P D A C. Driven by Excellence. Increase the Ppk of window runout from 0.3 to 1.33 by Mar 16. Project Champion : Mr. Pawan Khurana

Transcription

1 Driven by Excellence Increase the Ppk of window runout from 0. to 1. by Mar 1 Project Champion : Mr. Pawan Khurana Project Leader : Mr. Atul Aggarwal

2 Driven by Excellence Amtek Powertrain Ltd. Dharuhera Welcome to DL Shah Quality Award

3 Our Product Ring Gear Drive Plate This part is used to Start the Car Engine in automatic transmission Vehicle

4 Our Customer Ford FIAT Nissan Mazda General Motors PSA 4

5 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem (Tangible, Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

6 Abbreviation used in presentation CTQ Critical to Quality R/O-Run Out OD Outside Diameter FMEA- Failure Mode Effect Analysis CTP Critical to Process I-MR Chart Individual Moving Chart Gage R&R - Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility R- Chart X bar Chart Average Chart ANOVA Analysis Of Variance SD- Standard Deviation RCA Root Cause Analysis Cp Process Capability CpK- Process Capability Index Pp Process Performance Ppk Process performance index PPM Parts Per Million - Range Chart

7 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

8 Problem Selection Business CTQ: Remove the 100% Inspection of OD run out Customer: FORD Customer CTQ: Improve Ppk of window run out from 0. to 1. Internal CTQ / CBP: Eliminate the rejection due to window run out more than 0. Problem Statement APT Ltd has 100 % Inspection of OD Grinding Operation for Puma Flex Plate Assembly.Removing of 100% which leads to save the Inspection time.

9 Goal statement Goal Statement: Increase the Ppk of window run out from 0. to 1. by 1st Mar 1

10 Source of project Historically we were maintaining the window runout of T-,Assembly Component within 0.50, due to some Issue Design Related, Customer wants to change the window runout specification to max 0., Our Process is not capable to maintain the revised specification, So our Parts got reject at our end and we were managing the process by doing the rework & 100% inspection. So this was challenge to achieve the window run out with in 0. in the flex plate. To reduce the rework and 100 % inspection this project initiated.

11 CTQ Drill Down tree 100% Inspection OD Runout Run out is Out of spec More than (0.) Cpk is Less Internal CTQ Ppk is Less

12 Component Introduction Ring Gear Timing Can Ring Gear Both side View of Assembly Component of T- Ranger Drive Plate

13 Window run out checking gauge

14 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

15 Cross Functional team Pawan Khurana Atul Aggarwal Divakar Singh Devendra Kumar Bhavneet Kuamr Pawan Tyagi Business Head Operation Lean Engineering Maintenance Production Director Plant Head Manager A.M A.M Engineer Trial planning and execution Idea generation and feasibility study Machine up keeping as per standard, Machine modification Project Champion and active member Project Leader Photo Photo Support in project docket

16 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

17 As is process flow diagram Ring Gear Stacking Gear Gear Press Press MIG Welding Turning (Off Line at supplier End) Cam Piercing Window Piercing Can Face Turning Inspection ok Balancing Reject

18 Loss Opportunity Matrix Loss Short Term Long Term Opportunity Runout more than 0. Improve the Process will effect the increasing Capability Index as well as In cost of Rejection & reliability Lead to Customer complain Decrease Customer Satisfaction and gap between Demand vs Supply. Decrease Profitability Increase the customer Satisfaction Profitability & business

19 Current trend of Ppk (Jul 15 - Dec 15) Avg Ppk Ppk Value Ppk Value Conclusion: Average Ppk of window runout is 0.

20 Target Setting Ppk Value Ppk Value Avg Ppk Conclusion: Target for Average Ppk is 1. Target Ppk Avg Ppk Target Ppk

21 Baseline of Window runout Quality Metric Values Mean Std Dev Pp Can Not Calculated Ppk 0.2 Sigma Level 0.9 Conclusion: Average Ppk is 0.

