ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award (SATEA), 2018 · 2019-09-23 · 1 Continuous Improvement Project: Overall Equipment Effectiveness Improvement in Horlicks Manufacturing Value

1

Continuous Improvement Project: Overall Equipment Effectiveness Improvement in Horlicks Manufacturing Value Stream

ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award (SATEA), 2018

Site: Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India

1

Note: 1) All the financial figures are mentioned in the British Pound (GBP) units. 2) Business confidential information is not produced during the course of the

presentation

Section 0: Organizational Infrastructure

In this section, we will cover the Site information. This will

include:

• Site capacity details

• Technology used

• Major products manufactured

• Certifications.

We will then cover the details of the Operational Excellence

Model at GSK.

2

2

3

Products

Plant :

Operations start : 1973

Land Area : 50

acres

Construction area : 10 acres

Operations :

Capacity : 43 KT

Operation : 24 X 7

Technology : Tray Drying

Employee :

Permanent employees : 870

Temporary employees : 172

Contractor Employees : 400

Safety

Environmen

t

Quality

Food

Safety

ISO

Site Information

395

382 372

360

380

400

2015 2016 2017

Opex / Ton (GBP)

4

The GSK Production System

The GSK Production System (GPS)

0.18 0.20

0.04

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

2015 2016 2017

RIIR

5.42

4.00

1.62

0

2

4

6

2015 2016 2017

Manufacturing Deviations %

Safety Quality Cost

3

Section 1: Project Background and Purpose

In this section, we will discuss how GSK ‘does’ project

planning, project identification and selection

(prioritization)

We will then cover specifics of why this project was

picked along with Goals, Benefits and Success

Measures. (Timing will be discussed later.)

5

1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning

Key Business Drivers

Benchmark Last Year Performance &

Financial Updates

Set Direction

And Inspire

I am clear on my site

strategy

I coach and help

leaders to drive CIFs

aligned to site

strategy and wastes

CIF

Step One

Goal

translation

Step Two

Current state

opportunities

Step Three

Next target

condition

Step Four

Execution and

problem

solving

` `

GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle

GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles

GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles

GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles

ACT HERE

GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles

Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :

Leader: Jody GPS: Lukasz Leader: David GPS: Rayan Leader: Simon GPS: Shane

Leader: Kirk GPS: Stephen

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

Drive to engaging

safety cul ture in 2016 &

reduce reportable from

6 to 4

Reduce deviations from

2400 to 1920 in 2016

Del iver a P&L

improvement of £18m

(from £53M loss to

£35m) in 2016

Del iver a 50% reduction

in finished pack cycle

time ( 30 to 7 day

s tretch in tabs pack) in

2016

Leader: Anna GPS: Alli

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

From 30 LIR & nRFT per

month to 15 per month

by end Q2

Drive cycle time to 7

days in tab pack year

end

1. Independent PS for PDCA

cycles

2. Driving problems to so lution

by Oms

3. Zone understanding of real

issues & levers

Kaizen event to resolve

EM by End Q2

Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :

Improve recoveries from

£125k / wk to £165k per

week in April, £205k in May

& £210 in June

25 deviations per week

to 7 deviations per

week by 30th June

Move from £107k

recoveries / wk to £112

k recoveries / wk (SM) &

£69k / wk to £96k / wk

(SP)

El iminate PCCE, Rogues

& HVAC

Deliver P&L improvement

of £4.8m in 2016

Del iver safe day

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

Leader: Carlo GPS: Lukasz Leader: Marc GPS: Lukasz Leader: Amr GPS: Rayan Leader: Mark GPS: Matt

From 19000 per shi ft to

35000 per shi ft

From 6.1 per week to < 3

per week by June

From 31.2 bx per week

to 35 bx per week

El iminate PCCE &

Implement HVAC CAPA

372 bottles per week to

620 by end Q2

El iminate Rogues &

Implement HVAC CAPA

Priori ty Improvement 1

Leader: Robin GPS: Rayan Leader: Emma GPS: AlliLeader: Gary GPS: Lukasz Leader: Sophie GPS: Shane

