Six Sigma - Reduction of Downtime - RE Mill-2 - New

Lean Six Sigma
REDUCTION OF NEGATIVE DOWNTIME IN

ROYAL ENFIELD ROLL FORMING MILL 2
BY
THIRUKKUMARAN.B - TIMF
1. DEFINE
1.1 : Background
1.2 : Problem statement
1.3 : Importance of problem
1.4 : Target
1.5 : SIPOC
1.6 CTQ
1.7 : Team
1.8 : Schedule for improvement
1.1: DEFINE - Background
• TI METAL FORMING - We are single source supplier of supplying various
models of mudguards to the major customer M/s. Royal Enfield
• Various models of mudguards include Front & Rear Classic 350, Classic 500,
Bullet & Electra.
• For that, we have rolling the strip in two roll forming mills – One is for all front
mudguards and the other one is to equivalent the all rear mudguards.
• With-out affecting the product quality, we need to increase the productivity and
reduce the downtime to meet the customer requirements in JIT.
• We currently facing high negative downtime in Rolling mill – 2
i.e 7000 mins / month due to various issues.
1.2: DEFINE - Problem statement
• What ? - Negative downtime is high (7000 mins/Month)
• Where ? -
1. Product / Model - Rear Mudguard (All model)
2. Geographical location - Chennai
3. Segment - Royal Enfield – Oragadam
4. Process - From the receiving of raw material to the final inspection
• Who reported? - Internal – Top management ; External – Customer
• How long ? - For the past six months
1.3: DEFINE - Importance of problem
• Customer - Not able to meet the customer schedule due to high

negative downtime which leads customer dissatisfaction
• Employee - Due to more negative downtime, Employee fatigue is high
to solve the issue and resetting.
• Management - Not able to achieve management commitment & performance
indicators like OEE, internal scrap, FTR, yield etc.
For avg of 7000 mins downtime – Loss 14875 mudguards
- 7000 mins*2.125 (Speed – 2.125 mts / mins) = 14875 nos
- 14875 nos * 160 rs = Rs.2380000
If the target of 3000 minutes achieved (57% reduction), loss reduced to 6375 nos
- 6375 nos * 160 rs = Rs. 1020000
1.4: DEFINE - Target
Target : • To reduce the negative downtime of 7000 to 3000 minutes / month by the month of end
Febrarury’18
1.5 : DEFINE - SIPOC
Suppliers Inputs Process Output Customer
GMS Coil strip

Rolled Painting
In house /
Manpower Mudguard
Contract
Roll F/M/L Quality –
Tool room JFT
Forming Report Zero Defect
Customer / Drawing / Mill
E&D Spec Production OTD
Log
E&D Equipments
Process Steps
Welding &
Hole piercing Trimming Hemming End forming
Inspection
1.6: CTQ Tree
Need Drivers CTQs
y1
Shift “A”
Shift “A” Downtime in
Y minutes
y2
Negative Shift “B”
Downtime in Shift “B” Downtime in
Minutes minutes
y3
Shift “C”
Shift “C” Downtime in
minutes
General Specific
Hard to measure Easy to measure

1.7: DEFINE - Team
Function : Manufacturing
Leader : B.Thirukkumaran
Mr.Kumaresan, Rajan, Gothandaraman,
Members : Kothandaraman, Umapthi
Facilitator : Mr.Venkatesan / Mr.Krishnan / Mr.Kalyan
Sponsor : Mr.Krishnan
Start : September’17 End : End of Jan’18

1.8: DEFINE - Schedule for improvement
PLANNED PLANNED ACTUAL ACTUAL

START DATE FINISH DATE START DATE FINISH DATE
DEFINE 16/09/2017 20/09/2017 18/09/2017 20/09/2017
MEASURE 4th Week end 2nd weekend 21/09/2017 15/10/2017

