RESULTS

Identifying CTQs
Following the identification of the six key failure modes, the critical to quality (CTQ)
variables that go along with them are determined. The canning and filling sectors experience
scraps as a result of these CTQs. The inaccuracy of plate dimensions, low and high hardness,
plate thickness, and improperly set equipment for the kind of plate are the main causes of scrap
cans in the cutting section. The most significant causes of scrap cans in this line are also thought
to be the unadjusted feeder, the worn-out components in the welding section during production,
the improper thickness, the hardness of the bare electrode, and the unadjusted crown of the
device.

Important elements including uncorrected side pressure and the perpendicularity of the
reels' departure in the bottom seamer production section led to the manufacture of junk cans.
Numerous cans are rejected, and low-quality oil is created as the cans go from the seamer
production area to the filling section, which has several conveyor devices and is lacking in exact
research. These variables include can cripple before filling and can dirtiness. Important and
numerous factors, including the spilling of oil from the cans, air entering the full cans, and
crippling of the cans in the filling section, led to scrap cans and oil waste in the filling section.
Due to improper sewing of the filled cans and the obstacle in its way for the final mode, the top
seamer, both the oil and the cans were wasted. Table 2 provides an illustration of the CTQs'
measured values.
 Table 2: The measurement of the identified CTQs at the 4-litre line.

The plate cutting section's scrap levels are 0.6 and 0.09, respectively, according to the
collected CTQs. for the plate's high and low thicknesses and hardness, respectively. At the
welding section, the unadjusted feeder, worn-out components from production, an improper bare
electrode thickness and hardness, and an unadjusted device crown account for 0.1, 0.4, 0.5, and
0.6 percent of the scrap, respectively. In the seamer section, it is also possible to see each reel's
uncorrected side pressure and perpendicularity with 0.75% scrap.

From the seamer to the filling section, the scrap is computed as 0.15%, with crippled and
filthy cans coming before the filling. The CTQ is split into two groups in the fifth mode: filling
and canning. The three most significant factors are oil overflow, air entering the can, and can
crippling in the filling area, with respective values of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.05% for the filling section,
while the percentage of canning scrap used in canning is calculated at 0.3%. There are two
groups of filling and canning section scraps in the top seamer area. With 0.05 and 0.4% of scrap
in the filling area, respectively, and 0.75 and 0.75% for the canning section, the two most
significant CTQs can cripple and improper stitching of the full can lid.

Since the plate cutting and welding parts of the production line come before the
subsequent sections and their issues will result in more waste in those sections, these two modes
are taken into consideration for further research. This agrees with the contention made by Tiku et
al. (2005) regarding the potential for common mode failures. They believed that failure might
occur as a direct result of the shared or common underlying causes and can impact a group of
functionally identical components or systems.
Plate cutting
Table 3 displays the FMEA for cutting plates. As seen, there are four possible failure
types that are thought to lead to can scraps. 3 of these 4 methods of Potential failures are related
to suppliers supplying inappropriate plates, which can lead to can scraps and some production-
line issues. Currently, the corporation has no influence over how the plate is transmitted, but the
fourth form of probable failure is relevant given the lack of system modification that pays proper
attention to the type of applied plate. This mode has the highest level of importance and the
highest RPN. The operator's lack of precision and any viable controls are the root of this issue.
Insufficient training, operator mistakes, and attitude are all factors that can contribute to
unreliability, according to Sharma and Sharma (2010), whereas issues with machines such faulty
calibrations or misalignments can lead to a reduction in operating efficiency. This mode of
possible failure has a high level of severity and almost a high frequency. Teams of eight and six
individuals are consequently assigned to them, respectively.

Table 3: FMEA for plating cutting.

Welding
The welding section's FMEA is shown in Table 4. The issues with this welding portion
led to can body scraps. Maximum RPN is associated with the nonalignment feeder that results
from insufficient operator expertise and inaccurate tools. Daily, weekly, and monthly restrictions
over the feeder are not entirely successful, though. The second RPN is relevant to how the
system portions where it is manufactured are eroding. The following cases of the RPNs of 60 and
27 are, respectively, unsuitable system crown, unfit diameter, and harshness of bare electrode.

Table 4: FMEA for welding.

Improvement
After determining the underlying reasons of the issues, improvement can begin. In order
to accomplish this, the improvement team engages in brainstorming and makes use of the
ingenuity and imagination of the attendees to identify solutions to the problems' core causes.
Following this, the suggested solutions are assessed in light of each approach's cost-benefit
analysis, and lastly, the best solutions are discussed for the process's improvement. The solutions
are then totally reevaluated for their execution risk factors, and the improvement plan is put into
action based on how well it will improve the process and reduce down on scraps. The
improvement team's suggestions for the six failure modes are listed in Tables 5 and 6 in order of
importance.

