BM 240

Production and Operations Management

Crouse Fuse
Company
2nd CASE ANALYSIS
GROUP 3
 Group 3 2
Crouse Fuse Company

I. INTRODUCTION

Several companies produce electrical items that require fuses. A fuse

automatically disconnects a circuit from the electric power the moment more
current is drawn than its design allows. (Stern, 2010)

Crouse Fuse Company, known as CFC, is a company which produces a huge

amount of inexpensive fuses. One of their main product lines is being used by
manufacturers of strings of outdoor lights. These particular fuses consist of high-
resistance thin metallic wires that are mounted inside a small glass tube (figure
1):

Figure 1:

Recently, CFC has been found as a co-defendant in a lawsuit. The company

values and is concerned about the quality control issues. To ensure good quality
control standards, CFC monitored one of the shifts for one week.

Upon monitoring, some defective fuses were noted. Hence, CFC wants to make
use of statistical process charts to control their fuse production process and
address the quality control issues surrounding them.
II. CASE FACTS

a. SWOT Analysis
Strengths:
 CFC produces very large amounts of inexpensive fuses for a number of
different customers.
 Fuses produced by CFC consist of high-resistance thin metallic wires that
are mounted inside the small glass tube.
 CFC cater a wide variety of clientele
 One of the company’s major product line is being used by several
manufacturers of strings of outdoor lights.

Weaknesses
 The management of CFC admitted that their products cannot be perfect.
 The fuse as a commodity, the market will only pay a very low price for it.
 The company’s products have issues in relation to its quality
 CFC cannot perform 100% inspection

Opportunities
 To become the leading producer/manufacturer of fuse across the world.
 Opportunity to monitor and produce a high-quality fuses.

Threats
 Threat of more lawsuits resulting from claims from the customers.
 More property damage to clients if the quality issues are not addressed
properly.
b. Case Facts

CFC management wants to establish statistical process control (SPC) practices

to monitor their facility, to be assure that quality control standards are being
maintained over all shifts. In order to do this, the company need to determine the
operating characteristics of the process under normal conditions. To meet this end,
CFC carefully monitored one of the shifts at its fuse production facility for one week
(see Table 1). During this week of careful monitoring, the system was watched
closely to ensure that everything was operating under normal conditions.

Table 1. Quality Control Results from Operation during the Monitored week

Sample Number Sample

Number
Day Numbe Defectiv Day Numbe
Defective
r e r
1 1 0 3 9 0
1 2 1 3 10 2
1 3 0 3 11 2
1 4 2 3 12 0
1 5 2 3 13 0
1 6 1 3 14 1
1 7 2 3 15 1
1 8 2 3 16 3
1 9 0 4 1 0
1 10 0 4 2 1
1 11 0 4 3 2
1 12 2 4 4 2
1 13 0 4 5 0
1 14 1 4 6 1
1 15 3 4 7 1
1 16 2 4 8 2
2 1 0 4 9 1
2 2 0 4 10 1
2 3 1 4 11 1
2 4 0 4 12 2
2 5 3 4 13 2
2 6 2 4 14 0
2 7 2 4 15 3
2 8 3 4 16 2
2 9 1 5 1 0
 2 10 1 5 2 0
2 11 2 5 3 2
2 12 0 5 4 0
2 13 0 5 5 1
2 14 1 5 6 2
2 15 1 5 7 3
2 16 2 5 8 3
3 1 0 5 9 0
3 2 1 5 10 0
3 3 0 5 11 0
3 4 0 5 12 2
3 5 3 5 13 1
3 6 1 5 14 1
3 7 1 5 15 3
3 8 2 5 16 1