– Sep’17 – Oct’17
ANALYZE Oct 3rd Week Dec 2nd 18/10/17 8/12/17

Week
IMPROVE Dec 2nd week Dec 4th Week 10/12/17 25/12/18
CONTROL Jan 1st week Jan 4th week 02/01/18 25/01/2018

2. MEASURE
2.1 (a) : Potential Causes

2.1 (b) : probable Causes
2.2 : Data Collection Plan
2.3 : MSA
2.5 : Process Capability
Brain Storming For High Negative downtime in RE Mill-2 :
1. Frequent Power cut. 11. Gear damage / broken

2. Manpower absenteeism. 12. Buckling problem
3. Awaiting for raw material. 13. Coiler / De coiler problem
4. RM quality issues. 14. Welding m/c problem / Gas nil
5. Tig welding m/c problem. 15. Copper block line mark / frequent polishing
6. Cutting tool frequent b/d 16. Profile problem
problems.
17. Mill maintenance – Coolant oil leakage,
7. Lip waviness / cut mark issues Abnormal sound, limit switch problem etc.
8. Line mark / step mark issues. 18. Crane breakdown
9. Roll broken / damage / roll 19. DM water moving / nil.
mark
20. Hydraulic press breakdown
10. Frequent Shaft broken /
damage
12
2.1 (a): MEASURE – Potential Causes
Machine Man
Crane Shaft broken / damage Manpower
B/D absenteeism
Gear broken / damage
Line mark / Unskilled
step mark Roll broken / damage operator
Copper block
Worn out Hydraulic press B/D New High Negative Downtime
Operator
Cutting tool damage Lip waviness /
cut mark ( 85% of over all
downtime from past 10
months data)
Awaiting for raw material

Power cut
Effect 85 %
RM Quality issues
( From Pareto)
Profile issue Pallet issue
Material Method
Defect wise pareto Jan to Oct’17:
30000 100
25755 97 100
25000 78 93
80
20000 19125
60
Loss (mins)
15000
8850 40
Function wise
45
%
10000
5000 2325 20 Pareto (Jan to
1750
0 0
Oct’17):
Mainten
Engg R&T HR SCM
ance
Loss (mins) 25755 19125 8850 2325 1750
Cum % 45 78 93 97 100
Defect wise pareto Feb’17:
1000 95 97 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
88 91 93
800 975 81 85 80
77
69
600 61 60
53
400 44 40
33 345 255 255 240 240
200 120 105 90 90 75 20
60 60 45 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
WELDIN
LIP LINE / COIL ROLL
HY GEAR SHAFT COPPE TIG MILL G AWAITI
WAVINE DM STEP BUCKLI PROBLE CUTTIN PROBLE
PRESS BROKE MANPO BROKE CRANE R WELDIN PROFIL MAINTE MACHIN NG OF
SS/CUT POWER WATER PALLET MARK/LI NG M/ G TOOL M / OTHER
BREAKD N/ WER N / BREAK BLOCK G M/C E NANCE G RAW
MARK CUT NIL / ISSUE P PROBLE DECOIL PROBLE ROLL S
OWN/AI DAMAG NIL DAMAG DOWN POLISHI PROBLE PROBLE BREAK PROBLE MATERI
PROBLE MOVING PROBLE M ER M BROKE
R E E NG M M DOWN. M GAS AL
M M ISSUE N
NIL
Loss (mins) 975 345 255 255 240 240 120 105 90 90 75 60 60 45 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cum % 33 44 53 61 69 77 81 85 88 91 93 95 97 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Defect wise pareto Aug~Oct’17:

