PW Final Jun7 2012

Internal Guide:
Name : Smt. V. N. Shailaja
Designation : Asst.Professor, Dept. of IEM,BMSCE
External Guide:
Name : Mr. Dinesh Gouda
Designation : Deputy Manager- Quality
Assurance Dept. Production Unit- 5,
Kennametal India Ltd.
Project Team:
Abhishek B. V
Rakshith R
Ashwin Kumar M. N
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING and MANAGEMENT
B.M.S. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Bangalore-560 019
1
SIX SIGMA IMPLEMENTATIONSIX SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION
Project Location: Kennametal India Ltd.
Timeframe: October 2011-June 2012

About Kennametal India Ltd. Bengaluru
HISTORY:
 In 1938, Philip M. McKenna created a tungsten-titanium carbide alloy for cutting tools.
 With his invention, Philip started the McKenna Metals Company in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
 Later renamed Kennametal, the corporation is headquartered in Latrobe.
COMPANY PROFILE:
 Kennametal delivers productivity to customers seeking peak performance in demanding
environments by providing innovative custom and standard wear-resistant solutions.
2

PRODUCT RANGE:
Machining Industry : Machining centers , Turning centers , Fixtures,
Cutting tool , Inserts ,Tool bits , Taps and Dies.
Aerospace Industry : Blades, disks, skins, fuel control systems.
Automobile Industry : Camshafts, crankshafts, cylinder heads, rotors.
Mining equipment : Wheels and axles for the Railroads ,Asphalt,
stabilization tools and tunneling equipment.
CUSTOMER BASE:
 The company's commitment to a sustainable environment provides additional
value to its customers.
 Today, most of India’s leading manufacturing and industrial giants, from the
private, public and Government sectors, rely on Kennametal India’s tooling
expertise to produce their products.
 Among others, these include automobile majors like GM, TVS, TELCO and
Yamaha, BHEL, Northern Railways, Ordinance and Armament factories, Escorts
Mahle , Sterling Tools and SKF Bearings 3

SYNOPSIS
Problem Definition:
 The current process of manufacturing the carbide inserts has it going through 8 to 10 processes.
Due to various causes there has been a lot of internal scrapping.(Nearly 21% annually).
Project goals:
 Bring down the % of internal scrapping within the acceptable limits set by the management.
 Find out the reasons for unaccounted losses and reduce the % of unaccounted losses.
Timeframe:
Phase 1: October 2011-December 2011
Objectives:
1. Define the problem.
2. Finish literature survey and data collection pertaining to our project.
3. Begin with Measurement phase.
Phase 2: February 2012-June 2012
Objectives:
1. Identify potential causes.
2. Propose Solutions and select the most feasible solution.
3. Check and evaluate results after solution implementation. 4

LITERATURE SURVEY
We have referred about ten papers that have dealt with six sigma
implementation. Out of these, we have focused on three papers as we
found that the approaches towards the implementation of six sigma
would best support our project.
The problems that were discussed in these papers were:
1. Reduction of rejection and rework by six sigma implementation.
2. Six sigma process improvement in the manufacturing of automotive
parts.
3. Reducing water consumption within the coca-cola industry by
implementation of six sigma.
5

Reducing the rejection and rework by Six Sigma
Implementation
This problem was dealt with as follows:
 After the Define and Measurement phases a cause validation plan was charted in the Analysis
phase which listed the causes and the methods of validation of each cause.
 Chief causes were found.
 In the Improve phase solutions for all the root causes were charted out. Solutions were
implemented after studying all the risks involved in the implementation and the results were
observed.
 Risk analysis performed to analyze possible side effects of each solution. There were no risks
involved in the implementation.
 Implementation sustained by continuous monitoring and standardization of the improved
methods in the control phase.
6