Given the situation that the CFC is facing, the wire-forming operation must be
recalibrated periodically to reset its operation to precise specifications for the
particular fuses being processed. The wire-forming process can be recalibrated by
shift supervisors at any time they choose to do so. However, the entire system
significantly slows down during the time that recalibration is being done. A natural
solution is to have the shift supervisors perform the recalibration before the start of
each shift, and then again during an employee break that occurs after the first four
hours of work on each shift. It has been made clear to the shift supervisors that this
recalibration procedure is of the utmost importance. Testing has now been
performed for both operating shifts for the first week of normal operation after the
monitored week, using testing procedures that are identical to the procedures that
were used during the monitored week. Testing results from the first and second
shifts were given, respectively, in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Quality Control Test Results from the First Shift

Numbe Numbe
Sampl r Sampl r
Day Day
e Defecti e Defecti
ve ve
1 1 0 3 9 0
1 2 1 3 10 1
1 3 0 3 11 2
 1 4 0 3 12 2
1 5 1 3 13 0
1 6 1 3 14 2
1 7 0 3 15 2
1 8 2 3 16 2
1 9 0 4 1 0
1 10 0 4 2 2
1 11 0 4 3 1
1 12 0 4 4 2
1 13 1 4 5 0
1 14 0 4 6 1
1 15 2 4 7 1
1 16 3 4 8 3
2 1 0 4 9 0
2 2 0 4 10 0
2 3 1 4 11 1
2 4 1 4 12 0
2 5 1 4 13 1
2 6 1 4 14 3
2 7 3 4 15 1
2 8 0 4 16 2
2 9 0 5 1 0
2 10 1 5 2 1
2 11 1 5 3 0
2 12 2 5 4 0
2 13 1 5 5 0
2 14 1 5 6 1
2 15 3 5 7 2
2 16 2 5 8 3
3 1 0 5 9 0
3 2 2 5 10 1
3 3 1 5 11 2
3 4 1 5 12 0
3 5 1 5 13 2
3 6 2 5 14 1
3 7 3 5 15 3
3 8 2 5 16 2

Table 3. Quality Control Test Results from the Second Shift

Number Number
Sampl Sampl
Day Defectiv Day Defectiv
e e
e e
1 1 0 3 9 0
 1 2 0 3 10 0
1 3 1 3 11 0
1 4 0 3 12 1
1 5 1 3 13 0
1 6 1 3 14 0
1 7 1 3 15 0
1 8 2 3 16 1
1 9 0 4 1 0
1 10 1 4 2 1
1 11 1 4 3 1
1 12 1 4 4 1
1 13 0 4 5 0
1 14 0 4 6 0
1 15 2 4 7 1
1 16 2 4 8 1
2 1 0 4 9 0
2 2 1 4 10 1
2 3 0 4 11 1
2 4 2 4 12 2
2 5 0 4 13 0
2 6 1 4 14 0
2 7 1 4 15 0
2 8 1 4 16 1
2 9 0 5 1 0
2 10 1 5 2 0
2 11 1 5 3 0
2 12 2 5 4 1
2 13 0 5 5 0
2 14 1 5 6 1
2 15 2 5 7 1
2 16 1 5 8 2
3 1 0 5 9 0
3 2 0 5 10 0
3 3 0 5 11 1
3 4 1 5 12 1
3 5 0 5 13 0
3 6 0 5 14 0
3 7 1 5 15 0
3 8 2 5 16 1

III. METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION

Statistical Process Control (SPC) employs statistical techniques using control

charts to monitor the occurrence of non-conformance products or services. It
indicates if the process has changed or improved and how well the products or
services follow the design specifications (Krajewski, 2013). This aids the
management to monitor the operation and to do something if the process needs
to be corrected. SPC involves testing a random sample of output from a process
to determine whether the process is producing items within a preselected range.

The Crouse management needs a control chart for attributes since the defect is
measured using a single decision- the item is defective or not. The most common
control charts for attributes are the:

a. p-chart, &
b. c-chart.