5000 96 97 98 99 100 100 100
88 90 92 94
4000 4350 82 85 80
75 79
3190 67 72
3000 53 58 63 60
2000 2250 40
41 945 915 840 780 670 645 645
1000 525 495 440 395 330 300 300 20
23 220 150 90 60
0 0
WELDIN
LIP LINE / COIL
SHAFT GEAR MILL TIG HY ROLL G AWAITIN
WAVINE CUTTIN COPPER BUCKLI STEP DM PROBLE
BROKEN BROKEN MAINTE PROFIL CRANE WELDIN PRESS PROBLE MACHIN G OF
SS/CUT G TOOL BLOCK POWER MANPO PALLET NG MARK/LI WATER M/
/ / OTHERS NANCE E BREAK G M/C BREAKD M/ G RAW
MARK PROBLE POLISHI CUT WER NIL ISSUE PROBLE P NIL / DECOIL
DAMAG DAMAG BREAK PROBLE DOWN PROBLE OWN/AI ROLL PROBLE MATERI
PROBLE M NG M PROBLE MOVING ER
E E DOWN. M M R BROKEN M GAS AL
M M ISSUE
NIL
Loss (mins) 4350 3190 2250 945 915 840 780 670 645 645 525 495 440 395 330 300 300 220 150 90 60
Cum % 23 41 53 58 63 67 72 75 79 82 85 88 90 92 94 96 97 98 99 100 100
Machine Man
Housing
Misalignment Operator skill
Excess gap b/w Mismatch b/w

Gear broken roll & housing rollers
High Negative Downtime
Initial design Housing bush (23% from pareto)
worn out ( Shaft broken)
Variation in shaft
Re usage of broken
hardness Effect 23%
rollers
( From Pareto)
Shaft material Manual pressure
Shaft dia setting high
properties (80mm)
Heavy Load acting on
center of the bottom
shaft
Material Method
Machine Man
Excess gate
clearance b/w
rollers Operator skill
Roller coating
peel off / chip off High Negative Downtime
( 18% from pareto)
Lip waviness problem
Effect 18%
( From Pareto)
Uneven
pressure
Material Method
Machine Man
Incomplete stroke
Misalignment of due to pressure
die, punch& drop
cutting unit Cutting unit piston
rod broken Operator skill
Slug / burr
sticking Punch and die
clearance problem High Negative Downtime
Cutting dent ( 85% of over all
Hydraulic valve failure downtime from past 10
months data)
Cutting tool breakdown
Depreciation of die
Hardness of punch Effect 12%
and die ( From Pareto)
Depreciation of
punch and die
Material Method
Control – impact Matrix For High Negative downtime in RE Mill-2 –
Shaft broken:
Cause Control Impact

Observation
reference (Low/high) (Low/High)
X1 Housing Misalignment High Low
X2 Gear broken High Low
X3 Excess gap b/w roll & housing High Low
X4 Housing bush worn out High High
X5 Operator skill High High
X6 Manual setting pressure high High High
Heavy Load acting on center
X7 High High
of the bottom shaft
X8 Shaft dia (80mm) High low
X9 Re usage of broken rollers High High
X10 Variation in shaft hardness High Low
Control – impact Matrix For High Negative downtime in RE Mill-2
Lip waviness:

Observation
X11 Excess gate clearance b/w rollers High High
X12 Roller coating peel off / chip off High Low
X14 Uneven pressure High Low
Control – impact Matrix For High Negative downtime in RE Mill-2
Cutting tool breakdown:

Observation
Misalignment of die, punch&
X15 High Low
cutting unit
X16 Slug / burr sticking High High
X17 Cutting dent High High
Incomplete stroke due to pressure
X18 High Low
drop
X19 Cutting unit piston rod broken High Low
X20 Punch and die clearance High High
X21 Hydraulic valve failure High Low
X23 Hardness of punch and die High Low
X24 Depreciation of punch / broken High High
2.1 (b): MEASURE – PROBABLE Causes
X4,X5, X6, X7, X9, X11, X13,

HIGH
X16, X17, X20, X22, X24
Impact
X1,X2, X3, X8, X10, X12, X14,

LOW X15, X18, X19, X21, X23
LOW HIGH
Control
2.2: MEASURE - Data Collection Plan
Sl. Project Y and Unit of Sampling Sample