The improvements that are suggested in Tables 5 and 6 are primarily focused on operator
training, process control, and prevention, which is similar to the recommendations made in the
resources available on the application of FMEA (Ookalkar et al., 2009; Estorilio and Posso,
2010; Sawhney et al., 2010; Tanik, 2010).

Table 5: Solutions suggested by the improvement team at plate cutting.

Table 6: Solution suggested by the improvement team at welding.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this study, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), a crucial component of Iran's
oil sector, was used to enhance the quality of Sepahan Oil Co.'s four-liter manufacturing line.
Can manufacturing and can filling were two crucial components of this production system. The
percentage of discarded cans and the percentage of wasted oil were the two significant wastes
that were examined. This study placed more emphasis on the caning procedure.

According to the findings, using FMEA reduced losses, which in turn increased
profitability. However,The welding portion was where the majority of the changes were made.
Various predetermined pieces were used to measure CTQs. Plate cutting and weld points made
up the canning section's scrap percentages, which were 9.86 and 1.6 respectively. The procedures
were examined to find any existing issues. In this analysis, it was advantageous for the problem-
solving team members' perspectives to converge in order to identify the root causes of the issues
and conduct tests to support those perspectives. FMEA was applied at this point to identify the
problems' underlying causes. Based on the study of RPN values derived from FMEA in the
"Cutting mode," the majority of scraps in the cutting area came from the unadjusted machinery,
with RPN = 9.5 10 3 = 285. In actuality, the figure of 9.5 was the maximum subjective value of
occurrence and was calculated by multiplying the total value of scrap percentages at the plate
cutting portion by 10. The improvement team assigned a maximum score of 10 and 3 for severity
and detection rate, respectively. The improvement team's examination revealed that the
operator's carelessness in adjusting the gadget led to the creation of scrap. Both field research
and statistical analysis have supported this. RPN = 10 6 4 = 240, which indicates that the
uncorrected feeder and worn-out components during manufacturing had the greatest impact on
the output of scraps in the "welding mode" of the FMEA. Because the entire value of the scrap
percentages at the welding area multiplied by 10 was greater than the highest possible subjective
value of occurrence, the occurrence value of 10 was actually taken into consideration. The team
gave it a value of 10, thus that is what it was given. The improvement team also gave the factors
of severity and detection rate a score of 6 and 4, respectively. The improvement team's findings
revealed that device issues led to scrap, taking into account the welding section devices. Field
study and statistical analyses confirmed this. The improvement team started by identifying
potential answers through numerous brainstorming sessions, and after carefully examining all of
the solutions, they announced the most crucial improvement techniques for the targeted areas.
While conducting operator training and utilizing knowledge in the plate cutting area, special
attention was paid to the maintenance schedules in the welding sector. The percentage of can
waste, however, was reduced from 50000 to 5000 ppm after the improvement steps were put into
place, and the proportion of oil waste was decreased from 1 to 0.08%.

The huge improvement in each of the criteria established following the introduction of
FMEA is evident in this study, underscoring the fact that the new approach has a significant
impact on the oil production line. However, one of the most crucial factors of the FMEA project
that supports the use of the suggested technique is the cost savings. According to the project
team's calculations, implementing FMEA resulted in a net profit of $558 726. This is determined
by computing the cost savings brought on by a decrease in waste.

Aside from the summary of findings already presented, it is concluded that the number of
CTQ criteria relies on the volume of products, the complexity of the manufacturing processes,
and whether or not quality improvement methods have been used in the past. It's possible that
managers' readiness and desire to utilize cutting-edge quality engineering methodologies vary by
country. FMEA was used to the Sepahan Co. as an example in this study and was tailored for the
oil canning businesses. It is crucial to remember that there can be difficulties when adopting the
methodology in other oil firms and with higher assurance in other industries (Teng and Ho,
2006). Some issues are related to the RPN computation and the FMEA technique (Shahin, 2004;
Chang and Sun, 2009).

However, it appears that there is a significant demand for qualitative development in

Iran's oil sector given the importance of energy, which will only increase over the course of this
century. The entire Iranian oil industry might benefit from the ongoing development and
deployment of methodologies like FMEA. Other companies working in Iran's oil industry are
anticipated to benefit from the outcomes in terms of advantages like enhanced return rate, greater
process capacity, increased efficiency, decreased process time cycles, and decreased waste. The
outcomes at each level of applying the technique should be contrasted with the team members'
intuitive perceptions. Analyses can be used to pinpoint the causes of divergences where they are
seen. The outcomes of the technique's various stages can then be modified as necessary.

