1. Process Improvement in ABC Ltd2. Implementation of 5S in Ware-house

GROUP

1.035– Yogeshwar Kulkarni

2.055 – Amit Sethia

3.018 – Ajitsingh Dubal

4.062 –Shashank Singh

5.042 – Amit S Pandey

6.058 –Parvez Shaikh

Mentor: Dr P. N. Mukherjee

Managing Business Operations

2Group-Spanner

Assembly of Pinion to the High Speed Motor Application of Motor

3Group-Spanner

1.Process Over View

4Group-Spanner

Process Overview-Current Scenario and Improvement Desired

Current Scenario Station cycle time was 18 seconds (including Inspection)

100% inspection as height is critical to quality.-Non Value Add

First Pass Yield below 70%- High Rejection/Rework Rate

Returned Motor Analysis (100nos /1000 dispatched quantity) had shown assemblies deviated upto 1mm in height.- Operator Dependability & Customer Dissatisfaction

Improvement Desired-Reduction of Wastages (MUDA) To imbibe in the people the need to improve the current system.

To reduce inventory by reducing the factor of rejection in the motor assembly.

Reduction of Cycle Time( processing Time) per Assembly.

Reduction of paper work by doing sampling inspection in place of 100% inspection

Reduction of Inspection cycle. To move from QC to QA-Non Value Add

Reduction of wastages. High Rejection/Rework Rate

Reduction in Customer Rejection level which is 10% at the moment.- Operator Dependability & Customer Dissatisfaction

5Group-Spanner

Process Improvement- Need

Problem Identification,Root Cause AnalysisProcess Review.

Implementation on a pilot scale

SPC study

Implement the change, Horizontal Deployment

6Group-Spanner

PLAN – Problem Identification

Process Improvement- Use Fish Bone Analysis tool Construct Cause & Effect Diagram•Agree on a problem statement (Effect). Write it at the center right of the flipchart or whiteboard. Draw a box around it and draw a horizontal arrow running to it.•Brainstorm the major categories of causes of the problem which are listed as below :

MethodsMachines (equipment)People (manpower)MaterialsMeasurementEnvironment

•Write the categories of causes as branches from the main arrow.•Brainstorm all the possible causes of the problem. Ask: “Why does this happen?” As each idea is given, the facilitator writes it as a branch from the appropriate category. Causes can be written in several places if they relate to several categories.•Again ask “why does this happen?” about each cause. Write sub–causes branching off the causes. Continue to ask “Why?” and generate deeper levels of causes. Layers of branches indicate causal relationships.•When the group runs out of ideas, focus attention to places on the chart where ideas are few.

7Group-Spanner

Plan- Root Cause Analysis

Fish-Bone Diagram

Height Out of Spec

Man Machine

Material Method Environment

Operator doesn’t know operation

Unable to Measure

Inconsistent while operating

Bought out -Pinion Height out of Spec

Bought out – Cup Plate Out of Spec

Motor Assembly Out Spec from previous operation

Process Inconsistency

8Group-Spanner

Plan- Process Review

Outcomes of Fish Bone analysis

Material – Within Tolerance

Machine- No Inconsistency

Man- Skill require to measure the component during entire production lot. May lead to inspection error. Reactive Measures

Method- Assembly process creating variation in the readings . Error Originator

Conclusion: Change the method of Assembly of Pinion to the motor.

9Group-Spanner

Do-Old Process of Assembly

10Group-Spanner

Do-New Process of Assembly

11Group-Spanner

Check- New Process Capability Study

12Group-Spanner

Act- After verification of Results of New Process

Results

As Pp & Ppk values are almost = 2; only 3.4 Parts per Million are expected to be defective. Hence process yield has improved from 70 % to 99.99966%.

This has reduced rework cost.

No 100% measurement. Only set-up approval measurement (first 5 pieces before start of production)

No Operator dependability.

Increased Customer Confidence Level.

Horizontal Deployment

ACT: Implement the new process of Assembly of Pinion to the motor.

13Group-Spanner

Implementation of 5S in the Warehouse of XXX Ltd

14Group-Spanner

2. WareHouse-Old (Before Implementation of 5S)

Seiri-Orderliness Kitting Time = 140 Minutes/ Motor Model

Seiso- Clarity Quantity Mismatch (ERP Vs Actual)= 48%Inventory Measurement Cycle = 7 daysNo. operator for kitting = 5

Seiton-Tidiness Damaged due to improper storage = 20%

Seiketsu-Cleaniness Warehouse was quite disaarayed and lacked cleaniness.

Shitsuke-Sustain No discipline at warehouse.

15Group-Spanner

Ware House- After Implementing 5s

Seiri-Orderliness Kitting Time reduced to 30 Minutes/ Motor ModelSeiso- Clarity Quantity Mismatch reduced to 4% only

Inventory Measurement Cycle reduced to 3 from 7 daysNo. operator for kitting reduced to 2 from 5

Seiton-Tidiness Material Damaged Cost reduced to 0% almostSeiketsu-Cleaniness Warehouse looks clean and organised with the same

allocation of resources to clean.

Shitsuke-Sustain Strict discipline in the ware house

16Group-Spanner

Ware House- After Implementing 5s

Advantages Particulars

Traceability Increased substantially which has resulted in decrease in manhours and thus savings for the company.

Clarity Mismatch in reporting has reduced which has helped the organisation to reduce inventory pile up because of false reporting of inventory.

Inventory Damage There is no damage of Inventory as each ite is located in a organised manner and as per the logic.

Labour Hours Saving

As there is no confusion in the warehouse operations there is less need of manhours to maintain the warehouse. The cost of labour has reduced by 60%.

Productivity There is substantial increase in productivity of the warehouse department. The Inventory physical verification has reduced to 3 days which was 7 days earlier.

17Group-Spanner