Description Source
no small ys Measure Technique size
Production
Both stratified and
Negative downtime - Minutes / log book 10
1 Y overall Month (manual
systematic random
months
sampling
entry)
Production
Both stratified and
Minutes / log book 10
2 y1 Shift wise downtime
Month (manual
systematic random
months
sampling
entry)
Production
Both stratified and
Minutes / log book
3 y2 Operator wise downtime
Month (manual
systematic random 7 months
sampling
entry)
2.2: MEASURE - Data Collection Plan (Shaft broken)
Sl. Unit of Sampling Sample

Cause X Description Source
no Measure Technique size
Housing bush worn Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
1 X4 book (manual systematic random 3 months
out Month
entry) sampling
Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
2 X5 Operator skill Month
book (manual systematic random 3 months
entry) sampling
Manual setting Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
pressure high Month
entry) sampling
Heavy Load acting Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
4 X7 on center of the Month
book (manual systematic random 3 months
bottom shaft entry) sampling
Re usage of broken Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
rollers Month
entry) sampling
2.2: MEASURE - Data Collection Plan (Lip waviness)

Productio
Excess gate clearance n log Both stratified and
Minutes /
1 X11 book systematic random 1 month
(3rd pass) Month
(manual sampling
entry)
Productio
n log Both stratified and
Minutes /
book systematic random 1 month
(manual sampling
entry)
2.2: MEASURE - Data Collection Plan (Cutting tool b/d)

Minutes /
1 X16 Slug / burr sticking Month
book (manual systematic random 1 month
entry) sampling

Minutes /
2 X17 Cutting dent Month
entry) sampling
Punch and die Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
3 X20 book (manual systematic random 1 month
clearance problem Month
entry) sampling

Minutes /
entry) sampling
Depreciation of Production log Both stratified and

Minutes /
5 X24 book (manual systematic random 1 month
punch / broken Month
entry) sampling
2.3: MEASURE – MSA results
Attribute GRR
Repeatability Repeatability
Velmurugan Velmurugan Reproducibility Accuracy
Sr No Jothi Trial 1 Jothi Trial 2 Score Score
Trial 1 Trial 2 Score Score
Appraiser 1 Appraiser 2 Accuracy – the difference
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 between observed
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 measurement vs standard
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Repeatability – variation
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 when one person repeatedly
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 measures the same unit with
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 the same measuring
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 equipment
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reproducibility – variation
when two or more people
measure the same unit with
the same measuring
equipment
If a set of errors are provided to

more than one checkers
and all of them identify the
errors exactly the same way
as well as as per the DOI
then the measurement system
Pass or Fail is said to be accurate, repeatable
Repeatability of Appraiser
100% 1 Pass Thumb Rule for pass or fail status and reprodicible.
Repeatability of Appraiser
100% 2 Pass 0 to 70% - Fail
Reproducibility 100% Pass 70 to 90% - Project Team to decide based on the criticality
Accuracy 100% Pass >90% - Pass
• Inference:
Attribute GRR - From the result, Repeatability, Reproducibility & Accuracy is more than 90%
(i.e. 100%), Attribute GRR is Pass
2.4: MEASURE - Process Capability
Inference:
From the result, Cpk value is 1.62 & Ppk is 0.94 .
3. ANALYZE
3.1 (a): Flow Chart
3.1 (b): Cause Validation Plan
3.2 (a), (b), (c), (d) : Validation of root causes
3.3 : Cause Validation Summary

3.1 (a): ANALYSE - Flow Chart
3.1 (b): ANALYSE - Cause Validation Plan (Shaft broken)
Sl. Tools for Validation

Category Probable Causes
no (QC / Statistical Tools)
1 X4 Housing bush worn out T -Test
2 X5 Operator skill ANOVA
3 X6 Manual setting pressure high Cp & Cpk calculator
Heavy Load acting on center of the bottom

4 X7 Box plot
shaft
5 X9 Re usage of broken rollers Box plot

3.1 (b): ANALYSE - Cause Validation Plan (Lip waviness)