Six sigma process improvement in the
manufacturing of automotive parts
 This paper mainly focuses on how six sigma was implemented at company that manufactured
automotive parts. The project mainly dealt with identification and reduction of production cost
in the deburring process for gravity die-castings and improvement of quality level of produced
parts.
 The approaches followed in their Define, Measure and Analysis phase was best suited for the
way we would like to go about our project.
 Some of the tools and techniques that were picked up from those phases are:
1. Define: Problem Definition, Setting of objectives and metrics, Solution strategy,
Brainstorming
2. Measurement: Flow Charting the process, Economic considerations of quality, Cause & Effect
diagram, Pareto analysis , Measurement systems analysis
7

Reducing water consumption within the coca-
cola industry by Implementing Six Sigma
 In this paper the problem that is dealt with is the Optimization and reduction of water
consumption at Coca-Cola.
 This particular problem was approached using the tools of the six sigma method such as Pareto,
the histograms, diagram cause and effect (Ishikawa), and control charts.
 We got a better idea of how the tools of six sigma can be used in the measurement phase to
help in identifying the causes.
8

CONSTRAINTS
• The time frame of our project was about 8 months. It generally takes years to
implement six sigma in a company. With the available time frame our team
focused primarily on improving the sigma level of “Type D inserts” from the
current level.
• The causes that fell under the ‘Others’ category includes a number of small
causes. Concentrating on each of these causes would be very time consuming
and would not be feasible given the time frame.
• It was decided that the focus should be on damages and on unaccounted
losses as it was feasible within the available time limit.
• Another cause, Adhesion which is also accounts for a large percentage of
scrap requires a lot of investment and research to be conducted in order to
ascertain to find a solution. This was not feasible in the time frame.
• Our project was limited to production unit 5. In order to implement six sigma
throughout, every individual plant needs to focus towards six sigma
implementation.
• The solutions proposed are directed keeping six sigma in mind. However rapid
improvements cannot be observed in a matter of one month. Our
observations of results after solution implementation was for a period of one
month. 9

 Mathematically, Six Sigma represents six standard deviations (plus or
minus) from the arithmetic mean.
 As a measurement of quality Six Sigma means the setting of a
performance level that equates to no more than 3.4 DPMO.
 Six Sigma is an approach that takes a whole system approach to
improvement of quality and customer service.
 Like most quality initiatives, Six Sigma requires a total culture throughout
an organization whereby everyone at all levels has a passion for
continuous improvement with the ultimate aim of achieving virtual
perfection
11

Statistical background
+/ − 3 σ
+/ − 6 σ
LSL USL
ppm
3.4
ppm
3.4
Tolerance
Target = µ
12

A scientific and practical method towards six sigma:
“Show me
the money”
Scientific:
• Structured approach.
• Assuming quantitative data
“Show me
the data”
Practical:
• Emphasis on financial result.
• Start with the voice of the customer
13

Applications of Six Sigma
IT Services
Management
Production
Quality
Product Design
14

Advantages of Six Sigma
Six Sigma is a methodology which helps to:
 Increase the performance of the company
by the improvement of the quality of its
processes.
 Get tools to reduce the costs
 Provides methods tested to measure
precisely and increases the ROI.
 Improve comprehension, the control & the
performance of the key processes.
15

Barrier #1: Engineers and managers are not interested in mathematical statistics
Barrier #2: Statisticians have problems communicating with managers and
engineers
Barrier #3: Non-statisticians experience “statistical anxiety” which has to be
minimized before learning can take place
Barrier # 4: Statistical methods need to be matched to management style and
organizational culture
Barriers to implementation
16

Pareto Analysis
% Scrap 1.45 0.98 0.79 0.37 0.26 0.22 0.14 0.14
Percent 33.3 22.5 18.2 8.5 6.0 5.1 3.2 3.2
Cum % 33.3 55.9 74.0 82.5 88.5 93.6 96.8 100.0
Defects
Set up
Scrap
Crack
M
/cing
Scrap
M
et. Defects
Adhesion
Dam
ages
Un
acc
O
thers
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
%Scrap
Percent
Pareto Chart of Defects for "TYPE D" products
18