The p-chart is used for controlling the proportion of defects generated by the
process while the c-chart is more useful if there is more than one defect
(Krajewski, 2013). The most suitable SPC method to be used based on how the
sampling was made in the case and based on the management’s request to base
the SPC analysis on the proportion of defective units in a sample, is the p-chart.

The data from the monitored week were used to determine the central line of the
p-chart, standard deviation, Upper Control Limit (UCL) and the Lower Control
Limit (LCL). These limits are then used to monitor the sample proportion
defectives, p.
Given data and solutions:

Number of units/sample 50
Number of sample per day 16
Number of days/week 5
Total Number of units 4000

Z value 1.96

p = Total defectives = 94 = 0.0235

 Total number of observations 80(50)

s = p (1 - p ) = 0.0235 ( 1 - 0.0235) = 0.0214

n 50

UCLp = p + zp = 0.0235 + 1.96(0.0214) = 0.06549

p-Charts Control Limits

LCLp = p -Upper
zp Control
= 0.0235
Limit- 1.96(0.0214) = -0.01849
0.06549or zero
Center 0.0235
Lower Control Limit -0.01849 or zero

Since the LCL is a negative value, then we should have zero as the LCL since a
negative defect is not possible.

Sample measure or sample proportion defectives were calculated by dividing the

number of defectives per sample per day to the total number of samples per
sample batch per day. It is also assumed that time of day for 1 st and 2nd Shifts
were the following:

Sample Time of the day* Sample Time of the day*

Number 1st Shift 2nd Shift Number 1st Shift 2nd Shift
1 6:30 18:30 9 11:30 23:30
2 7:00 19:00 10 12:00 0:00
3 7:30 19:30 11 12:30 0:30
4 8:00 20:00 12 13:00 1:00
5 8:30 20:30 13 13:30 1:30
6 9:00 21:00 14 14:00 2:00
7 9:30 21:30 15 14:30 2:30
8 10:00 22:00 16 15:00 3:00

Table 4: Quality Control Results (Monitored week) with sample proportion defective
 Sample Number Sample Sample Number Sample
Day Day
Number Defective Measure Number Defective Measure
1 1 0 0.00% 3 9 0 0.00%
1 2 1 2.00% 3 10 2 4.00%
1 3 0 0.00% 3 11 2 4.00%
1 4 2 4.00% 3 12 0 0.00%
1 5 2 4.00% 3 13 0 0.00%
1 6 1 2.00% 3 14 1 2.00%
1 7 2 4.00% 3 15 1 2.00%
1 8 2 4.00% 3 16 3 6.00%
1 9 0 0.00% 4 1 0 0.00%
1 10 0 0.00% 4 2 1 2.00%
1 11 0 0.00% 4 3 2 4.00%
1 12 2 4.00% 4 4 2 4.00%
1 13 0 0.00% 4 5 0 0.00%
1 14 1 2.00% 4 6 1 2.00%
1 15 3 6.00% 4 7 1 2.00%
1 16 2 4.00% 4 8 2 4.00%
2 1 0 0.00% 4 9 1 2.00%
2 2 0 0.00% 4 10 1 2.00%
2 3 1 2.00% 4 11 1 2.00%
2 4 0 0.00% 4 12 2 4.00%
2 5 3 6.00% 4 13 2 4.00%
2 6 2 4.00% 4 14 0 0.00%
2 7 2 4.00% 4 15 3 6.00%
2 8 3 6.00% 4 16 2 4.00%
2 9 1 2.00% 5 1 0 0.00%
2 10 1 2.00% 5 2 0 0.00%
2 11 2 4.00% 5 3 2 4.00%
2 12 0 0.00% 5 4 0 0.00%
2 13 0 0.00% 5 5 1 2.00%
2 14 1 2.00% 5 6 2 4.00%
2 15 1 2.00% 5 7 3 6.00%
2 16 2 4.00% 5 8 3 6.00%
3 1 0 0.00% 5 9 0 0.00%
3 2 1 2.00% 5 10 0 0.00%
3 3 0 0.00% 5 11 0 0.00%
3 4 0 0.00% 5 12 2 4.00%
3 5 3 6.00% 5 13 1 2.00%
3 6 1 2.00% 5 14 1 2.00%
3 7 1 2.00% 5 15 3 6.00%
3 8 2 4.00% 5 16 1 2.00%
Table 5: Quality Control Results (First Shift) with sample proportion defective and
assumed time of day per sample batch