1 X11 Excess gate clearance (3rd pass) Cp & cpk calculator

3.1 (b): ANALYSE - Cause Validation Plan (Cutting tool
breakdown)

1 X16 Slug / burr sticking T Test
2 X17 Cutting dent T Test
3 X20 Punch and die clearance problem T Test
5 X24 Depreciation of punch/ broken T Test

3.2 (a): ANALYSE - Validation and root cause identification – Shaft broken – Bush
worn out
HO: There is no significant

difference between with and
without bush worn-out w.r.t shaft
broken downtime
Ha: There is a significant

without bush worn-out w.r.t shaft
broken downtime
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : T test

1. Y is Shaft broken downtime (Minutes ); X is Bush worn-out
2. Y is Continuous & X is discrete categorical, the tool is 2 sample T test
3. P value = 44.63 %
4. Since p value > 5%, This cause is insignificant
Validation and root cause identification – Shaft broken – Operator skill
HO: There is no
significant difference
between operators w.r.t
shaft broken downtime
Ha: There is at least one

operator significantly
different from others
w.r.t shaft broken
downtime
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : ANOVA

1. Y is Shaft broken downtime (Minutes ); X is Operator (BR, KV & VJ)
2. Y is Continuous & X is discrete categorical, the tool is ANNOVA
3. P value = 0.722 ( VJ is significantly differ from others)
4. Since the p value > 0.05, The cause is insignificant
Validation and root cause identification – Shaft broken – High manual setting pressure
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : Cp & Cpk calculator
1. From the result, Cpk value is -1.17 & Cp value is 0.07.

2. Hence the cause is significant
Validation and root cause identification – Shaft broken – Heavy load act on center of
the bottom shaft
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : Box plot chart

1. The median for load acting on Centre of shaft (270) is greater than
load acting on other side of the shaft (60).
Validation and root cause identification – Shaft broken – Re usage of broken
rollers
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : Box plot chart
1. The median for Re usage of broken rollers(275) is greater than

without Re usage of broken rollers(240).
Validation and root cause identification – Lip waviness – Excess gate clearance

Validation and root cause identification – Lip waviness – Operator skill
HO: There is no
lip waviness downtime

w.r.t lip waviness
downtime
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools : ANOVA

1. Y is Lip waviness downtime (Minutes ); X is Operator (BR, KV & VJ)
3. P value = 0.184 ( BR is significantly differ from others)
Validation and root cause identification – Cutting tool b/d – Slug / burr sticking

without burr sticking w.r.t cutting
tool downtime

without burr sticking w.r.t cutting
tool downtime
1. Y is Cutting tool downtime (Minutes ); X is Slug / burr sticking

3. P value = 20.21 %
Validation and root cause identification – Cutting tool b/d – cutting dent

Validation and root cause identification – Cutting tool b/d – Punch & die clearance
problem

difference between within and
out of clearance w.r.t cutting tool
downtime

out of clearance w.r.t cutting tool
downtime

1. Y is Cutting tool downtime (Minutes ); X is punch & die clearance
3. P value = 82.15 %
Validation and root cause identification – Cutting tool b/d– Operator skill
HO: There is no
cutting tool downtime

w.r.t cutting tool
downtime
Details of validation using QC / Statistical Tools :ANOVA
1. Y is Cutting tool downtime (Minutes ); X is Operator (BR, KV & VJ)

3. P value = 0.596 ( KV is significantly differ from others)
Validation and root cause identification – Cutting tool b/d – Depreciation of Punch /
broken

out of punch thickness w.r.t

out of punch thickness w.r.t

1. Y is Cutting tool downtime (Minutes ); X is Depreciation of punch
3. P value = 7.57 %
3.3: ANALYSE - Cause Validation Summary
Tools for validation Significance