Project Y Analysis
Develop data collection plan:
 What type of data will be collected?
 What measurements will be taken and how?
 Who will collect the data?
Data Collection
Plan.xls
Data Collection
Plan.xls
19

• A Product Activity Sheet has been charted to
help us carry out the process of data
collection.
• A sample of the product activity sheet is
shown below.
Data Collection
Plan.xls
20

Data collection for scrapping due
to damages
Sl No. Month Scrap Qty
1 June 4190
2 July 5625
3 August 5984
21

Unaccounted due to size
Size Un acc
LARGE >=10 4766
SMALL 579
OTHERS 1997
The data for the month of august has been shown. Similarly the data has been analyzed
for different months.
22

Unaccounted due to type
Sl no Type Un acc.
1 C 493.000
2 D 205
3 H 57
4 K 24
5 L 359
6 N 74
7 O 10
8 P 6
9 R 631
10 S 1839
11 SPL 1997
12 T 1035
13 V 195
14 W 292
15 X 125
Total 7,342.000
23

Data collection for stage wise unaccounted
quantity
The data for stage wise unaccounted has been shown for
35 sample orders.
Data Collection
Plan.xls
24

Sl.No. Printed Qty. Qty. Entered
Stg.Insp For
Coating Final Insp Dispatch Un Acc.
1 500 509 509 507 500 7
2 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 0
3 100 100 100 96 90 6
4 500 501 501 475 470 5
5 250 249 249 247 240 7
6 500 516 516 513 510 3
7 250 264 261 261 260 1
8 250 250 250 249 240 9
9 500 412 409 408 400 8
10 250 255 256 253 250 3
11 250 254 251 251 250 1
12 500 507 506 506 500 6
13 1000 994 992 982 980 6
14 500 506 506 506 500 6
15 500 501 500 500 500 0
16 100 102 102 102 100 2
17 250 257 257 254 250 4
18 250 251 251 250 250 0
19 500 512 512 340 330 10
20 500 504 504 501 500 1
Stage wise unaccounted quantity for the
coating process
25

METHODOLOGY
• To achieve our final goal of implementing Six
Sigma in order to reduce the percentage of
internal scrapping, we are looking to solve the
problem at hand using the DMAIC approach.
D- Define
M-Measure
A-Analyze
I- Improve
C- Control
28

To get a better understanding of each process
in the production unit we chart the Standard
Operation Procedure. The SOP includes the
following :
1. Purpose
2. Scope
3. Procedure
4. Quality checks
5. Material Handling
30

Softwares Used
To assist in the Measurement and Analysis phases of our project we
are using the following softwares:
1.SAP
SAP is the ERP package used at KENNAMETAL.
We used this software for:
a. Obtaining historical data
b. Tracking orders
c. Customer complaints
2. MINITAB
MINITAB is a statistics package that is used to generate Tables
and Graphs, Measurement Systems Analysis, Statistical Process
Control and other statistical purposes.
We used this software for:
a. Pareto Analysis
b. Tables and Graphs 31

Define: Identify Project
Project Background
• For the period of July’10 to June’11,the overall rejection in PU5
(Inserts Plant) is 21% more than the corporate target.
• Demand for inserts has increased by 40% per month
• Raw material cost has increased by 45% per Kg
Product Scope:- All inserts Manufactured in PU5
Process Scope:-
• Start - Pressing
• End - Final Inspection
Customer(s):-
• External customer who are in the business of metal removal
process
• Warehouse & Sales
D M A I C
32

Define: Project CTQ’s (Critical To
Quality)
D M A I C
Identify the Customer (Internal/Business, External)
• Warehouse & Sales
• External customer who are in the business of metal
removal process
Summarize VOC data (VOC/VOB Data)
• For the period of Jul’10 to Jun ’11, the overall rejection in
PU5 (Inserts Plant) is 21% more than the targeted value.
• Cost of scrap is about 28M per annum.
33