Number Sample Time of Number Sample Time of

Day Sample Day Sample
Defective Measure the day* Defective Measure the day*
1 1 0 0.00% 6:30 3 9 0 0.00% 11:30
1 2 1 2.00% 7:00 3 10 1 2.00% 12:00
1 3 0 0.00% 7:30 3 11 2 4.00% 12:30
1 4 0 0.00% 8:00 3 12 2 4.00% 13:00
1 5 1 2.00% 8:30 3 13 0 0.00% 13:30
1 6 1 2.00% 9:00 3 14 2 4.00% 14:00
1 7 0 0.00% 9:30 3 15 2 4.00% 14:30
1 8 2 4.00% 10:00 3 16 2 4.00% 15:00
1 9 0 0.00% 11:30 4 1 0 0.00% 6:30
1 10 0 0.00% 12:00 4 2 2 4.00% 7:00
1 11 0 0.00% 12:30 4 3 1 2.00% 7:30
1 12 0 0.00% 13:00 4 4 2 4.00% 8:00
1 13 1 2.00% 13:30 4 5 0 0.00% 8:30
1 14 0 0.00% 14:00 4 6 1 2.00% 9:00
1 15 2 4.00% 14:30 4 7 1 2.00% 9:30
1 16 3 6.00% 15:00 4 8 3 6.00% 10:00
2 1 0 0.00% 6:30 4 9 0 0.00% 11:30
2 2 0 0.00% 7:00 4 10 0 0.00% 12:00
2 3 1 2.00% 7:30 4 11 1 2.00% 12:30
2 4 1 2.00% 8:00 4 12 0 0.00% 13:00
2 5 1 2.00% 8:30 4 13 1 2.00% 13:30
2 6 1 2.00% 9:00 4 14 3 6.00% 14:00
2 7 3 6.00% 9:30 4 15 1 2.00% 14:30
2 8 0 0.00% 10:00 4 16 2 4.00% 15:00
2 9 0 0.00% 11:30 5 1 0 0.00% 6:30
2 10 1 2.00% 12:00 5 2 1 2.00% 7:00
2 11 1 2.00% 12:30 5 3 0 0.00% 7:30
2 12 2 4.00% 13:00 5 4 0 0.00% 8:00
2 13 1 2.00% 13:30 5 5 0 0.00% 8:30
2 14 1 2.00% 14:00 5 6 1 2.00% 9:00
2 15 3 6.00% 14:30 5 7 2 4.00% 9:30
2 16 2 4.00% 15:00 5 8 3 6.00% 10:00
3 1 0 0.00% 6:30 5 9 0 0.00% 11:30
3 2 2 4.00% 7:00 5 10 1 2.00% 12:00
3 3 1 2.00% 7:30 5 11 2 4.00% 12:30
3 4 1 2.00% 8:00 5 12 0 0.00% 13:00
3 5 1 2.00% 8:30 5 13 2 4.00% 13:30
3 6 2 4.00% 9:00 5 14 1 2.00% 14:00
3 7 3 6.00% 9:30 5 15 3 6.00% 14:30
3 8 2 4.00% 10:00 5 16 2 4.00% 15:00