Sl.no Ctgy Probable Causes (QC / Statistical (Significant /
Tools) Insignificant)
1 X4 Housing bush worn out T -Test Insignificant
2 X5 Operator skill ANOVA Insignificant
3 X6 Manual setting pressure high Cp & Cpk calculator Significant
4 X7 Heavy Load acting on center of the bottom shaft Box plot Significant
5 X9 Re usage of broken rollers Box plot Significant
6 X11 Excess gate clearance (3rd pass) Cp & Cpk calculator Significant
8 X16 Slug / burr sticking T Test Insignificant
9 X17 Cutting dent T Test Significant
10 X20 Punch and die clearance problem T Test Insignificant
12 X24 Depreciation of punch/ broken T Test Insignificant
4. IMPROVE
4.1 : Select solutions
4.2 : FMEA
4.3 : Pilot results

4.1 Why – Why analysis
ROOTCAUSE ANALYSIS FOR “Shaft broken”
1 Shaft broken Counter Measure

Why?
Manual pressure
high (Top shaft)
Why?
No support to Why?
control the high
pressure Why?
Initial design Stopper block
to be
provided
Counter
1 Shaft broken
Why? Measure
Heavy load
act on centre
of shaft Why?
No support to Why?
carry heavy
load No load Why?
carrying tool
Plumber
for bottom
roller block (Load
Initial design carrying
tool) to be
provided
1 Shaft broken Counter Measure

Why?
Reusage of
broken rollers
Why?
Unavailability of Why?
spare rollers
Why?
Spare rollers
(Top &
bottom) to be
provided
ROOTCAUSE ANALYSIS FOR “Lip waviness”
1 Lip waviness Counter Measure

Why?
Excess gate
clearance b/w
top & bottom Why?
rollers Pressure Why?
variation due to
manual settings Why?
No proper method
to freeze the gap Clamp to be
provided to
freeze the gap
in free end
housing
ROOTCAUSE ANALYSIS FOR “Cutting tool b/d”
1 Cutting tool b/d Counter Measure

Why?
Cutting dent
Why?
Uneven cutting
Why?
of punch
Why?
Pressure variation Heat
exchanger to
Temperature high be provided
to control the
temperature
4.2 : IMPROVE - FMEA
4.3 : IMPROVE - Pilot results
Before improvement After improvement
Height level control

stopper provided
b/w the housing to
withstand the high
pressure
Pilot implemented on Oct’17

Plumber block
provided to
withstand the load
in bottom roller
Pilot implemented on Nov’17

Top roller
Bottom roller
2 sets spare
roller (Top &
bottom)
provided
Pilot implemented on Nov’17

Excess gap b/w top & bottom rollers Clamp(3rd pass) is provided in the free end housing
due to pressure variation leads to lip to maintain the gap b/w top & bottom rollers within
waviness
specification to avoid pressure variation & waviness
Pilot implemented on Oct’17 & implemented all 8 stages in Nov~Dec’17

Heat exchanger provided to control

Excess heat leads to pressure drop the excess heat within the limit.
which leads to uneven cutting of
punch (Cutting dent)
Pilot implemented on Dec’17

5. CONTROL
5.1 : Process Control Plan
5.2 : Details of Documentation
5.4 : Evaluation of results
5.4 : Tangible benefits and Intangible benefits
5.5 : Learnings
5.5 : Management Summary
5.6 : Tools & Techniques

5.1: CONTROL – Process Control Plan
Description : Process Management Template

Phase :Control
Process: Roll forming Date (Original): Apr,17

Key Contact: Thirukkumaran.B
Phone: 9487534183 Date (Of Revisions): Feb'18
Core Team: Mr.Krishnan, Muthukumar, Gothandaraman, Kothandaraman, Rajan, Umapathy & Kumaresan
Primary/Secondary /
Frequency of
Process Other Important Sample Size Control Method Reaction Plan Person Responsible
Measurement
Metrics
Negative Downtime in
Roll forming Monthly Entire population Run chart Operation head Thirukkumaran.B
minutes
5.2: CONTROL – Details of Documentation
• Control plan updated (Process mgmt. template, dated feb’18)