D M A I C
Identify CTQ drivers and Performance Standards
 A CTQ tree (Critical to Quality tree) is used to decompose broad
customer requirements into more easily quantified requirements. CTQ
Trees are often used in the Six Sigma methodology.
 CTQs are derived from customer needs.
 CTQs are the key measurable characteristics of a product whose
performance standards must be met in order to satisfy the customer.
 CTQs represent the product or service characteristics that are defined
by the customer (internal or external).
 A CTQ usually must be interpreted from a qualitative customer
statement to an actionable, quantitative business specification.
34

Define: Project CTQ’s (Critical To
Quality)
D M A I C
Translate VOC into CTQ’s
NEED
DRIVER(Type of
Defect) CTQ
Reduce Internal
Rejection in PU5
Damages Scrap Due to damages
Unaccounted scrap
Rejection Due to
Unaccounted scrap
35

Insert Manufacturing process In Production Unit-5
D M A I C
Green Carbide Powder is Brought
into PU 5 unit
Green Carbide Powder is Brought
into PU 5 unit
PRESSINGPRESSING
Green
Carbide
Inspectio
n Area
Green
Carbide
Inspectio
n Area
SINTERINGSINTERING
REWORKREWORK
Metallurgical
Inspection
(HC Meter &
Magnetic
Saturation)
Metallurgical
Inspection
(HC Meter &
Magnetic
Saturation)
REJECTREJECT
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
DOUBLE DISC GRINDINGDOUBLE DISC GRINDING
SCRAPSCRAP
CC
36

Flowchart Continued… D M A I C
Is the
Insert
PG
Type?
Is the
Insert
PG
Type?
EDGE
CONDITIONING
EDGE
CONDITIONING
PG GRINDINGPG GRINDING
VAQUA BLASTINGVAQUA BLASTING
CLEANINGCLEANING
Does
Insert
require
Coating
?
Does
Insert
require
Coating
?
PACKING &
DISPATCH
PACKING &
DISPATCH
COATINGCOATING
Final
Inspection
Final
Inspection
Yes
Yes
No
No
Pass
REJECTREJECT
Fail
SCRAPSCRAP
CC
37

SIPOC : Insert Manufacturing Process
Supplier Input Process Output Customer
PU1 Powder
Insert
Manufacturing
Insert Blanks KDS & Global
warehouse
Press Tools Die Set
Pressing
process
Green Compact
Sintering
process
Sintered blanks
Grinding Inserts
RDE Process
Parameters
Vendor Post blast
equipments
D M A I C
38

Measure: Project Y identification and
performance standards for Type D inserts
D M A I C
39

D M A I C
Measurement System Analysis
 MSA is an important element of Six Sigma methodology and of other quality management
systems.
 Measurement System Analysis is a critical first step that should precede any data-based
decision making.
Goals of MSA:
1. Measurement uncertainty
2. Accuracy and precision
3. Bias
4. Stability
5. Linearity
6. Repeatability and Reproducibility 40

D M A I CKappa Study to check the agreement
between team members(Before)
41

D M A I CKappa Study to check the agreement
between team members(After)
42

D M A I C
Measure: Pareto Analysis
% Scrap 1.45 0.98 0.79 0.37 0.26 0.22 0.14 0.14
Percent 33.3 22.5 18.2 8.5 6.0 5.1 3.2 3.2
Cum % 33.3 55.9 74.0 82.5 88.5 93.6 96.8 100.0
Defects
Set up
Scrap
Crack
M
/cing
Scrap
M
et. Defects
Adhesion
Dam
ages
Un
acc
O
thers
5
4
3
2
1
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
%Scrap
Percent
Pareto Chart of Defects for "TYPE D" products
43

Measure: Project Y Identification and
Performance Standards
1. Identify candidate Project Ys
Y- Over all rejection.
Y1- Rejection due to damages.
Y2- Rejection due to Un accounted Scrap.
2. CTQs
a) Inserts scrap due to Damages
b) Inserts scrap due to un-accounted
D M A I C
l 44