Table 6: Quality Control Results (Second Shift) with sample proportion defective and
assumed time of day per sample batch
 Number Sample Time of Number Sample Time of
Day Sample Day Sample
Defective Measure the day* Defective Measure the day*
1 1 0 0.00% 18:30 3 9 0 0.00% 23:30
1 2 0 0.00% 19:00 3 10 0 0.00% 0:00
1 3 1 2.00% 19:30 3 11 0 0.00% 0:30
1 4 0 0.00% 20:00 3 12 1 2.00% 1:00
1 5 1 2.00% 20:30 3 13 0 0.00% 1:30
1 6 1 2.00% 21:00 3 14 0 0.00% 2:00
1 7 1 2.00% 21:30 3 15 0 0.00% 2:30
1 8 2 4.00% 22:00 3 16 1 2.00% 3:00
1 9 0 0.00% 23:30 4 1 0 0.00% 18:30
1 10 1 2.00% 0:00 4 2 1 2.00% 19:00
1 11 1 2.00% 0:30 4 3 1 2.00% 19:30
1 12 1 2.00% 1:00 4 4 1 2.00% 20:00
1 13 0 0.00% 1:30 4 5 0 0.00% 20:30
1 14 0 0.00% 2:00 4 6 0 0.00% 21:00
1 15 2 4.00% 2:30 4 7 1 2.00% 21:30
1 16 2 4.00% 3:00 4 8 1 2.00% 22:00
2 1 0 0.00% 18:30 4 9 0 0.00% 23:30
2 2 1 2.00% 19:00 4 10 1 2.00% 0:00
2 3 0 0.00% 19:30 4 11 1 2.00% 0:30
2 4 2 4.00% 20:00 4 12 2 4.00% 1:00
2 5 0 0.00% 20:30 4 13 0 0.00% 1:30
2 6 1 2.00% 21:00 4 14 0 0.00% 2:00
2 7 1 2.00% 21:30 4 15 0 0.00% 2:30
2 8 1 2.00% 22:00 4 16 1 2.00% 3:00
2 9 0 0.00% 23:30 5 1 0 0.00% 18:30
2 10 1 2.00% 0:00 5 2 0 0.00% 19:00
2 11 1 2.00% 0:30 5 3 0 0.00% 19:30
2 12 2 4.00% 1:00 5 4 1 2.00% 20:00
2 13 0 0.00% 1:30 5 5 0 0.00% 20:30
2 14 1 2.00% 2:00 5 6 1 2.00% 21:00
2 15 2 4.00% 2:30 5 7 1 2.00% 21:30
2 16 1 2.00% 3:00 5 8 2 4.00% 22:00
3 1 0 0.00% 18:30 5 9 0 0.00% 23:30
3 2 0 0.00% 19:00 5 10 0 0.00% 0:00
3 3 0 0.00% 19:30 5 11 1 2.00% 0:30
3 4 1 2.00% 20:00 5 12 1 2.00% 1:00
3 5 0 0.00% 20:30 5 13 0 0.00% 1:30
3 6 0 0.00% 21:00 5 14 0 0.00% 2:00
3 7 1 2.00% 21:30 5 15 0 0.00% 2:30
3 8 2 4.00% 22:00 5 16 1 2.00% 3:00

IV. ANALYSIS
Chart 1: p-Chart for Sample proportion defective for Monitored week (at 99.73% confidence
level)

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%
Sample
4.00% Measure

3.00% UCL

2.00% Center
1.00% LCL
0.00%
13

19
22

28

34

43

49

55
58

64

70

79
1
4
7
10

16

25

31

37
40

46

52

61

67

73
76
Chart 2: p-Chart for Sample proportion defective for First Shift (at 99.73% confidence level)

7.00%

6.00%

5.00%
Sample
Measur
4.00% e
3.00% UCL
2.00% Center
1.00% LCL
0.00%
1
4
7

13

19
22

28

34

43

49

55
58

64

70

79
10

16

25

31

37
40

46

52

61

67

73
76

Chart 3: p-Chart for Sample proportion defective for Second Shift (at 99.73% confidence level)
7.00%

