MAKE VISOR Reduce Scrap on 483N due to Vanity Gap

AE-NA-Interiors Group Process Owner: Alberto A Sanchez Black Belt: Juan Delgadillo Master Black Belt: Alfredo Martelet Sigma Trac ID # 200705184129

Project Schedule
Original Completion Revised Completion Actual Completion

Definition: Measure: Analyze: Improve: Control: Validation:

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

12/28/07 01/09/08 01/12/08 01/29/08 02/22/08 05/28/08

12/28/07 01/09/08 01/12/08 01/29/08 02/22/08 05/28/08

12/28/07 01/09/08 01/12/08 01/29/08 02/22/08 05/15/08

Define 1
400000 300000

Identify whats important to the customer. Define the scope.

All Plant Scrap (USD) Jan'2008

Total Plant Scrap Top 4

100 80 60

Scrap Total

200000

$ 38,8 K USD
100000

40 20 0

SCRAP PURGAS

500 TONS

250 TONS

MATERIALS SCRAP

MTTO ENG SCRAP

90 TONS

TAO

CUT FABRIC SCRAP

GMT-191/92/93

GMT-966/67/68

QUALITY SCRAP

GMX386

483N

Scrap Total Percent Cum %

54939 14 14

40172 10 24

39490 10 34

38879 10 44

27173 7 51

26016 7 58

16131 4

14665 4 65

13432 3 69

12565 3 72

11718 3 75

10220 3 78

Scrap Jan'08 9488 7894 483N, 71261

2 80 2 82 18 100

62 50000

Other

C1

180L

Percent

40000 30000

Vanity Components Vanity Assemblies

$ 9683.0 (22%) $ 7712.0 (18%)

100 80 60 40 20

20000 10000 0

VAN,ELITE TOYOTA LBL105B

SOR ASM,483NVISDBLRH105B

VAN,ELITE TOYOTA LBL007B

VAN ASM,ELI EURO1TOY007B

COM PRTS,ELT VAN LF BULB

VAN ASM,ELI EURO1TOY105B

SOR ASM,483NVISDBLRH007B

VAN,ELITE TOYW/FBINS007B

VAN,ELITE TOYW/FBINS105B

SOR ASM,483NVISDBLLH007B

CVRASM,ELTOY LBL RV 105B

COM PRTS,483N VIS RH

W/A,483N TYPE9 VIS

FB,EMP60 VIS LVL4

CORE,483N VIS RH

CIRC,ELITE MYLAR F.R. IN

Vanity Defects

1600 1400
1878 1631 1200 4 4 56 60 1000

Other

C1

SOR ASM,483NVISDBLLH105B

Percent

C2

C2 Percent Cum %

5741 13 13

4001 9 22

3155 7 29

2997 7 36

2502 2470 6 41 6 47

2186

1599 1447 4 63 3 67

1438 3 70

1302 3 73

1026 2 75

991 2 77

836 2 79

800 600 400 200 0

60 40 20 0

Percent

Defects

5 52

Vanity Gap represents 64% of the total Vanity Cell Defects

836 2 81 8314 19 100

100 80

GAP Process: Vanity Assembly Cell YB= Scrap cost. YC= PPMS YP= Vanity Lid Angle Project Statement: Due to vanity Lid Gap we have 3.9% of vanity assembly rejections and 5.5% of Visor assembly rejections. Project Objective: Eliminate the scrap due to Vanity Gap defect.

MYLAR SCRATCH

LEAK OF LIGHT

Defects Percent C um %

910 64.0 64.0

114 8.0 72.1

CONTAMINATION @ LENS

VANITY GAP

92 6.5 78.5

79 5.6 84.1

226 15.9 100.0

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Other

C1

Measure
2
Determine what to measure (Y) and validate the measurement system.
Assessment Agreement
Date of study : Reported by : Name of product: Misc: 01-08-08 J.Delgadillo Elite Vanity Gap

All Appraisers vs Standard Assessment Agreement

95.0% C I P ercent

Acceptable Measurement System

Within Appraisers
100 95 90 85 80 75 Estuardo Appraiser Omar
95.0% C I P ercent

Appraiser vs Standard
100 95 90 85 80 75 Estuardo Appraiser Omar

# Inspected 30

# Matched 27

Percent 90.00

95 % CI (73.47, 97.89)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known standard.

Percent

Percent

The measurement System consist in evaluate visually if there is a Gap between the Vanity Cover & Frame.

483N Program Scarp (USD)

50000 UCL=47780 0.12

P Chart of Vanity Cell GAP Rejections

1

40000

YB= Scrap by month ($)

Process in statistical control. Avg From Aug07 to Feb08: $18 K usd
_ X=18041

0.10 0.08

YC= Defects Proportion @ Vanity Cell

Process NOT in statistical control.
Data from the 3rd Party Containment
UCL=0.0463 _ P=0.0390 LCL=0.0316

Individual Value

30000

Proportion

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 1/20 1/27 Wk

1

20000

10000

0 Aug 07 Sep 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 C4 Dec 07 Jan 08

LB=0 Feb 08

2/3

2/10

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Measure
3
Quantify current performance and set improvement target.