22 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

23 Approach Improve the Process Capability Improve the Ppk from 0. to 1. Ring Gear Provide Sensor in Car Engine Very costly as per customer feedback, So Ignore this Solution

24 Gauge R&R For Window Run out Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Response Gage name: Date of study : Reported by : Mr.Pradeep Tolerance: Misc: Window Runout Gauge Components of Variation Response by Part No 100 % Contribution Percent % Study Var Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Abhay Ravinder 0.01 UCL= _ R=0.00 LCL= Abhay Sandeep Part No Graphical Representation of GRR Ravinder Operator Sandeep Part No * Operator Interaction _ UCL=0.2 X=0.22 LCL= Xbar Chart by Operator Ravinder 5 Part No Part No Abhay 4 Response by Operator Sandeep Operator Average Sample Range R Chart by Operator Sample Mean Abhay 0.25 Ravinder Sandeep Part No

25 Gauge R&R For Window Run out Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part No Operator Repeatability Total DF SS MS F P Gage R&R Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp StdDev(SD) %Contribution (of VarComp) Study Var ( * SD) %Study Var (%SV) Number of Distinct Categories = 1 Conclusion : GRR is 8.48% and NDC = 1, MSA is Acceptable

26 Control Chart for Window Run out I-MR Chart of Run out U C L=0.410 Indiv idual V alue _ X= LC L= O bse r v a tion M ov ing Range 0.20 U C L= M R= LC L= O bse r v a tion Conclusion :Run out data on control chart is stable because no data point is out of control limit

27 Process Capability of window run out Process Capability of Window Runout USL Within Ov erall P rocess Data LS L * Target * USL 0. S ample M ean S ample N 2200 S tdev (Within) S tdev (O v erall) P otential (Within) C apability Cp * C PL * C P U 0. C pk 0. O v erall C apability Pp PPL PPU P pk C pm O bserv ed P erformance P P M < LS L * P P M > U S L P P M Total E xp. PPM PPM PPM Within P erformance < LS L * > U S L Total E xp. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L * P P M > U S L P P M Total Conclusion : Ppk of the window run out = 0.0 * * *

28 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible, Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

29 Cause & Effect Diagram for Window R/O Cause-and-Effect Diagram Measurement Material Personnel Taper in Child Sheet thicknees Can R/O GRR Not Ok Gauge Calibration Unskilled Operator Can OD O/S Ring & Can Material Can OD turning Play in gauge Id block Operator Absenteeism Clampung Die loose Part Clamping Machine Spindle Part OD Contact Machine Spindle Radius matching Burr on OD Button Blunt Die Clamping Punch Blunt Fixture Run out M&R Die problem Window getting Environment Methods Machines Improve Ppk of Window runout

30 Multi -Voting Mohit Mahesh Rating Index Button Blunt 27 Machine Spindle play Machine Spindle Over load 8 Die loose Window getting taper at Cam piercing & Window Piercing 10 Fixture Run out not proper Die Clamping Burr on OD 0 9 S.N Categ Probable Causes Dharmendr Pawan Unskilled 2 Operator Absenteeism M&R Machine Die problem 4 Punch Blunt Man Machine Method Radius not match at Cam Piercing & Window piercing Dushyant Devendra 14 Part OD Contact area Part Clamping Not OK Clamping pressure Dust particle in contact area 1 22

31 Multi- Voting S.N Categ. Probable Causes Dharmendr Pawan Dushyant Devendra Manjinder Baljeet Rating Index 18 Taper in Child part Sheet thickness Variation Can runout increase after window piercing operation Material handling 9 22 Ring & Can Interference 9 2 Can OD O/S Can OD turning GRR Not Ok Material Measure 2 ment Gauge Calibration 27 Play in gauge Id block Rating Scale : 0,1,, & 9 Importance/Impact 0 No 1 Less Medium Prioritized X s Pick up rating index value above =40 Medium-High 9 High

32 Categorization of prioritized Causes Causes in No Man Machine Material

33 Data Statistical validation plan S No Potential Cause Unskilled Operator (X1) Punch Blunt (X2) Sheet thickness variation (X) Can runout increase after Window Piercing operation (X4) Can OD O/S (X5) Data Type Test to be performed Discrete ANOVA Discrete ANOVA Continuous Regression Continuous Regression Discrete ANOVA