• FMEA updated (FMEA’01 , dated 25.01.18)
• Checkpoints added in My machine check sheet & CLRI for
- Plumber block
- Temperature monitoring
- Gate clearance b/w rollers
• Plumber block drawing updated
• Updated lip waviness in Inprocess inspection report ( Appearance ) (QA-QR-02)
5.4: CONTROL - Evaluation of results
Before After
improvement improvement
Inference: Result achieved against the target of 3000 minutes in month of Jan’18
(57% reduction)
Before After
Inference: Shaft broken downtime reduced from 2540 to zero minutes in the
month of jan’18
Shaft broken - Reduction trend

10
9
6
5
No. of occurences
4 4
4
0
0
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Month
Before After
Inference: Shaft broken occurrence reduced from 9 nos to 0 nos per month
Cost savings: 23*11000 = 2,53,000 rs. saved up to jan’18

Downtime reduction trend - Cutting tool b/d

2000
1260
Minutes
795 795
660 675
420
0
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Month
Before After
Inference: Cutting tool b/d reduced to 420 minutes in the month of jan’18
Before After
Inference: Lip waviness reduced from 1355 to 525 minutes in the month of Jan’18
Scrap reduction trend
1000
799
800
Nos
600 509
400
200
sep jan
~ t~
pr DATE oc
A
Before After
Inference: Scrap reduced from 799 to 509 nos per month.(290 nos saved / month)
Cost savings : 290 nos*4 months *160 rs = Rs.185600
Scrap reduction trend
2.00
1.80 1.69
1.60
1.40 1.16
%
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
sep ja
n
~ t ~
pr DATE oc
A
Before After
Inference: Rolling Scrap reduced from 1.69 to 1.16 %

OEE Improvement – RE Mill 2
100 70 71 74 73 75 79 80 80
80 54
60
40
20
0
16-17 17-18 1st Jul'17 Aug'17 Sep'17 Oct'17 Nov'17 Dec'17 Jan'18 Feb'18 Mar'18
Before After
Qtr improvement improvement
Inference: OEE Bench mark target achieved from 70 to 80% in the month of Dec’17 &
sustained
Productivity improvement trend
50000
48336
48000
Nos
46000
44692
44000
42000
40000
Month
Before After
Inference: Productivity improvement from 44692 to 48336 nos per month.

(3644 nos improved / month)
Cost savings : 3644 nos*3 months *160 rs = Rs.17,49120
5.4: CONTROL - Benefits
Tangible benefits
• Negative downtime reduced from 7000 minutes to 3000 minutes.

• Shaft broken occurrence reduced from 9 to 0 nos / month
• Scrap reduced from 799 to 509 nos / month
• Scrap reduction from 1.69 to 1.16 % per month
• Bench mark OEE achieved from 70 to 80%
• Productivity improved from 44692 nos to 48336 nos / month
Intangible benefits
• Pass ratio improvement (85% to 92%)

• Operator fatigue reduced due to manual settings.
5.4: CONTROL – Cost savings
A) Cost savings in Shaft
No of shafts saved during Oct’17~Jan’18 = 23

1 Shaft price = Rs.11000/-
Total cost savings in shaft = 23 shaft *11000 rs
Total cost savings in shaft (upto Jan’18) = Rs.253000/-
B) Cost savings in Scrap

No of rolled mudguard scraped / month (Before improvements) = 799
No of rolled mudguard scraped / month (After improvements) = 509
No. of rolled mudguards saved / month = 290
No. of rolled mudguards saved / 4 month = 290 * 4 = 1160
Cost of 1 Mudguard = 160 rs
Total savings in scrap = 1160 nos * 160 rs = Rs. 185600
TOTAL COST SAVING ` A` +` B ` = 253000 + 185600= RS.438600/-

5.4: CONTROL – Cost savings
C) Cost savings in productivity
No of mudguard increased during Oct’17~Jan’18 = 3644 * 3