YC= Defects proportion at Vanity Cell

Binomial Process Capability Analysis of Rejections @ Vanity Cell
P C har t 0.12 P r opor tion 0.08 0.04 0.00 1 2 Sample Tests performed w ith unequal sample sizes C umulative % Defective 10 S ummary S tats (95.0% confidence) % Defective Fr equency 8 % D efectiv e: Low er C I: U pper C I: Target: P P M Def: Low er C I: U pper C I: P rocess Z: Low er C I: U pper C I: 3.90 3.65 4.15 0.00 38965 36501 41547 1.7628 1.7330 1.7928 Tar 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 H istogr am
1 1

YP= Vanity Lid Angle

Process Capability of Vanity Lid Angle
LSL
P rocess D ata LS L 29.65 Target * USL 33.65 S ample M ean 26.247 S ample N 20 S tD ev (Within) 0.865995 S tD ev (O v erall) 1.04331 Rate of Defectives

12 % Defective 8 4 0 2000 4000 6000 Sample Size

USL Within Ov erall

P otential (Within) C apability Cp 0.77 C PL -1.31 C PU 2.85 C pk -1.31 O v erall C apability Pp PPL PPU P pk C pm 0.64 -1.09 2.37 -1.09 *

U C L=0.0463 _ P =0.0390 LC L=0.0316

1

24.0
O bserv ed P erformance P P M < LS L 1000000.00 PPM > USL 0.00 P P M Total 1000000.00 E xp. PPM PPM PPM

25.5

27.0

28.5

30.0

31.5

33.0

4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Sample 3.0 3.5 4.0

2 4 6 8 % Defective

10

Within P erformance < LS L 999957.45 > USL 0.00 Total 999957.45

E xp. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L 999446.34 PPM > USL 0.00 P P M Total 999446.34

Description
( wit h unit o f m e a s ure )

YC YB YP

PPMS Scrap (K USD) Vanity Lid Angle

Before 38,965 18.0

A vg: 26.25 St.Dev: 1 .04 P pk: -1 .09

Project Target 0 7.7

A vg: 31 .6 St.Dev: 0.5 P pk: >1 .33

After

% Improve

A vg: St.Dev: Cpk o r P pk:

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 4

Identify causes (Xs) of variation and defects.

X1 and X2 were within specifications as molded parts. But the Angle of the inner cover (X2) change by 4 degrees after the Welder machine process.

Measurement Data Before and After Welder Process

B E F O R E A F T E R

B E F O R E A F T E R

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 4
32

Identify causes (Xs) of variation and defects.

Boxplot of A (before Branson), A (after Branson)
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: A, A (after Branson)
Two-sample T for A vs A (after Branson)

YP

31

Diff: 4.2 deg Avg: 30.65 deg

N A A (after Branson) 8 8 Mean 30.650 26.450 StDev 0.555 0.453 SE Mean 0.20 0.16

30 29 28

Data

Difference = mu (A) - mu (A (after Branson))

27 26 A (before Branson)

Estimate for difference:

4.200

Avg: 26.45 deg

A (after Branson)

95% CI for difference:

(3.653, 4.747) P-Value = 0.000

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.59 DF = 13

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: A (before Branson), A (after Branson) Two-sample T for A (before Branson) vs A (after Branson)
32 31

Boxplot of B (before Branson), B (after Branson)

Avg: 31.04 deg

N A (before Branson) A (after Branson) 8 8

Mean 30.650 26.450

StDev 0.555 0.453

SE Mean 0.20 0.16

Data
29 28 27 30

Diff: 4.3 deg

Difference = mu (A (before Branson)) - mu (A (after Branson)) Estimate for difference: 95% CI for difference: 4.200

(3.653, 4.747) P-Value = 0.000

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 16.59 DF = 13

Avg: 26.697 deg

26 B (before Branson) B (after Branson)

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 4

Identify causes (Xs) of variation and defects.

X3 Welder Nest

YP

Angle B

Angle A

At the Welder Machine The nest is bending the inner cover hinge angle, due to excessive pressure.
This profile was milled 2 mm to release the pressure on the vanity cover hinge. X3 Was modified but we still having gap rejections.

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 4

Identify causes (Xs) of variation and defects.

Welder Machine Cover Outer

X3
Vanity Lid Assembly

X1
Cover Inner

X2

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 5

Provide statistical evidence that causes are real.

