Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Final Project Report-Out

Remanufacturing Fit-for-Use Parts Supply

Duration of Project: June 14, 2004 to August 14, 2004

Team Membership

Operation Supervisor Materials Manager Operation Manager Assembly Team Leader

Define the processIPO

Define the business case

Problem Statement (description)

Assembly was constrained because parts were not fit for use, causing increased setup delays and repair problems.

Project Goals
Improve the productivity to 84%, Increase First pass Yield to 99% Primary Metrics
Productivity Measure FPY

Projected savings: 160K

Define the voice of the customer

Customers
Main customers of project focus are internal depts of Prep and Assembly process with Warehouse as end customer of remanufacturing.

Critical customer requirements, specifications, and/or concerns

Established customer requirements of Assembly process through questioning operators and creating a QFD Matrix to determine priority of issue resolution.

Defining the current process performance

QFD Analysis
QFD Q u a lity F u n c tio n D e p lo y m e n t A n a ly s is (L ite ) P r o c e s s / F u n c tio n R e m a n M o d ify to A s s y D a te 7 /0 2 /0 4
How can we affect the want

Improve machining control

W h a t d o e s th e c u sto m e r w a n t?

R a te Im p o rta n c e 1 -5 ( 5 = To p )

P ic k tic k e t h a s a ll p a rts liste d

36

G o o d th re a d s f o r sm o o th a ssy

15

45

C le a re r p ic tu re s in in stru c tio n s

27

O p e ra to r p a rts a re g ro u p e d to g e th e r f o r th e m

12

12

36

N o t m issin g p a rts a t lin e

12

12

36

L e ss lin e re p a ir

36

36

S c o re s

69

51

51 81 72 F ill th e c o lu m n s w ith a n im p a c t v a lu e 0 , 1 , 3 , 9 , (9 H a v in g th e g re a te st im p a c t)

Kit parts for the operators 0 0 0 0

Better gun torque control

Improve instructions

Improve the photos

Measuring Fit For Use

Inspect orders prior to assembly for defective or missing components
1. 2. 3. 4. Created a form for logging issues encountered Collected issues and assigned department responsible for error Tabulated and summarized the categories Created a further breakdown of the issues showing trends of failures

Measure the use of labor

Work Sampling Units per Man-hour Labor minutes expended per unit

Measure the current process performance

Highest defect content in the area with highest labor content.
Pareto Fit for Use
50

High output in area with least labor content.

Labor Min Spent / Unit of Production 100.0 Lab Min / unit 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

40 30 # of Occur 20 10 0 Prep Stage Dassy Mod CLN Cr-Id Process Area

Dis Assy

Modify

Prep

Assy

Process Dept

Labor Min / Unit by Dept

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Prep Assy Dassy Flow Mod Core Process Dept

OUTPUT

250 200 UNITS 150 100 50 0 Dis Assy Modify Prep Assy AREA

24

26

28

30

32 34

36

38

40

42 44

Analysis of Current Results

Work Load Imbalance
The right work being done in the wrong place

Productivity Imbalance
Extra capacity where the least amount of money was being spent

Poor Material Flow

Modify machine layout causing waste of space and motion

Improve the process

Shift Operational Responsibilities
Remove machining operations that gravitated to other areas back to the modify machining area. Merge similar small casting operation into modify to take advantage of labor efficiencies

Kaizen Machine Layout of Area

Remove unnecessary equipment and items from area Group equipment according to flow of material Move needed equipment but less frequently used out of the flow path of frequently processed models

Control to hold the gains

Control plan for holding the gains

PCI stating the SOP responsibilities of the modify dept and Quality characteristics

Feedback of performance beginning at flow through each dept back to modify with accountability signoff and review for reworked material. Productivity

10

Project Summary Scorecard before and after

metric
PRODUCTIVITY FPY

before
43.4 90%

after
75.4 98%

change (%)
74% Increase 9% Increase

Calculated annual savings for the portion related to this project: 4 head reduction @ 40% PAC = 119K Annual Reduction in OT yields additional 21K Total projected annual savings of 140K

11

Project Summary
Problem
Parts not Fit for Use causing an Assembly constraint

Baseline and Target Performance

Improve productivity from the 40% range to the 80% range as well as improve FPY to 99%

Analysis and Solution

Right work was being done in the wrong place, causing extra expense and increased risk of defects at Assembly. Redistributed work load.

Results and Business Benefits

Productivity has improved 74%, FPY 9%, conservative hard savings of 140K annually.

12

Operational Improvements

He ad counts
S i es1 er
S i es2 er
S i es3 er
Pol y. (Ser i es1)
Pol y. (S i es2) er

Productivity
Ser i es1
Pol y. (S i es1) er

80

120

70
100

60
80

50

40

60

30

40

Th e C on ti n uou s i m prove me n t di re cti on i s UP.

20
20

10
0

M ont h i n We e k s

M ont hs by we e k

Pe rcent Overtime
25
250

Gross Shipments
C o nt i nuo us i mp ro v e me nt d i re c t i o n i s d o w n.

First Pass Yield 2004

Goal 89% Annual Average
100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70%

20

200

15

150

10

100

20

03

AV

M ont hs i n we e k s

M ont hs by we e k

G Ja n Fe b M ar Ap ril M ay Ju ne Ju ly Au g Se pt O ct No v De c

50

Monthly Avg. & Current Week Daily

13