Damages should not be
there at Cutting Edge
D M A I C
45

Measure: Project Y analysis
• Conduct graphical analysis of data.
• Y- Over all rejection.
• Y1- Rejection due to damages.
• Y2- Rejection due to Un accounted Scrap.
D M A I C
46

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM FOR DAMAGES
D M A I C
Damages
Men Machine
Method
Material
Type of Press Tools
Brushing in GCI
Flipping in Sponge plate
Transferring to Graphite plate
Frequency of Punch cleaning
Brush type
Pressure of Brushing
Quality samples kept on
the sintered inserts
Process flow sequence
Working Condition
Handling during loading
Handling during un-loading
Stage Inspection before Coating
Coating – manual packing method
Cleaning – Handling
Top & Bottom Grinding – Feeder plates
Use of Magazines
Grinding parameters
Wheel specification
Method of insert grinding (Linear / planetary)
Dry
Wet
Handling Issues
48

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM FOR
UNACCOUNTED LOSSES
D M A I C
Unaccounted
Losses
Unaccounted
Losses
MachineMachine
ManMan
MethodMethod
MaterialMaterial
Non replacement of inspected inserts
Miscalculation of No. of inserts by operator
No entry of scrap qty
Wrong entry of scrap qty
Extra quantities during packing
are scraped
Damaged trays
Incomplete stage wise entries in the SAP system
Batch mix up due to similar styles
Extra quantities not packed
Workers lack of training in SAP data
entry
Loss of inserts inside the sinter HIP
49

• Calculate defect level.
– CTQ Specification Table
D M A I C
NEED
DRIVER (Type
of Defects) CTQ
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITION OF
MEASURE
DEFECT
DEFINITION
KANO
STATUS
Damages
Scrap Due to
damages
Visual observation under
microscope (10X)
Inserts with damages Must be
Unaccounted scrap
Rejection Due to
Unaccounted
scrap
Count the number of
pieces
Rejection Qty not
accounted
Less the
better
Reduce
Internal
Rejection in
PU5
l 50

Project Y capability for Group D Products
 Defects per million opportunities or DPMO is a measure of
process performance. It is defined as
 Processes that are considered highly-capable (e.g., processes
of Six Sigma quality) are those that experience only a handful
of defects per million units produced.
D M A I C
51

D M A I C
DPMO Calculations for current State
52

D M A I CDPMO Conversion Table
53

D M A I C
Analysis: Stage Identification
 Based on the pie chart shown below, we found that the DDG and
the edge-rounding processes required attention.
 The data was obtained by 100% inspection of the inserts using an
electronic microscope as shown below.
54

D M A I C
Stage Scrap % Scrap
Stage Inspection 3 0.65
Edge Rounding 17 1.95
Vaqua Blasting 3 0.72
DDG 33 4.20
Polishing 1 1.28
55

D M A I C
Cause and effect Diagrams for the significant stages
DamagesDamages
MachineMachine
ManMan
MethodMethod
MaterialMaterial
Loading onto cages
Bunching 5 to 6 inserts together
Grinding wheel alignment
Oversized cages causing the
inserts to vibrate in the
cage
Loading of inserts
into the cage
When released from the cage
onto the conveyor the inserts
fall over one another
Lack of lubrication of
feeder plate
Cause and Effect diagram for DDG 56

D M A I C
Cause and effect Diagrams for the significant stages
Cause and Effect diagram for Edge-Rounding
Damages
Machine
Man
Method
Material
Design of insert holder causing vibrations
in the inserts
3 point reference for
dressing of the brush
could be inaccurate
Unloading of inserts from M/C
Damages due to striking of inserts against the
securing pins
Dropping of inserts due to lack of grip caused by glove material
57