DOE at Welder Machine A= Pressure B= Weld Time C= Amplitude

DOE for vanity Lid Angle

Objective: Increase the Vanity Lid Angle to eliminate the Vanity Gap Output Measure: Vanity Lid Angle (Degrees) Specifications Pressure Weld Time Amplitude

X4

30 40 psi 250 400 1/100 sec 55 65 Wave length

Factors Tested in Experiment A. Pressure B. Weld Time C. Amplitude (-) 30 250 55

Levels (+) 40 400 65

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Analyze 5

Provide statistical evidence that causes are real.

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is Response, Alpha = 0.05) 2.306 C AC
Percent
F actor A B C N ame P ressure Weld Time A mplitude

DOE at Welder Machine A= Pressure B= Weld Time C= Amplitude

Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects

(response is Response, Alpha = 0.05)
99 Effect Ty pe Not Significant Significant
F actor A B C N ame P ressure Weld Time A mplitude

X4

95 90 80

AB

A B ABC BC 0 1 2

Amplitude Significant variable

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 C

Term

3 4 5 6 Standardized Effect

-8

-6

-4 -2 Standardized Effect

Main Effects Plot for Response

Data Means
Pressure 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 Weld Time

Factorial Fit: Response versus Pressure, Weld Time, Amplitude

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Response (coded units)

Term Constant Pressure

30 Amplitude 40 250 400

Effect

Coef 30.128

SE Coef 0.1311 0.1311 0.1311 0.1311 0.1311

T 229.73 0.73 0.46 -8.21 -0.74

P 0.000 0.485 0.656 0.000 0.481

0.192 0.121 -2.154 -0.194

0.096 0.061 -1.077 -0.097

Mean

29.0

Weld Time Amplitude Pressure*Weld Time

31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 55 65

Pressure*Amplitude
Weld Time*Amplitude Pressure*Weld Time*Amplitude

-0.408
-0.059 -0.073

-0.204
-0.030 -0.037

0.1311
0.1311 0.1311

-1.56
-0.23 -0.28

0.158
0.826 0.786

10

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

S = 0.524577 R-Sq = 89.91%

PRESS = 8.80578 R-Sq(pred) = 59.66% R-Sq(adj) = 81.09%

Improve 6
Determine solutions (ways to counteract causes) including operating levels and tolerances.

Regression Analysis: Response versus Pressure, Weld Time, Amplitude The regression equation is Response = 42.1 + 0.0192 Pressure + 0.00081 Weld Time - 0.215 Amplitude

Welder Machine Parameters

Constant Pressure Weld Time Amplitude Response Response= 42.1 + 0.768 + 0.263 10.750 = 32.4 Response= 42.1 + 0.768 + 0.263 12.900 = 30.2

Lower
Response is Vanity Lid Angle

Upper

AMPLITUDE PARAMETER TOLERANCES 0.5 TO 0.60 Wave Length

11

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Improve 7
Install solutions and provide statistical evidence that the solutions work.
Counteraction
Control the Amplitude parameter at Welder machine
Boxplot of Before, After VANITY LID ANGLE (Process Y)
33 32 31 30

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Before, After Two-sample T for Before vs After

Data

29 28 27 26 25 24 Before After

N Before 20

Mean 26.25

StDev 1.04

SE Mean 0.23

After

30

31.553

0.431

0.079

Improve

Improvement is statistically significant

Difference = mu (Before) - mu (After) Estimate for difference: -5.306

95% CI for difference:

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -21.55
Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

(-5.815, -4.796)
DF = 23

P-Value = 0.000

12

Control
8
Put controls in place to maintain improvement over time.

13

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007

Control
9
Provide statistical evidence that the improvement is sustained.
P Chart of PPMS / Visors with Gap on Vanity (Y Customer)
0.12 0.10 0.08 Before
1

I Chart of Scrap Cost (Y Business)

50000 Before After

After

40000 Individual Value

Proportion

30000

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

1

20000 UCL=11944 _ X=5178 LB=0 Date

UCL=0 _ P=0
3/2 3/9 3/16 3/23 3/30 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 LB=0

10000

1/20 1/27 2/3

2/10 2/17 2/24

Week Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

Aug 07 Sep 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Dec 07 Jan 08 Feb 08 Mar 08 Apr 08 May 08

I Chart of Vanity Lid Angle (Y process)

33 32 31 Individual Value 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 Observation 36 41 46 Before After UCL=32.49 _ X=31.55 LCL=30.62

Description
( wit h unit o f m e a s ure )

YC YB YP

PPMS Scrap (K USD) Vanity Lid Angle

Before 38,965 18.8

A vg: 26.25 St.Dev: 1 .04 P pk: -1 .09

Project Target 0 7.7

A vg: 31 .6 St.Dev: 0.5 Cpk: >1 .33

After 0 5.1
A vg: 31 .55 St.Dev: 0.43 P pk: 1 .47

% Improve 100% 73%

14

Johnson Controls, Inc. January 2007