Project Improvement SIX SIGMA

Reduce Bonding/Gapping at Production Cell C

Project Team
Semasi’s Bright Future
 D
M A I C

Introduction
Proses Produksi Sepatu

Cutting Skiving Stitching Handsewing Assembling

Stockfitting
Video click here
 D
M A I C

Business Case & Improvement Opportunity

•Low Cost Production

Business Case
•High Productivity

Improvement •Reduce Cost

Opportunity •Low Defect
 Business Case

Project Organization Lead Champion D

M A I C
Richard Hakim

Champion
GB Rexon B jones

Project Advisor Project Leader

GB Yuliasari Bertua Sinaga

Project Co-Leader Project Co-Leader

Pratiwi Wulandari Adnan Hanafi

• Role • Role
- Setup flow process - Prepare and setting tooling
- Root cause analysis - Review and analysis process
 D
M A I C

Work Breakdown Structure

Scope Project

Semasi
Production

Qty Defect Cementing > Qty Defect Non- Non-

Cementing
Cementing Cementing

Capacity for the Cell A Cell B 1200 Cell C 1270 Cell E 1160
1170 pairs/day pairs/day pairs/day pairs/day
next 3 months
 D
Project Chart M A I C

Project Theme :
KPI Current Target Problem Statement
Bonding/Gapping 2.05% (𝜎 =3.54) 0.62% (𝜎 =4) Selama periode Dec-Feb
Bonding/Gapping menjadi defect yang
Business Case paling banyak ditemukan
Bonding/Gapping mengakibatkan produktivitas menurun

2.05%
Project Scope
Goal
Statement
Assembling Cell C
0.62%
Estimated Saving Cost :
 Lead Champion : Richard Hakim
Rp4,595,343/Month  Champion : GB Rexon B Jones
Current Target
Project  Project Advisor : GB Yuliasari
 Project Leader : Bertua Sinaga
Project D M A I C
Team  Project Team :
March W4 May W3 June W4 July W3 July W3 – Adnan Hanafi, Pratiwi Wulandari, Basyar
Plan
– Asep, Sasmita, Syukron
 D
M A I C

Background
Pareto Chart of Defect
5000 100

4000 80
Quantity

Percent
3000 60

2000 40 Berdasarkan data Defect

pada periode tersebut
1000 20
diputuskan untuk
0 0 mengambil scope project
Defect g ss g s er t
in e tin ct e da a ir s p si
n
gus f ec
p n e a mengenai
ap anli en Def gib in
p
r up oc ba de
G m g M k e
ng
/
Cl
e ce her in ke P oo en tida Sol Bonding/Gapping
i k t T a
ond Lac O t m
f/ Op ol e
B
r / No O
f
n
s
e e ta
Ov sin a hi
ca J
oc
M
Quantity 1531 1279 989 386 326 192 185 101 95 92
Percent 29.6 24.7 19.1 7.4 6.3 3.7 3.6 2.0 1.8 1.8
Cum % 29.6 54.3 73.4 80.8 87.1 90.9 94.4 96.4 98.2 100.0
 D
M A I C

Background
Definition Bonding/Gapping
 M
D A I C
Attribute agreement analyses

• Date: 14 Mei 2019

• Subject: Inspect Bonding/Gapping
• Sample spec : 18 pairs “OK”, 12 pairs “Reject”
• Quantity sample : Total 30 pairs
• Appraiser : 2 inspectors
• Replicate : 2 times
 M
D A I C
Attribute agreement analyses
Result
Date of study: 14 Mei 2019
Reported by:
Between Appraisers
Name of product: Sepatu Assessment Agreement

Within Appraisers # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

30 19 63.33 (43.86, 80.07)
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other.
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI
Nanang 30 26 86.67 (69.28, 96.24)
Yogi 30 23 76.67 (57.72, 90.07)
All Appraisers vs Standard
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.
# Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI
Each Appraiser vs Standard 30 12 40.00 (22.66, 59.40)
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI standard.
Nanang 30 16 53.33 (34.33, 71.66)
Yogi 30 13 43.33 (25.46, 62.57) Hasil assessment menunjukkan system inspeksi perlu
# Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with diperbaiki. Perbaikan dilakukan dengan mengganti appraiser
the known standard. yang tidak konsisten serta memberikan penjelasan mengenai
toleransi defect bonding/gapping.
 M
D A I C
Attribute agreement analyses #2

• Date: 15 Juli 2019

• Subject: Inspect Bonding/Gapping
• Sample spec : 13 pairs “OK”, 17 pairs “Reject”
• Quantity sample : Total 30 pairs
• Appraiser : 2 inspectors
• Replicate : 2 times
 M
D A I C
Attribute agreement analyses #2
Result
Date of study: 15 Juli 2019
Reported by:
Between Appraisers
Name of product: Convoy 3 Eye Assessment Agreement

Within Appraisers # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

30 24 80.00 (61.43, 92.29)
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other.
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI
Jaya 30 26 86.67 (69.28, 96.24)
Nanang 30 28 93.33 (77.93, 99.18)
All Appraisers vs Standard
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.
# Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI
Each Appraiser vs Standard 30 24 80.00 (61.43, 92.29)
Assessment Agreement
# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI standard.
Jaya 30 26 86.67 (69.28, 96.24)
Nanang 30 27 90.00 (73.47, 97.89) Hasil assessment menunjukkan system inspeksi cukup baik
# Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with dan dapat diterima. Hal ini ditunjukkan dari konsistensi dan
the known standard. akurasi masing-masing Appraiser diatas 85% serta Akurasi
secara kesulurahan terhadap standar mencapai 80%.
 A
D M I C
Fishbone
ANALYSIS STEP D M
A
I C

Dominant Factor “Bonding/Gapping” Identification by NGT n : jumlah faktor yang

No. Root Cause Total Dewi Indra Basyar Ayi Haris mempengaruhi
Mix Model dalam Line M : jumlah Expert
1 Tingginya changeover yang diakibatkan karena banyak 35 6 5 9 7 8
mix model dan tidak adanya aturan dalam Mix Model

Tidak ada Standar Persiapan Mesin

Mesin-mesin seperti Chamber, Chiller, dan Conveyor
NGT: (1 x n +1 )*M
2 22 5 8 5 3 1 2
Cementing, memerlukan waktu untuk mencapai
1
spesifikasi ( x9 +1 )*5
2
Kurangnya Kecakapan Kerja Operator
3 Kecakapan dipengaruhi beberapa faktor seperti 28 3 7 7 4 7 (4.5+1 )*5
lingkungan dan skill
4 Mesin Chiller yang tidak digunakan/dilewati 15 4 2 4 1 4 27.5
Standar toleransi waktu yang sama setiap proses
5 Setiap proses memiliki beban kerja yang berbeda, namun 17 1 6 2 5 3
toleransi waktu yang digunakan disamaratakan
Kurangnya Ketegasan SPV/Leader “Dominant X” to analyze:
6
Spv/Leader mengabaikan operator yang tidak mengikuti
32 2 9 6 6 9 - Mix Model
- Ketegasan SPV/leader
SOP seperti tidak menggunakan Press Gauge
7 Material Kulit yang berminyak 28 7 3 3 9 6
8 Sole yang Rebound 24 9 1 1 8 5 - Kecakapan Kerja
- Oily Material
Prosedur Kerja Press Universal untuk setiap
9 24 8 4 8 2 2
Model kurang Lengkap