6.00%

5.00% Sample
Measur
4.00% e

3.00% UCL

2.00% Center

1.00% LCL

0.00%
13
16
19

31
34
37
40
43

58
61
64

76
79
1
4
7
10

22
25
28

46
49
52
55

67
70
73
Table 7: Comparison of defective samples

Number of defective Number of defective Highest sample

Chart sample proportion sample proportion proportion
above the std. below the std. defective
deviation (center) deviation (center)

1 31 49 6%

2 27 53 6%

3 9 71 4%

As shown in chart 2 and chart 3 and table 7, the highest sample proportion defective
is 6% while the lowest is 0% for both shifts. The two shifts have proportion
defectives within the UCL and the LCL and thus the process is in control.
However, it is very evident that the second shift produces lower defects and has
lower incidents of high defects, even compared to the monitored week. The second
shift’s highest proportion defective is only 4% compared to the monitored week and
the first shift’s 6%.

Based on the charts presented above, the production operation of CFC is in control
since the monitored week and the week of monitoring the 1 st shift and 2nd shift is
within the UCL and LCL. However, there’s a significant difference between the
monitored week, 1st shift and the 2nd shift in terms of producing with lower defects as
shown in the Table 7. The following observations are being observed by the group
for the differences:

1. Recalibration - The difference between the 1 st week (monitored week) and the
2nd week (1st shift and 2nd shift) is solely evident by the recalibration being
performed by the shift supervisors before the start and during break-times of the
shifts. Recalibration procedures lessen the defective units from the 1 st week to
the 2nd week.

2. There’s a significant differences between the 1 st shift and the 2nd shift – the group
noted the following assumptions from the improvement of the performance of the
2nd shift against the 1st shift:

a. May be the 2nd shift workers are more skilled than the 1st shift workers.
b. May be workers are more effective at 2 nd shift compared when they are in the
1st shift.

3. A closer look at the performance of the workers per hour, per shift and per day

Chart 4: Line graph comparison of three data sets per sample

14

12

10

8
Monitored
1st
6
2nd

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
 a. It was observed based on Chart 4 that incidents of high defects occurred
frequently during near end of break times after the first four hours of the shift
and near end of shifts. From this, we may attribute the occurrence of defects
to worker fatigue among others. CFC may adopt precautionary measures to
avoid this.

4. Analysis of the defects per shift and per day using bar graph and pie graph
analysis)

Chart 5: Number of defects per shift per day (using Bar graph)

25

20

15
Monitored
1st
10 2nd

0
1 2 3 4 5

Chart 6: Number of defects per shift per day (using pie graph)
The following observations have been observed based on Chart 5 and 6:
a. Defectives in monitored week are at peak at day 4 of the work week.
b. Defectives in the 1st shift are at peak at day 3 of the work week.
c. Defectives in the 2nd shift are at peak at day 2 of the work week.

CFC must determine the causes of the variance in defectives to take corrective
actions in the future. For example, the 1 st shift incurred more defective units at day 3
of the work week and the company found out that the cause is from the system
shutdown during that time because of power interruption. By knowing the cause
attributable to the defects, the company must adopt the necessary measures and
contingency plan if that scenario would happen again in the future.
V. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

a. Fishbone (Ishikawa) Diagram

b. Variations or Problems Identified

Based on methodologies used and discussions above, the group identified the
following problems in the case:

i. Defective units normally occurs during near end break-times and near end
of the shifts. This may be associated with the fatigue factor of workers
near the end of each shifts. Both shifts normally incurred defective units
during that time.
ii. There’s a significant difference between the 1st shift and the 2nd shift in
terms of defective units produced. This may be associated to the following
factors: (1) the 2nd shift workers may be more effective and skilled
compared to the 1st shift workers, or (2) the workers are more effective
and productive during 2nd shift may be because of working environment
conditions associated with working at night compared in working at day-
time.

c. Problem Statement

How will CFC minimize or avoid producing defective units and maintain the
quality standards set forth by the company?