34 ANOVA test for Operator Skill ( X1) General Linear Model: Operator Skill versus Runout Factor Operator Type fixed Levels 2 Values Operator Skilled, Operator Unskilled Analysis of Variance for Operator not Skilled, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source Operator Error Total DF S = Seq SS Adj SS R-Sq = 45.55% Adj MS F R-Sq(adj) = 42.5% General Linear Model Show that, Operator skill is a Significant factor (P<0.05) P 0.002

35 Why Why analysis ( X1) Window Runout more Defect Why 1 Why 2 Part Clamping process is not proper Operator does not know how to clamp the part Root Why Cause Conclusion : Provide the training to Operator Operator is not Skilled

36 Training Imparting ( X1) COUNTERMEASURE Provide the Training to All Operator.

37 Validation of Punch Blunt (X2) General Linear Model: Run out versus Punch Blunt Factor Punch Blunt Type fixed Levels 2 Values Punch Blunt, Punch Not Blunt Analysis of Variance for Run out, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source Punch Blunt Error Total DF S = Seq SS Adj SS R-Sq = 55.70% Adj MS F 21.7 P R-Sq(adj) = 5.09% Conclusion : General Linear Model Show that, Punch Blunt is a Significant factor (P<0.05)

38 Why why analysis Punch Blunt (X2) Defect Why 1 Why 2 Root Why Cause Window Runout is more Window Piercing is not proper Slot Punching tool Blunt No trigger is provided for tool reshape Conclusion : OPL prepared and Audio alarm to be installed on window piercing

39 Developing Solution Punch Blunt (X2) Through Brain Storming COUNTERMEASURE Starting tool history card system to monitor tool life and reshaping frequency. Audio Alarm to be installed on window piercing machine

40 Scatter plot for Sheet thickness Variation (X) Scatterplot of Run out vs Sheet thickness Run out Sheet thickness Conclusion : Scatter diagram show that there is weak negative relation between sheet thickness & Window R/O

41 Correlation b/w Sheet thickness & R/O Correlations: Runout, Sheet thickness Pearson correlation of Run out and Sheet r= thickness = P-Value = 0.75 Conclusion : Correlation coefficient = Show that weak negative relation ship between sheet thickness and run out and not significant because P value > 0.05

42 Regression of sheet thickness & R/O Regression Analysis: Run out versus Sheet thickness The regression equation is Run out = Sheet thickness S = R-Sq = 1.1% R-Sq(adj) = 0.0% Analysis of Variance Source Regression Error Total DF SS MS F P Conclusion : Regression Show that sheet thickness is not a significant factor for run out because p value is > 0.05

43 Scatter diagram for Can runout increase after window piercing operation & Response (X4) Scatter Diagramfor Can OD Runout vs Response Response Can OD Runout up to Conclusion : there is a strong Positive relation between Can runout increase after window piercing operation & Response

44 Correlation b/w Can runout increase after window piercing operation & Response (X4) Correlations: Can runout increase, after window piercing operation r= Pearson correlation of Can OD Runout up to 0.5 and Response = 0.81 P-Value = Conclusion : r=0.81 show that there is a strong Positive relation between Can Run out up to 0.5 & Response

45 Regression test for Can runout increase after window piercing operation (X4) Regression Analysis: Response versus Can runout increase after window piercing operation The regression equation is Response = Can runout increase After window piercing operation S = R-Sq = 74.1% R-Sq(adj) = 72.% Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Regression Error Total Conclusion : Regression Show that, Can runout increase after window piercing operation is a Significant factor (P< 0.05)

46 Why - Why Analysis (X4) Defect Why 1 Why 2 Root Why Cause Due to performing Window Piercing Operation, after Turning Natural distortion due to piercing operation Process limitation Conclusion : Introduce Grinding operation for can OD Grinding