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :

Drive cycle time to 7

days in tab pack by year

end

1. rapid problem solving

capabilities in TLs & techs

2. P lanning capabilities in TLs

3. create improvement

framework & structured plan

Problem solving capability 1. rapid problem solving

capabilities in TLs

2. TLs to be able to identify &

drive problem solving


Move to an engaging

safety cul ture

Reduce MUV from

£0.88m to £0.06m

From 600k pack to 900K

pack run rate by end

May

Reduce MUV from £1.2

to £0.5m & COPQ from

£2.4 to £1m

From 30 LIR & nRFT per

month to 15 per month

by end Q2

Suspens ions lead time

from 28 to 10 by year

end

From 3.8 bxs of blend

YTD to 9 bx in may to 11

bx in June

From 7.5 per week to < 3

per week by June

x to y by:


Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :

Leader: GPS: Alli Leader: Greg GPS: Alli

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

Leader: Tracy GPS: Al l i

Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2

x to y by: x to y by:

Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :

Cycle time 28 days to 10

by year end

x to y by: x to y by:

Improve X to Y by Z

•Translate the site goal into a meaningful team goal• Defining the right lagging KPIs for the PM system

•Improve the visual control that is relevant to the current improvement cycle

Team Goals & Challenge

P

D

A

C

P

D

A

C

P

D

A

C

Xxxxxx

• A simple description of what the team will see in place (the deliverables) as the next step towards achieving their target(s).

• These will be the team’s indication of success - the team

propose that by focusing on these deliverables they will positively impact their target(s)

• This next step is realistic in scope, but significant – so that the team can quickly gain momentum, confidence & capability in making improvement, and recognise real progress.

• Define the next target condition and leading indicators./ KPIs.

Xxxxxx

•Using LSW to understanding of the current conditions

•Engage and interview key people in scope, including FLLS and team members•Quickly walk their areas to see the location, processes and

products•Take a coach, peer or subject matter expert along to get an

additional perspective•Compare findings to personal experience and available benchmarks

•Consider the 4Ms & 7 Wastes•Building understanding of the obstacles and opportunities

Current State

Next Target Condition

Problems to Solve

Improvement Framework

Xxxxxx

•What critical, few problems will need to be solved to put the

NTC deliverables into place?•The problems must be expressed as good problem statements,

to provide a good starting point for effective problem solving. Include the problem situation plus the impact.•To demonstrate effective problem solving closure, the site will

need a visible system for managing the steps of problem solving to the point of confirmed closure.

Site Challenge:

Improvement Owner:

Improvement Leader:

Start Date:

Align & Assign

CI Frameworks & GwP

I COACH AND HELP LEADERS TO DRIVE CIFs

ALIGNED TO SITE STRATEGY AND WASTES IN

SYSTEM

Strategy Map

Align and Assign – Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF)

VSM and Waste Mapping

I know the wastes

in site processes

and challenge site

to improve

VSM & Waste Mapping Approach

Select Product & Agree VSM

Scope

Map Out theCurrent State& Gather Data

Analyse &Identify

ImprovementOpportunities

Map Out theFuture State& Expected

Impact

SufficiencyCheck &

ImprovementPlan

Value Stream Maps

Annual Improvement Plan

Raw Materials & Inputs

Process

3

Process

8I I I

Supplier

Logistics Weekly

Planning (OFM)

Forecast

Warehouse /

Good In Store

Distribution

Supply Review(Forecasting)