D M A I CValidation plan
 Based on the availability of the data on the causes, it was decided
about the type of analysis possible to validate each one of these
causes.
 Based on this understanding, a cause validation plan was prepared
for all the potential causes and is presented below.
 This cause validation plan gives the details of analysis planned for
causes.
 Those causes where Gemba is identified as the method of
validation, we observed the process in person and the observations
were noted and decision was taken whether it is a root cause or not.
58

D M A I C
Validation plan
for
Unaccounted
Losses
59

D M A I CValidation plan for
DDG
Sl No. Cause Validation
Method
Responsibility Date
1 Loading of inserts into the
cages
Gemba Ashwin
Rakshith
20/02/2012
2 Loading of inserts
onto the tray
Gemba Ashwin
Rakshith
20/02/2012
3 Unloading of inserts from
the cage
Gemba Abhishek
Rakshith
20/02/2012
4 Lack of lubrication of
feeder plate
Historical Data Ashwin 05/03/2012
5 When released from the
cage onto the conveyor ,
the inserts fall over one
another
Gemba Ashwin
Rakshith
20/02/2012
60

D M A I C
Validation
plan for
Edge-
Rounding
Sl No. Cause Validation
Method
Responsibility Date
1 Loading of inserts onto
the M/C
Gemba Rakshith 22/02/2012
2 Damages due to striking
of inserts against the
securing pins
Gemba Abhishek 22/02/2012
3 Unloading of inserts from
M/C
Gemba Abhishek
Ashwin
Rakshith
22/02/2012
4 3 point reference for
could be inaccurate
Gemba Abhishek 05/03/2012
5 Dropping of inserts due
to lack of grip caused by
glove material
Gemba Rakshith 05/03/2012
61

D M A I CValidation Outcome
Validation outcome should include:
 The assessment process being validated
 The findings of the validation
 The action plan to ensure all areas meet requirements
The validation outcome was charted out for the root
causes identified.
62

D M A I CValidation Outcome
for unaccounted losses
63

D M A I CValidation outcome for DDG
64

D M A I CValidation outcome for
Edge-Rounding
Sl No. Cause Requirement Observation Significance
1 Unloading of inserts
from M/C
Operator must not
throw the inserts onto
the tray. The inserts
must be carefully
placed
The operator was
throwing the inserts
onto the tray.
Yes
2 3 point reference for
could be inaccurate
The entire length of
the brush must be
taken into account.
The dressing is
carried out with only
3-point reference.
Yes
3 Dropping of inserts due
to lack of grip caused by
glove material
The gloves provided
must provide
adequate grip
The operator found
it slightly difficult to
pick up the inserts
due to the lack of
grip caused by the
glove material.
Yes
4 Design of insert holder
causing vibrations in the
inserts
The size of the cage
must ensure that the
inserts fit snugly
Not observed. No
65

D M A I CWhy-Why analysis for
Unaccounted losses
66

D M A I CWhy-Why analysis for
Damages
67

D M A I CProposed solutions for
unaccounted losses
68

Damages in DDG
69

Damages in Edge-Rounding
70

D M A I C
Estimated financial impact of the
Project for “Type D” products
•Inserts rejected due to defects = 4.35%
•Expected rejection after the Project = 3. 0 %
•Monthly rejection @ 4.35% rejection level = 3915 No.
•(Where monthly estimated Production is Approx. =90000)
•Monthly rejection @ 3.0% rejection level = 2700 Nos.
•Savings in inserts = 3915 - 2700= 1215 No’s
•Cost of insert Avg.= INR 85
•Total cost savings = INR 103275
•Total cost savings per Annum = 103275*12 = 1239300
71

D M A I C
Improve: Solution Prioritization Matrix
 The Prioritization Matrix provides a way of sorting a diverse
set of items into an order of importance.
 Enables their relative importance to be identified by deriving
a numerical value of the importance of each item.
 Useful in Improve phases when you have to achieve
consensus about an issue or proposed solution.
 For causes that had multiple solutions our team used this
technique in order to narrow it down to one feasible solution.
72