47 Validation of Can OD Over Size (X5) General Linear Model: Run Out versus Can OD O/S Factor Can OD O/S Type fixed Levels 2 Values Can OD Over Size, Can OD Size OK Analysis of Variance for Run Out, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source Can OD Error Total O/S DF S = Seq SS Adj SS R-Sq = 0.27% Adj MS F 0.04 P 0.88 R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% General Linear Model Show that, Can OD Over Size is not a Significant factor (P>0.05)

48 Summary of Data validation S No. 1 2 Potential Cause Unskilled Operator (X1) Punch Blunt (X2) Sheet thickness Variation (X) Data Type P-Value Discrete Discrete Significant Continuous 0.4 Non Significant Significant 0.88 Non Significant Significant Can runout increase after Window Piercing operation Continuous 4 (X4) 5 Can OD O/S (X5) Discrete Impact Significant

49 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem ( Tangible, Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

50 Solution Drill down tree Reduce R/O under 0. Design process or product Process Product Reduce R/O under 0. Design product in a Car Process needs redesign Sensor Design for R/O > 0.mm Introduce Grinding operation High Investment

51 Action plan for validated X s S.N Action Plan Responsibility 1 Prepare a training Plan & Provide the On job training to all Operators Pawan Tyagi Done 2 Starting tool history card system to monitor Punch life and regrinding frequency Atul Aggarwal Done Customer has been agreed to Introduced Grinding operation 4 New Machine procurement process has been finalized & got Management approval Atul Aggarwal 5 Machine capability has been proved at manufacturer end Devendra Kumar New Machine has been procured for grinding operation Atul Aggarwal Atul Aggarwal Status Done Done Done Done

52 WI for tool life monitoring

53 Pictures of Grinding Machine Grinding Machine has been Installed for Grinding Operation

54 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem (Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

55 Bench Marking Bench Marking activity is not applicable because of below reasons: - Runout specification on other products is 0.5mm (max.) - No Flex plate Manufacturer does Grinding to maintain the runout as the specification is unique in nature Although we have tried to bench mark the process within the organization by comparing both the processes based on the product specification, without Grinding and with grinding and significant improvement is noticed. 55

56 Process Benchmarking Ppk Value Avg Ppk Benchmark Ppk Conclusion : Before and after control chart shows significant improvement in Ppk

57 Control chart of window run out before and after Conclusion : Before and after control chart shows significant improvement in window run out

58 Window run out before and after BEFORE AFTER Boxplot of W indow R unout Befor e, W indow R unout After Window Runout data Too many outliers in after conditions W indow Runout Before W indow Runout A fter Before 70% data is below the Target ( 0.) & After 100% data is below the target (0.) Window Runout

59 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem (Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

60 Control chart of window run out before and after Conclusion : Before and after control chart shows significant improvement in window run out

61 Sustenance of Ppk Before After Feb'1 Mar'1 1.2 Ppk Value Oct'15 Nov'15 Dec' Jul'15 Aug'15 Sep'15 Jan'1 Conclusion: Above trend chart shows improvement in Ppk value of window run out

62 Effectiveness of solutions Target is Ppk Value Avg Ppk Achieved Ppk Conclusion : Before and after control chart shows significant improvement in Ppk

63 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem (Tangible, Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

64 Control Plan Control Plan has been modified for Grinding Operation

65 Modified process flow diagram ( After) Ring Gear Stacking Gear Gear Press Press MIG Welding Turning (Off Line at supplier End) Cam Piercing Window Piercing Can Face Turning Grinding machine installed in after condition Grinding Balancing

66 Process Capability before and after comparison Conclusion : Window run out capability Ppk Shows significant improvement to meet the customer requirement

67 Methodology 1. Problem understanding 2. Cross functional team working. Data Source and collection 4. Technical approach 5. Diagnosis of problem (RCA and Quality tools deployed ). Ingenuity and Innovative approach 7. Benchmarking of the project 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Standardization and horizontal deployment 10.Impact of the problem (Tangible,Intangible and Socio-economic etc.)

68 Financial Benefit saving sheet Post project Net Saving per Annum=8.2 Lac INR

69 Intangible Benefit Customer Satisfaction Improve High Morale Improve process capability Increase in Confidence 100% Inspection stop Reduce Inspection time Team Spirit Enhancement Product Knowledge Increase

70