Global SCRM

Order Profile

VA Days

NVA Days

VA Days

NVA Days

VA Days

NVA Days

VA Days

I

Actual L/T

Planned L/T

Plan C/T

Actual C/T

ATS = XX%

EE = XX%

C/O P vs A

Yield = XX%

RFT = X%

No. Bxs or Kg

Value £’s

Available Kg

Min/Max Kg

No. Bxs or Kg

Value £’s

Available Kg

Min/Max Kg

No. Bxs or Kg

Value £’s

Available Kg

Min/Max Kg

I

Test & OQ

Labs C/T

Labs Actual

Labs RFT

OQ C/T

OQ Actual

OQ RFT

3

Test & OQ

Labs C/T

Labs Actual

Labs RFT

OQ C/T

OQ Actual

OQ RFT

5

Plan C/T

Actual C/T

ATS = XX%

EE = XX%

C/O P vs A

Yield = XX%

RFT = X%

Priority Improvement Targets

KPI X to Y When Who

D2D

WIP

C/O

Dev

RFT

Yield

I understand

the lean tools

& principles

Use of productivity guides and lean toolI UNDERSTAND THE LEAN TOOLS & PRINCIPLES

07/11/2017The GPS Town Hall 7

Lean Tools

4

1.02 – 1.03 Project Identification and Selection Process (General)

7

(1/4)


8

(2/4)

5


9

(3/4)


10

(4/4)

Leader Standard Work

Planned time for reactive and procative elements

6

1.04 Project Selection Process (Specific)

11

Project PVSK SR VMK MG SMK Score Electricity

reduction10 7 7 9 7 40

OEE

Improvement 9 10 9 10 9 47

Condensate

Recovery6 9 10 7 9 41

Yield

improvement 8 8 10 8 10 44

Reduction in

water

consumption

7 5 6 5 8 31

Changeover time

reduction5 6 5 6 5 27

IPT CI Title Dept

Performance Improve OEE from 79 % to 83 % Mfg.

PerformanceImprove Yield by 10% i.e. from 1331 kg to 1342 kg

by Oct’18. Mfg.

PerformanceReduce Electricity units by 20% i.e. from 131 Lac

units to 118 Lac units by Sep'18.Eng.

PerformanceImprove condensate recovery from 70% to 78% by

Aug’18.Eng.

PerformanceReduce water consumption by 3% i.e. from 850

KL/day to 700 KL/day by Sep'18.EHS

PerformanceReduce dry side changeover time by 25% i.e. from

24hr to 18hr by Sep’18.GPS

TrustImprove ppk value of pH across all the products to

1 by Dec'18.Tech.

TrustImprove ppk value of Ash / FPT across all the

products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.

TrustReduce repeat deviations by 30% i.e. from 55 to

39 by Oct’18.QA

TrustReduce foreign matter contamination issues by

50% i.e. from 24 to 12 by Nov'18.QA

Trust Improve DI Score in QRM from 62 to 70 by Sep'18. QA

TrustReduce RIV on pest infestation issues in GMP

section from 16 to 9 by Nov'18.QA

TrustImprove bottom three factors GSK survey score by

10% by Sep'18HR

Trust

Improve site capability improvement > 10 % /

technical capability score of MES from 80% to

85% by Nov’18.

HR

Trust

Reduction of workplace transport red risks by

100% i.e. from 10 red risks to amber risks by

Dec'18.

EHS

TrustReduction of electrical safety red risks by 100%

i.e. from 4 red risks to amber risks by Nov'18.Eng.

TrustImprove PTW & LOTO compliance from 85% to

95% by Oct'18.EHS

TrustImprove ppk value of SEE Cycle time across all the

products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.

TrustImprove ppk value of SEE Solids Percentage across

all the products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.