VI. RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

 Total Quality Management (TQM) greatly affects the performance of each unit
comprising the company. Thus, this must be given an utmost importance by the
management in order to attain its objectives and resolve their quality control
issues. The table presented below summarizes the solutions to different cause of
the problems and variations derived from the methodology used and discussions
above.

Table 8: Summary of recommendations and implementation plans

Issues Details Recommendations Time

(TQM)
1. People/Manpower - Inadequate training - CFC should conduct
of workers trainings for its workers
- Poor knowledge of to improve their
the process effectiveness and
- Commitment by efficiency towards
workers work.
- Employee - Periodic review/
involvement and assessment of work
empowerment related performances.
- Job rotations - Employee recognition
for outstanding
performances.
-
2. Management - Shift supervisors - Assessment of
skills and leadership leadership
styles competencies
- Management - Quality control must be
commitment to of utmost importance
Quality for the management
- Incentive programs - Improve incentive
- programs for its
workers (e.g. additional
bonus for quality
performances)
3. Environment - Industry standards - Seek ISO certification
(internal and - Customer for total quality
external) expectations and management
involvement - Improve the working
- Working environment for the
environment whole facility.
 conditions - Enhance the ventilation
- as to improve the
capacity of the
machines and workers.
4. Processes - Incurring more - Implement revised
defective units working hours and
during near end of break-time to improve
break-times and worker efficiency and
near end of shifts. effectiveness and avoid
- Machine worker fatigue.
recalibration and Recalibration will take
maintenance place every start and
- Shift break-time break-times of the
- Systems to facilitate shifts to minimize the
improvements occurrence of defects
- Focus on since it is very evident
processes/improve that the recalibration
ment plans and break-times of the
workers increases their
effectiveness and
minimizes the defective
units produced. (See
Table _ for the revised
working and
recalibration schedule).
- Periodic review using
SPC will help the
manufacturing process
to be monitored
regularly and take
corrective actions if
problems occurred.

The group emphasized the importance of total quality management (TQM) as a tool
in improving the company’s quality control. Hence, it will start from the top
management’s commitment to quality control and assurance.

Based on the analysis of the charts presented above, it is very evident that the
occurrences of defective units are minimized after the machines were recalibrated
and after the workers have gained a short rest.
 Calibration is the process of evaluating and adjusting the precision and accuracy of
equipment. Proper calibration allows people to have a safe working environment and
produce effective outputs. Importance of equipment recalibration includes saving the
company’s reputation from producing defective outputs (e.g. customer lawsuits), and
providing a safe working environment for the workers. Recalibration procedures will
now be performed before the start of each shift and during break-times (1 st, 2nd, and
3rd break).

Table 9: Proposed revised working schedule

Time 1st shift Time 2nd shift

6:30am-8.30am 6:30pm-8.30pm
8:30am-9:00am 1st Break-time 8:30pm-9:00pm 1st Break-time
9:00am-11:00am 9:00pm-11:00pm
11:00am-12:00nn 2nd Break-time 11:00pm-12:00mn 2nd Break-time
12:00nn-2:00pm 12:00mn-2:00am
2:00pm-2:30pm 3rd Break-time 2:00am-2:30am 3rd Break-time
2:30-4:30pm 2:30am-4:30am

Trainings should not be neglected by the management in order for the workers to
become more productive and efficient in their respective work.

Commitment by the management to Total Quality Management (TQM) will result to

the quality improvements which the company has long been working on. The group
presented a flow diagram of how will quality improvement will benefit the company:

Flow 1: Benefits of Quality Improvement

VII. CONTINGENCY
VIII. REFERENCES:

1. Krajewski, L.J.,Ritzman, L.P., Malhotra, M.K. (2013). Operations

Management:Processes and Supply Chains. England: Pearson Education Inc.
2. http://www.ateneonline.it/chase2e/studenti/tn/6184-7_tn07.pdf