D M A I CSolution Prioritization matrix for multiple
solutions proposed for incomplete SAP entries
Rating for the criteria:
Name of Person Rakshith Abhishek Ashwin Dinesh G Total
Easy to implement 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.2
Cost of implementation 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5
Acceptance by the user 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.5
EHS Compliance 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8
Total 1 1 1 1
73

 The table shows the most important criteria for selecting a solution.
 A score was given by each of the team members out of a total value of 1.
 The higher the score, the more acceptable the solution for a particular
criteria.
 For example: If the Cost Of Implementation has a score of 0.5, then the
proposed solution is more cost effective. The total score for each rating criteria
is calculated.
 Once the total score for each criteria is calculated, a solution prioritization
matrix is plotted.
74

Solution prioritisation matrix
Criteria
Easy to
impleme
nt
Cost of
impleme
ntation
Acceptan
ce by
the user
EHS
Complia
nce
Prioritisa
tion
score Ranking
Solution
Selected
Rating 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.8
Cause Recommended solution
Provide computer at each work
station 8 7 9 10 34.6 2
A single System can be
provided near the workplace and
the workers can enter the
stagewise data at the end of
their shift. 6 10 7 10 30.7 3
Provide barcode scanners near
the workstations to check if the
entry has been made in the
previous stage.
5 5 8 10 28.5 4
Instead of providing many
computers a few systems can
be provided which can be
accessible to all the
workstations.
9 9 9 10 36.8 1 Selected
Incomplete
stage
wise
entries in
the SAP
system
75

 For each of the alternative solutions proposed a score out of a maximum
of 10 is given.
 The prioritization score is calculated by multiplying total score of each
individual rating criteria with the score given for each solution
For example:
• For the solution where it is proposed that computers be provided at each
individual workstation the scores given for each criteria are 8, 7, 9 and 10
respectively. Now the total prioritization score is calculated as follows:
Prioritization score= (1.2*8)+(0.5*7)+(1.5*9)+(0.8*10) = 34.6
 Once the prioritization score for each solution is calculated, a ranking is
given to each of the solutions.
 The highest ranked solution is selected for implementation. 76

D M A I CRisk Analysis
 A risk analysis was carried out for one the solutions provided,
that is the use of Latex gloves.
 This is one of the main requirement of the EHS (Environment,
Health and Safety) if we have to get approval to implement
the solution.
Risks Identified:
• Finding out or getting the source of Gloves, that is the
supplier.
• EHS concerns such as hazardous, waste disposal etc.
• Acceptability of the operators.
 After performing through analysis, we conclude there is no
risk in using Latex gloves as these gloves are already in place
in the other cells of the plant. 77

D M A I CImplementation Plan
 This basically deals with how a particular solution can be
implemented.
 It provides the detailed steps and series of activities that
must be carried out in order to implement the solution.
 This is normally represented in a tabular form.
78

D M A I CProviding a few systems accessible
to the workstation
79

D M A I CPilot Solution
 After the implementation plan is made ready, the next step is
to go in for Pilot tests.
 A test of all or part of a proposed solution on a small scale in
order to better understand its effects and learn about how to
make the full-scale implementation more effective.
 Shown in the following tables are the set of results obtained
from pilot tests, while testing for the amount of damages and
unaccounted losses occurring.
80

D M A I CPilot test for damages
81

D M A I CPilot test for Unaccounted
losses
82

D M A I C
Project Y capability for Group D
Products after Implementation of
solutions
83

D M A I C
Project Y capability for Group D
Products after Implementation of
solutions
 We can now clearly see the change in the Sigma level between the
earlier DPMO analysis and the present, for damages the Sigma level
has gone up from 4.01 to 4.15 and for unaccounted losses from 3.81
to 4.09.
This shows that a significant improvement has been made to the
process from the earlier stages.
84

D M A I CSolution implementation
• Since our pilot tests were successful, we went
on with the implementation of the solutions.
• Some are implemented as of now as shown in
the following slides, but the rest of the
solutions proposed by our team is under
review.
85

