimensional like height, width Poor performance categories These categories components are fitment problem, clean or unclean problem, height and width of components big or small. Fair performance categories These categories component main problem fitment

4.3 FUTER WORK

We have done only data analysis of rejection components and identify why components are rejected. Our next phase we will make cause and effect diagram for every rejected components. Also use some special tool for quality improvement of items lot rejections.

REFERNCES
1. Everett E. Adam and S. Thomas Foster (2000), Quality improvement approach and performance: multisite analysis within a firm, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp. 144-158. 2. Ding-zhong Feng, Lei-lei Chen and Mei-xian Jiang(2000) Vendor Selection in Supply Chain System: an Approach Using Fuzzy Decision and AHP, Journal of Integrated Supply Manugenrent.1(1), pp. 64-78, 1. S. Balamurali, Chi-Hyuck Jun (2006), Multiple dependent state sampling plans for lot acceptance based on measurement data, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 180, pp.1221-1230. 2. Edward P. Markowski, Carol A. Markowski(2002), improved attribute acceptance sampling plans in the presence of misclassification error, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.139, pp. 501-510. 3. P.k. Humphreys, W.L. Li, L.Y. Chan (2003), The impact of supplier development on buyer-supplier performance, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 131-143. 4. Samuel B.Graves, David C. Murphy, Jeffrey L. Ringuest (2000), Acceptance sampling and reliability: the tradeoffs between component quality and redundancy, Journal of Computer Science & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 79-91.

5.

Chung-Chi Hsieh, Yu-Te Liu(2009), Quality investment and inspection policy in a

supplier-manufacturer supply chain, European journal of Operational Research, Vol.202, pp. 717-729. 6. Zeger Degraeve, Eva Labro and Filip Roodhooft (2003), An evaluation of vendor selection models from a total cost of ownership perspective, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 125, pp.34-58. 7. William Ho, Xiaowei Xu, and Prasanta K. Dey (2010), Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review, European Journal of Operational Research vol. 202, pp.1624. 8. Ashutosh Sarkar and Pratap K.J. Mohapatra (2006), Evaluation of supplier capability and performance: A method for supply base reduction, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management vol.12, pp.148163. 9. L.B. Forker (2003), Factors affecting supplier quality performance, Operations Management vol.15, pp. 243-269. 10. Andreas Eggert and Wolfgang Ulaga (2010), Managing customer share in key supplier relationships, International Journal of Industrial Marketing Management vol.67, pp.123-133. 11. Qing Caoa and QiongWang (2006), Optimizing vendor selection in a two-stage outsourcing process, Journal of Computers & Operations Research vol.34, pp. 3757 3768. 12. 13. Douglas K. Macbeth (1996), The role of purchasing in a partnering relationship, Ceyhun Araz and Irem Ozkarahan (2007), Supplier evaluation and management European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management vol (1), pp. 19-25. system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure, International Journal of Production Economics vol.(106) pp.585606. 14. Zhiying Liaoa and Jens Rittscherb (2007), Integration of supplier selection, procurement lot sizing and carrier selection under dynamic demand conditions, International Journal Production Economics vol.107 pp.502510. 15. Gary L. Holstrum and James E. Hunton (1996), New Forms of Assurance Services for New Forms of Information: The Global Challenge for Accounting Educators, International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 33, pp. 347-358. Journal of

16.

Linda L. Stanleya and Joel D. Wisnerb (2002), The determinants of service quality:

issues for purchasing, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management vol.8, pp. 97109. 17. 18. Henrik Brandes (2001), Strategic change in purchasing, European Journal of Cees J. Gelderman, and Janjaap Semeijn (2006), Managing the global supply base Purchasing and Management vol. 11(2), pp.77-87. through purchasing portfolio management, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management vol.12, pp. 209217. 19. Kyle A. Crawford and Osama K. Eyada (1998), A Knowledge-based Decision Support Tool to Increase the Effectiveness of Purchased Material Quality Verifications, Journal of Computers science and industrial engineering Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 415-421. 20. Chih-Hsiung Wang, Tadashi Dohi and W.C.Tsai (2010), Coordinated procurement/inspection and production model under inspection errors, Journal of Computers Science & Industrial Engineering vol.59, pp. 473478. 21. Javier Gonzalez-Benitoa, Angel R. Martnez-Lorente and Barrie G. Dale (2002), A study of the purchasing management system with respect to total quality management, Journal of Industrial Marketing Management vol.32, pp. 443 454. 22. 23. Ajay Das and Robert B. Handfield (2000), A meta-analysis of doctoral dissertations Najla Aissaouia, Mohamed Haouaria and Elkafi Hassinib (2007), Supplier selection in purchasing, Journal of Operations Management vol.15, pp. 101-121. and order lot sizing modeling: A review, Journal of Computers & Operations Management, vol.34, pp. 3516 3540. 24. Tony Lin and Michael D. Holbrook (1998), Reliability Demonstration Test and OC Curves for Attribute Data, Journal of Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 1-16. 25. 26. 27. 28. Jonathan Moules (2009), Suffering material losses from imports, Financial Times, Auguston and Karen A. (1999), Vendor Partnering Pays Off for Pillsbury, C.S. Tapiero, Yield and control in a supplier customer relationship (2001), Franka Piskar, (2006). Quality audits and their value added. International Journal of News Jul 18, 2009, pg. 29. Modern Materials Handling. Boston, Vol. 47, Iss. 9; pp. 47-51. International Journal of Production Research, vol.39 (7), pp. 1505-1515. Services and Standards, 2(1).

29. 30.

Freiesleben, J. (2004), On the Limited Value of Cost of Quality Models Total Fugee Tsung (2000), Impact of Information Sharing on Statistical Quality Control

Quality Management, 15(7), pp. 959969. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man And CyberneticsPart A: Systems And Humans, 30(2). 31. Gionata Carmignani (2008), Modified QFD and Problem-solving Techniques Integrated Approach Implementing Corrective Actions: A Case Study in an Italian Manufacturing Plant, Quality and Reliability Engineering International (2008), DOI: 10.1002/qre.967. 32. 33.
John L. Reffett(2000), A Vendor-Customer Relation to Improve Product Quality,

AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Jacques Bhasshini (1993), Perturbational aspects in correspondence analysis,

Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 15, pp. 393-410.