=10932 nos
1 Mudguard price = Rs.160 /-
Total cost savings in Productivity = 10932 nos *160 rs
Total cost savings in Productivity = Rs.1749120/-
TOTAL COST SAVING (` A` +` B `) + ‘C’= 438600 + 1749120 = RS.2187720 /-

5.5: CONTROL – Lessons Learnt
5.5 (a) : Lessons Learnt

• Hypothesis Tools used for validating the real significant root cause.
• DMAIC approach
• SIPOC
• CTQ
5.5 (b) : Problems remaining

• Pallet issue
• Profile variation
5.6: CONTROL - Tools & Techniques
Sl.no QC Tools Used Sl.no Statistical tools / Others Used
1 Check sheet 1 Design of experiments
2 Pareto diagram 2 Test of Hypothesis
3 Cause and effect diagram 3 Regression analysis
4 Graph and control chart 4 Multivariate analysis
5 Histogram 5 Taguchi methods
6 Scatter diagram 6 FMEA
7 Stratification 7 QFD
Tick appropriate
Thank you

Six Sigma - Reduction of Downtime - RE Mill-2 - New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Six Sigma - Reduction of Downtime - RE Mill-2 - New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma - Reduction of Downtime - RE Mill-2 - New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lean Six Sigma

REDUCTION OF NEGATIVE DOWNTIME IN

• Customer - Not able to meet the customer schedule due to high

Suppliers Inputs Process Output Customer

GMS Coil strip

Need Drivers CTQs

Hard to measure Easy to measure

Facilitator : Mr.Venkatesan / Mr.Krishnan / Mr.Kalyan

Start : September’17 End : End of Jan’18

PLANNED PLANNED ACTUAL ACTUAL

DEFINE 16/09/2017 20/09/2017 18/09/2017 20/09/2017

MEASURE 4th Week end 2nd weekend 21/09/2017 15/10/2017

ANALYZE Oct 3rd Week Dec 2nd 18/10/17 8/12/17

IMPROVE Dec 2nd week Dec 4th Week 10/12/17 25/12/18

CONTROL Jan 1st week Jan 4th week 02/01/18 25/01/2018

2.1 (a) : Potential Causes

1. Frequent Power cut. 11. Gear damage / broken

Awaiting for raw material

Profile issue Pallet issue

Defect wise pareto Aug~Oct’17:

Excess gap b/w Mismatch b/w

Cause Control Impact

Cause Control Impact

Cause Control Impact

X4,X5, X6, X7, X9, X11, X13,

X1,X2, X3, X8, X10, X12, X14,

Sl. Project Y and Unit of Sampling Sample

Sl. Unit of Sampling Sample

Housing bush worn Production log Both stratified and

Production log Both stratified and

Manual setting Production log Both stratified and

Heavy Load acting Production log Both stratified and

Re usage of broken Production log Both stratified and

Sl. Unit of Sampling Sample

Sl. Unit of Sampling Sample

Production log Both stratified and

Punch and die Production log Both stratified and

Production log Both stratified and

Depreciation of Production log Both stratified and

If a set of errors are provided to

3.1 (a): Flow Chart

3.1 (b): Cause Validation Plan

3.2 (a), (b), (c), (d) : Validation of root causes

3.3 : Cause Validation Summary

Sl. Tools for Validation

1 X4 Housing bush worn out T -Test

2 X5 Operator skill ANOVA

3 X6 Manual setting pressure high Cp & Cpk calculator

Heavy Load acting on center of the bottom

5 X9 Re usage of broken rollers Box plot

Sl. Tools for Validation

1 X11 Excess gate clearance (3rd pass) Cp & cpk calculator

2 X13 Operator skill ANOVA

Sl. Tools for Validation

1 X16 Slug / burr sticking T Test

2 X17 Cutting dent T Test

3 X20 Punch and die clearance problem T Test