The study's discussion of the implementation of FMEA will assist managers in more
realistically modeling, analyzing, and projecting the behavior of industrial systems (Sharma and
Sharma, 2010). The use of FMEA is subject to several restrictions, though. The criteria for
severity and detection evaluation are arbitrary; for instance, there is no clear line between "high"
and "very high" in the criteria for detection evaluation. Consequently, a measuring bias could
exist (Ookalkar et al., 2009). The hotly contested drawback of FMEA based on RPN analysis is
that different combinations of failure occurrence probability, severity, and detectability may
generate the same value, but the risk implication may be completely different, resulting in the
possibility of high-risk occurrences going undiscovered. The relative relevance of the three
elements is ignored by the RPN ranking algorithm, which is another drawback. The three criteria
are thought to be equally important, however in actual practical implementations, each factor has
a different relative weight (Sharma and Sharma, 2010). Estorilio and Posso (2010) contend that
the method's application is inconsistent. They noted these inconsistencies and suggested a plan to
reduce them. Their research identified seven elements that contributed to these discrepancies.
The plan included an FMEA form that was only partially configured.

The significance of the improvement team was stressed in this study. It's vital to realize
that many businesses only allow employees to increase their productivity by learning new skills.
However, the workplace of organizations is where around 86% of productivity issues are located.
Employee performance is impacted by the work environment (Taiwo, 2010). In this way, team
management is a crucial tactic for enhancing business performance (Azeez et al., 2009). On the
other hand, TQM as a collaborative quality system and knowledge management (KM) greatly
boost performance for any firm, as discussed by Ooi (2009). Additionally, Afrazeh (2010)
investigated a few Iranian oil businesses and discovered that incorporating knowledge
management (KM) into work processes—including those that involve customers—improved the
effectiveness of these tasks. Kuen et al. (2009) provide empirical evidence to support the claim
that project people competency and project mission are key determinants of micro project
success. Additionally, top management support and the project mission are two crucial elements
for the success of macro projects. In conclusion, teamwork and knowledge management should
be heavily stressed in order to improve the efficacy of FMEA initiatives.

While FMEA was used in this inquiry in a few designated areas of the production line of
Sepahan Oil Co., the methodology might still be further investigated in the other remaining areas
of the production line. It is significant to highlight that the size of businesses may influence how
FMEA is applied; as a result, research into the relationship between organizational size and the
efficiency and efficacy of the method is advised. FMEA application in other nations' oil
industries and comparison of those results with those from the current study could lead to some
excellent research possibilities and outcomes. It appears that additional study needs to be done in
order to strengthen FMEA. To further increase its applicability, the implementation procedure
might make use of mathematical tools like optimization theory and other related quality
methodologies. In order to prioritize the corrective action after a critical failure evaluation,
Davidson and Labib (2003) used the analytical hierarchy priority (AHP). However, the
limitations on the resource that the company owns should also be taken into account while
minimizing the consequences of a critical failure. In such a case, the theory of constraints (TOC)
can serve as a foundation for a more practical risk mitigation plan. As some academics have
attempted to offer some solutions, the integration of FMEA and other quality and improvement
approaches, such as lean manufacturing (for example, lean sigma), should also be further
researched (Sawhney et al., 2010).
REFERENCES
Afrazeh A (2010). A problem solving method for customer knowledge management maturity (CKMM): Case study
in some Iranian oil companies. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(11): 2205-2215.

Alam, GM (2009). Can governance and regulatory control ensure private higher education as business or public
goods in Bangladesh? Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 3(12): 890-906.

Aryanezhad MB, Jalali, SG, Jabbarzadeh A (2010). An integrated supply chain design model with random
disruptions consideration. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(12): 2393-2401.

Azeez A, Olateju IA, Ibrahim O, Remi AJ (2009). Appraisal of the impact of team management on business
performance: Study of metro mass transit limited Ghana. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 3(9): 390-395.

Chang DS, Sun KLP (2009). Applying DEA to enhance assessment capability of FMEA. Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., 26(6): 629-643.

Chuang PT (2010). Incorporating disservice analysis to enhance perceived service quality. Ind.Manage. Data Sys.,
110(3): 1-22.

Chiozza ML, Pozzali C (2009). FMEA: a model for reducing medical errors. Clinica Chimia Acta, 404(1): 75-78.