D M A I CDifferent Solutions that were
implemented:
Training of the operators:
 An Effective training schedule was proposed so as to create awareness
amongst the operators. It included modules on:
• Training on the using of the SAP system and spreading of awareness of
the importance of data entry.
• Training on the handling of inserts. This included the training on the
loading and unloading of the inserts from the machine.
 The training schedule was designed such that every 6 months the
operators would be provided with training. Also for new recruits, these
training modules were included in their initial training phase.
 The training schedule was designed keeping the operator’s shift timings in
mind 86

implemented:
Providing a few systems which
are accessible to every
workstation:
 There are a large number of
readily available computers
 This helped us in reducing the
cost it would take to purchase
new computers
87

implemented:
Visual representation of the correct
way to bunch inserts before placing
them onto the cages:
 As shown, a visual representation
which consisted of images showing the
correct and the wrong ways of
bunching the inserts was put up at all
of the DDG workstations.
88

implemented:
Replacement of cages used for DDG with cages
made of softer material:
 The initial cages were made of metal as shown
below which were hard and upon collision with
the inserts caused damages.
89

implemented:
 The metal cages were replaced with teflon cages which are not
only durable but do not cause any damage when the inserts
collide with the cages during the process.
 These cages have now been implemented and are been tested
for wear rate, as Teflon helps to prevents damages but wears out
in 3 months then it’s of no use to us.
90

implemented:
Replacement of gloves made from cloth material to
Latex material:
 The operators were using the gloves made from fabric.
 It was hard for them to grip the inserts and this would result in
dropping of inserts leading to insert damage.
91

implemented:
 Now by providing the Latex gloves the operators are
finding it easier to grip the inserts and as a result the
damages of inserts due to dropping of inserts have
reduced.
92

Financial impact of the Project
for “Type D” products
•Inserts rejected due to defects before starting the project = 4.35%
•Inserts rejected due to defects after starting the project = 3.30%
•(Where monthly estimated Production is Approx. =90000)
•Savings in inserts = 3915 - 2970= 945 No’s
•Cost of insert Avg.= INR 85
•Total cost savings = INR 80325
•Total cost savings per Annum = 80325*12 = 963900
D M A I C
93

D M A I CControl
• In this phase, we basically are looking to Identify, plan and implement the
permanent solution, Develop Control Plan, and hand over project to the
operating organization.
Some of the permanent solutions that were implemented along with their
dates of implementation are:
• Visual standards have now been introduced and are displayed at each
work station leading to better handling of the inserts. - 24/04/2012
• Awareness training program is planned once every six months. -
20/05/2012
• All the corrective action that were implemented are now included in the
process audit check list, which ensure all the new changes are being
followed. - 25/05/2012
94

CONCLUSION
At the end of our project we were able to;
 Successfully implement proposed solutions.
 Achieve an increase in sigma level for the process once the solutions were
implemented.
 Achieve reduction in the percentage of scrap and unaccounted losses.
 Gained considerable knowledge on six sigma tools and its importance in an
industry such as, pareto analysis and cause and effect diagrams.
 Gained an insight into the difficulties faced by an organization during the
implementation of six sigma.
 By reducing the number of damages, the company achieve greater customer
satisfaction than before and also improve profitability.
95

REFERENCES
1. www.kennametal.com/en-US/home
2. Tarek Sadraoui, Ayadi Afef and Jallouli Fayza, “Six Sigma: a new practice for reducing
water consumption within Coca Cola industry”.
3. Journal of achievements in Materials and Manufacturing engineering, volume 19 Issue
1, “Six Sigma process improvements in automotive parts production”.
4. E.V. Gijo and Johny Scaria, “Reducing rejection and rework by application of Six Sigma
methodology in manufacturing process”.
5. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/blackiceberg-130113-six-sigma-
download-3-entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/
6. www.bescarbide.com
7. www.image.google.com
96

PW Final Jun7 2012

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to PW Final Jun7 2012 (20)

PW Final Jun7 2012