Quality circle competition Project machining.pptx

Quality circle competition case study

1. From :- Team Team Formation To QCC (Quality Control Circle)

2. Mohit Rana Team Coordinator Ravi Pal Team Leader (Quality) Sukhdev Rana Team Member (Prod.) Nellu Kumar Team Member (inspector) Dheeraj Pundir Team Member (Tool crib) Shyam Pandey Team Member (Operator) Team Name:- Team Formation

3. QCC Steps Step-1 Identify the problem. Step-2 Selection of concern. Step-3 Theme selection & Current situation. Step-4 Current situation & Set objective. Step-5 Cause analysis. Step-6 Countermeasure i mplement. Step-7 Effective of countermeasure. Step-8 Result & Horizontal Deployment. Step-9 Standardization. Step-10 Tangible & Intangible Benefits.

4. Identify the Problem. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Problem Identification area Productivity Rejection & Rework Customer complaints Non value added operation Energy consumption Optimize resource utilization Delivery Supplier Rejection

5. Identify the Problem. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10

6. Selection of concern. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Higher contribution from 1 st floor at plant level Rejection.

7. Selection of concern. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 List of defects in machine shop S.No. Defect Phenomena Category S.no. Defect Phenomena Category 1 OD undersize C 14 Dent A 2 OD oversize C 15 Center Distance NG A 3 Step Height uneven A 16 Flatness NG A 4 Thread undersize B 17 Step OD undersize A 5 Thread oversize B 18 Taper in Height A 6 ID oversize A 19 Setting NG A 7 ID undersize A 20 Slot depth NG A 8 Ovality excess in ID B 21 Slot Dia. NG A 9 Height undersize A 22 Thread Rej. A 10 Profile NG A 23 M.Dia. oversize A 11 Roughness NG A 24 M.Dia. und ersize A 12 Chamfer uneven A 13 Damage A A: Which can be solved at our without involving other dept. B: Involvement of other department is necessary. C: Involvement of management is required. Team decide work on “B” Type defect. S.No. Category Qty. 1 “A” Type 19 2 “B” Type 3 3 “C” Type 2 Reduce Rejection PPM Of this defect.

8. Selection of concern. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Part no.2749 high contributor in Thread undersize rejection.

9. Theme selection. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Theme Selection TO eliminate defect phenomenon Thread undersize in Part no. 2749. Product Photograph & Function Product Name:- Hego-boss. Function:- NG Product Photograph Part photo with Inspection method. Thread gauge Not qualified from ‘Go’ side.

10. Current situation. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Process Flow Diagram Billets cutting (Bendsaw) 1 st side facing and ID drilling. (CNC Turning) Drilling, Threading and 2 nd facing. (CNC Turning) Washing 100% Final Inspection Packing Dispatch Occurrence stage Detection stage This defect phenomenon occurred in 2 nd operation and detect at final inspection table.

11. Current situation. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Previous Actions Previous actions available in process but rejection observed continually. S. no. Problem Action Status 1 Threading problem Full form threading insert used. Implemented. 2 Through coolant tool used. Implemented. 3 Rain bow chart Implemented.

12. Set objective . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Team set the Goal, Reduce rejection 90% in Threading. To reduce the rejection ppm of Thread undersize in Part no.2749. By June-21 Target When How Much

13. Activity plan . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Timing Chart S.No. QCC STEPS Apr.2021 May.2021 Jun.2021 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 1 Identify the problem. 2 Selection of concern. 3 Grasp current situation. 4 Set objective. 5 Cause analysis. 6 Examine & implement countermeasure. 7 Effective of countermeasure. 8 Result & Horizontal Deployment 9 Standardization. 10 Future project. CFT team planned the activity.

14. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Brain Storming S.no. Cause S.no. Cause 1 Wrong Offset. 22 Wrong inspection method mention in OPS. 2 Wrong loading. 23 Inspection method wrong. 3 Wrong insert selection. 24 Wrong thread gauge. 4 Lack awareness about process. 25 Black thread gauge use in-process. 5 Lack awareness about inspection gauges. 26 Thread gauge damage. 6 Chips not clean from jaws. 27 Insert tool crack. 7 Machine repeatability Not ok. 28 Insert wear out. 8 Encoder disturbed. 29 Insert life less. 9 Belt loose. 30 Multiple Insert grade use . 10 Machine center NG. 31 Wrong Insert tool. 11 Process parameter not ok (FEED , RPM , Depth of cut NG) 32 Full-form thread insert not use. 12 Coolant flow low. 33 Wrong insert use. 13 Coolant consternation low. 34 Without through coolant tool use. 14 Hydraulic pressure low. 15 Oil level low. 16 Hydraulic oil not proper feeding. 17 Wrong Program. 18 Play in jaws 19 Different grade material use. 20 Material hardness high. 21 Pre-thread dia. uneven. CFT team find out the all causes with the help of Brain Storming.

15. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Cause & Effect analysis Our team found out 34 possible causes related to thread undersize defect phenomenon . Thread Undersize Man Machine Material Method Tool & Fixture Lack awareness about process. Wrong Offset Wrong insert selection Wrong loading Repeatability Not ok Belt loose Process parameter not ok Feed NG RPM NG Depth of cut NG Machine center NG Play in jaws Hydraulic pressure low Oil level low Hydraulic oil not proper feeding Encoder loose Wrong Program Coolant flow low Coolant consternation low Chips not clean from jaws Different grade material use Pre-thread dia. uneven. Material hardness high Inspection method wrong Wrong thread gauge Black thread gauge use in-process Thread gauge damage Lack awareness about inspection gauges. Wrong inspection method mention in OPS. Wrong insert use Multiple Insert grade use Without through coolant tool use Insert tool crack Insert Insert life less Insert wear out Full-form thread insert not use Wrong Insert tool

16. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Gemba Observation S.no. 4M1T Possible cause Result 1 Man Wrong Offset. Offset limit not set on threading operation . 2 Wrong loading. Took simulate but not impact on threading. 3 Wrong insert selection. Insert not issue in floor without history card. 4 Lack awareness about process. Operator skill level -2. 5 Lack awareness about inspection gauges. Operator skill level -2. 6 Chips not clean from jaws. Took simulate but not impact on threading. 7 Machine Machine repeatability Not ok. Found ok. 8 Encoder disturbed. Found ok. 9 Belt loose. Found ok. 10 Machine center NG. With in 0.020mm observed. 11 Process parameter not ok (FEED , RPM , Depth of cut NG) Parameter freeze as per OPS. 12 Coolant flow low. Found ok. 13 Coolant consternation low. 4% observed. 14 Hydraulic pressure low. Found ok. 15 Oil level low. Found ok. 16 Hydraulic oil not proper feeding. Found ok. 17 Wrong Program. Found ok. 18 Play in jaws Excess play observed in jaws . 19 Method Different grade material use. No same grade use and daily monitoring. 20 Material hardness high. Found ok. 21 Pre-thread dia. uneven. Pre-thread dia .uneven observed.

17. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Gemba Observation S.no. 4M1T Possible cause Result 22 Method Wrong inspection method mention in OPS. No, Found ok. 23 Inspection method wrong. No, Found ok. 24 Wrong thread gauge. No, Found ok. 25 Black thread gauge use in-process. No, yellow gauge use 26 Thread gauge damage. No, Found ok. 27 Tool & Fixture Insert tool crack. Found ok. 28 Insert wear out. Insert life issues observed. 29 Insert life less. 30 Multiple Insert grade use . Yes, multiple insert use but life same observed. 31 Wrong Insert tool. Found ok. 32 Full-form thread insert not use. Found ok. 33 Wrong insert use. Took simulate and found thread pitch size make different but detect easily during inspection. 34 Without through coolant tool use. Found ok. After Gemba observation our team identify the 4/34 Significant causes related to thread undersize defect phenomenon .

18. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Summary of Significant or In-significant cause Cause no. 4M&1T Possible cause Specification Observation Status 1 MATERIAL Pre thread dia. uneven. As per OPS. Found undersize and oversize. Valid 2 MAN Wrong offset given by operator. Offset value interlock with program. Offset value not interlock with program. Valid 3 MACHINE Play in jaws. No play in jaws. Jaws conditions good. Not Valid 4 TOOL Insert life less. As per OPS. Insert supplier grade fixed. Not Valid After validation 02 valid causes found.

19. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Why Why Analysis Team using 5 why analysis tool to find out the actual root cause and take action. Why 2 Root cause Idea Action Why 1 Pre-thread diameter uneven. Tool life less. Non Standard Tool use. Standard Tool use. B reezing tool modified to standardize. Problem :- Thread Undersize in Hego boss. Why 3 Tool wear out frequently. Why 4 Non standard tool use.

20. Cause analysis . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Why Why Analysis Team using 5 why analysis tool t o find out the actual root cause and take action. Why 2 Root cause Idea Action Why 1 Wrong Offset. Manual Correction (Poka). Initial Program design ( Poka ). Robust program design (Modify) Micro program made and introduced in process. ( Manual offset eliminate from threading operation). Problem :- Thread Undersize in Hego boss. Why 3 Initial Program design.

21. Countermeasure implementation . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Possible cause Reason Action Pre thread dia. uneven. Non standard breezing tool use for pre thread dia. Standard breezing tool implemented with interlocking tool life. Countermeasure Before After Non standard breezing tool used. Standard breezing tool use. 1 st Countermeasure implemented, Continue six days monitoring Threading rejection reduce but result are not satisfy .

22. Countermeasure implementation . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Possible cause Reason Action Wrong offset given by operator . Manual Offset (Poka) Auto offset, Micro program implemented. (PokaYoke) 2 nd Countermeasure Continue six days monitoring after implementation of all countermeasures but result are GOOD .

23. How its work? Insert life should be freeze. Micro program insert in machine. Machine center with in 0.010mm. Chuck run out with in 0.020mm. Offset value fix as per life . i.e. insert life freeze 100/edge , then 1 st offset (0.030mm) after 40 pcs, 2 nd offset (0.030mm) after 30nos., 3 rd offset (0.030mm) after 20pcs . If insert edge not achieve as decided life , offset value zero by manual in work offset. If insert edge achieve as decided life, offset value automatically zero in work offset. (Only change the insert and run the machine). Advantages: Eliminate Operator negligence (Auto offset). Operator fatigue reduce. Thread undersize rejection reduced. Productivity improve . Tool cutting cost reduce. OPL Micro program for Threading. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Countermeasure implementation .

24. Effectiveness of countermeasure . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Checking effectiveness after implementing the all actions in one month and results are GOOD. Horizontal deployment in other parts.

25. Result & Horizontal Deployment . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Plant level r ejection reduce 51% after this QCC. T hreading R ejection R educe 91.2% . R ejection PPM R educe 61.1%

26. Result & Horizontal Deployment . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Plant level rejection PPM reduced 65% . S.No. Section Target Date Responsibility Status 1 Ground Floor Aug.2021 (W-1) Nami & Anil Done 2 First Floor July.2021 (W-4) Rahul & Mohit Done 3 Second Floor Aug.2021 (W-1) Dharmendra & Ashish Done Horizontal Deployment Plan

27. Standardization . Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10 Documents Revise & Update S.No. Documents Points Status 1 OPS Standard breezing tool update in OPS. Done 2 OPL Micro program OPL display in Floor. Done 3 FIS Plain Plug gauge mentioned in FIS. Done 4 CONTROL PLAN Tool & Gauge added in control plan. Done 5 FMEA All points updated in FMEA. Done 6 WORK INSTRUCTION Work instruction made for micro program. Done All related documents are update .

28. Tangible & Intangible Benefits Tangible Intangible 1 2 3 4 5 6 P :- Productivity improve. Q :- Threading rejection reduced 92% . C :- Rejection cost save. D :- Delivery improve. S :- Safety remain same. M :- Moral increase. Presentation skill improve. Team building. Communication level improve. Confidence level improve. Self development. Knowledge improve about QC tools & Technique. Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Step-5 Step-6 Step-7 Step-8 Step-9 Step-10

29. 1.Brain Storming 2.Why- Why Analysis Tools & Techniques CHECK SHEET PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM ABC CATEGORIZATION FISH BONE DIAGRAM PARETO ANAYLSIS GEMBA

30. Future project . Project :- To Eliminate rejection of OD undersize in shafts.