Davidson G, Labib AW (2003). Learning from failures: design improvements using a multiple criteria decision
making process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G. J. Aerospace Eng., 217:
207-216.

Demir H, Bostanci B (2010). Decision-support analysis for risk management. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(8): 1586-1604.

Estorilio C, Posso RK (2010). The reduction of irregularities in the use of process FMEA. Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., 27(6): 721-733.

Hajirezaie M, Moattar HSM, Abdollahzadeh BA, Karimi B (2010). Modeling and evaluating the strategic effects of
improvement programs on the manufacturing performance using neural networks. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.,
4(4): 414-424.

Healey J (1994). Failure mode and effects analysis. Eng. Designer, 20(2): 4-7.

Kuen CW, Zailani S, Fernando Y (2009). Critical factors influencing the project success amongst manufacturing
companies in Malaysia. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 3(1): 16-27.

Kumar S, Dieveney E, Dieveney A (2009). Reverse logistic Process Control measures for the Pharmaceutical
Industry Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag., 58(2): 188-204.

Miao X, Xi B, Yu B (2010). Triplex-network design for research of supply chain reliability. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.,
4(1): 31-38.

Moghaddam MR (2010). Portfolio management as a new approach on improvement of financial resources’

allocation: A case study of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(13): 3013-
3025.
Naslund D (2008). Lean, Six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement methods? Bus. Process
Manage. J., 14(3), 269-287.

Ooi KB (2009). TQM and knowledge management: Literature review and proposed framework. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.,
3(11): 633-643.

Ookalkar AD, Joshi AG, Ookalkar DS (2009). Quality improvement in haemodialysis process using FMEA. Int. J.
Qual. Reliability Manage., 26(8): 817-830.

OPEC (2008). OPEC in the world economy, 5.

Sawhney R, Subburaman K, Sonntag C, Rao PRV, Capizzi C (2010). A modified FMEA approach to enhance
reliability of lean systems. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 27(7): 832-855.

Shahin A (2004). Integration of FMEA and the Kano model: An exploratory examination. Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., 21(7): 731-746.

Segismundo A, Miguel PAC (2008). Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in the context of risk management
in new product development. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 25(9): 899-912.

Sharma RK, Sharma P (2010). System failure behavior and maintenance decision making using, RCA, FMEA and
FM. J. Qual. Mainten. Eng., 16(1): 64-88.

Sinha PR, Whitmann LE, Malzan D (2004). Methodology to mitigate supplier risk in an aerospace supply chain.
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J., 9(2): 154-168.

Slack N, Chambers S, Johnston R (2001). Operations Management. 2nd ed., Harlow: Financial Times, Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

Slinger M (1992). To practise QFD with success requires a new approach to product design. Kontinuert Forbedring,
20-21.

Sonntag Ch, Rao PRV, Capizzi C. (2010). A modified FMEA approach to enhance reliability of lean systems. Int. J.
Qual. Reliab. Manag., 27(7): 832-855.

Taiwo AS (2010). The influence of work environment on workers productivity: A case of selected oil and gas
industry in Lagos, Nigeria. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(3): 299-307.

Tang SH, Ho SY (1996). Failure mode and effects analysis: an integrated approach for product design and process
control. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 13(5): 8-26.

Tanik M (2010). Improving order handling, process by using QFD and FMEA methodologies: a case study. Int. J.
Qual.Reliab. Manage., 27(4): 404-423.

Teng GS, Ho M, Shumar D, Liu PC (2006). Implementing FMEA in a Collaborative Supply Chain Environment.
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 23(2): 179-186.

Tiku S, Veneruso AF, Etchells, RK, Pecht M (2005). Risk factors in oil and gas well electronics compared to other
electronic industries. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. Rev., 60(4): 721-730.
Ugoh CS, Ukpere IW (2010). Oil politics and the Niger Delta developmental conundrum. Afr. J. Bus. Manage.,
4(6): 1166-1174. Vandenbrande WW (1998). How to use FMEA to reduce the size of your quality toolbox.
Qual. Progress, 31(11): 97-100.

Van Leeuwen JF, Nauta MJ, de-Kaste D, Odekerken-Rombouts YMCF, Oldenhof MT, Vredenbert MJ, Barends
DM (2009). Risk Anaysis by FMEA as an Element of Analytical Validation. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.,
50(5): 1085-1087.

Vanany I, Zailani S, Pujawan N (2009). Supply chain risk management: literature review and future research. Int. J.
Inform. Syst. Supply Chain Manag., 2(1): 16-33.

Yaacob Z (2010). Quality management as an effective strategy of cost savings. Afr. J. Bus. Manag., 4(9): 1844-
1855.