Site Transformational Goals- Impacting most

of Business CTQs

Identify Key Projects/Continuous Improvement

Frameworks(CIFs) to Achieve the

Transformational Goals

Ca

tch

ba

ll &

Assig

n

Resp

on

sib

ility

Funneling down the project through Effort/Impact Analysis North

Star/Wildly

important

Goal

Commitment

l

>5% Improvement in Technical capability of the

site l l m m m m l m m m m m

l >60 GPS Maturity Score with CI Framework l m m m m m m m m l m

l Sustenance of FLL Framework l l m m m m m l m m l m

l Engagement Score & Diversity l l

l

l In place in use of Site Learning Zone l m m m m m l m m m m m

l Commercialize 2 new blends from Site l m m m m m m m m m m l

l 20% Reduction in OPEX cost/kg l m m m m m m l m m m m

Part B Commercialization at Site by 2018 l l m m m m m m m m m m

l

Reduction in Utilities Buying Cost & Rationalize

Contracts with a saving of ~ 4.0 Cr by Q4

2017l m m l m m m m m m m m

l

Energy Cost Reduction by 5% at Site

Limit Energy Consumption to (+1.6%)l m l m m m m m m m m m

l 15% Reduction in Cost of Poor Quality l l m m l m m m m m m m

l

Reduce Overall Inventory as per target

(RM, Bulk, PM, Spares,Fuel)l m m m m m m m l m m m

l

Drive efficiencies (AR&PR & Yield) in VBD

stream to an OEE of 86 % by Dec'2017 (with an

aspiration of 87%)

l l l m m m m m m m m m m

l

Drive efficiencies (AR&PR & Yield) in SD stream

to an OEE of 81% (with an aspiration of 83%)l l l m m m m m m m m m m

l 95% Conformance to plan l l m m m m l m m m

l 90% Conformance to Release l l l m m l m m m m m

l

Improve Process Capability of Critical CPPs viz

Whey Powder Dispensing; Mash Bath 2

temperature SD, IFBD Air Temperature, EFBD 1-

2 Air temperature PpK >1

l m m m m m m l

l

Improve Process Capability of Critical IPC &

CQAs viz Finamul dispensing; Mash & Mix pH in

both streams >3 sigma

l l m m m m m m

l

Reduce deviation rate by 17% and repeat

deviations by 10% l l m m m l m m m

l

Enhance focus on renewable energy

(including biomass substitution) water efficiency

& recharge through Community Partnership

l l m l m m m m m m

l

Reduce First Aid & MTIs through employee

engagementl l l m m m m l m m m m m m

Bui

ld T

echn

ical

and

Pro

blem

sol

ving

capa

bilit

y to

driv

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

t site

Eng

agem

ent f

or P

erfo

rman

ce -

Dev

elop

men

t

& D

eplo

ymen

t of L

ocal

eng

agem

ent s

trat

egy

Tra

nsf

orm

to

Mu

ltip

le p

rod

uct

fac

ility

Red

uce

OP

EX

/kg

co

st b

y 20

% b

y 20

17

(fro

m R

s 50

/kg

to

Rs

40/k

g)

OE

E im

pro

vem

ent

in b

oth

VB

D &

SD

stre

ams

by

6 %

On

time

Man

ufac

turin

g &

Rel

ease

of B

atch

es

Red

uct

ion

of

Pro

du

ce n

o D

efec

ts b

y 17

%

ove

r 20

16

Lim

it C

arbo

n em

issi

on t

o 1.

7% a

nd R

educ

e

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

by

2 %

Inci

den

t (F

A/L

TI/M

TI)

Red

uct

ion

by

30%

ove

r 20

16 Z

ero

maj

or

adve

rse

even

t

No.

of I

ncid

ents

at S

ite (8

)

ZA

P c

lose

d pe

r em

ploy

ee (

8 pe

r em

ploy

ee )

Beh

avio

ural

ZA

Ps

clos

ed p

er e

mpl

oyee

(3 p

er

empl

oyee

)

% A

dh

eren

ce to

Saf

ety

Pla

n

Tar

get

100

%

Lim

it C

O2

emis

sion

to +

1.7%

ove

r 201

6

Red

uctio

n of

wat

er b

y 2%

ove

r FY

2016

(Abs

olut

e

quan

tity

of w

ater

con

sum

ed/ m

onth

)

"P

rod

uce

No

Def

ect"

to 4

.73%

10%

redu

ctio

n in

Rep

eat D

evia

tions

(Bas

elin

e in

Q1

2016

)

PpK

>1

for V

BD

WP

Dis

pens

ing,

Fin

amul

Dis

pens

ing,

EF

BD

Tem

pera

ture

, Mas

h B

ath

2 te

mpe

ratu

re S

D,

IFB

D A

ir T

empe

ratu

re, M

ash

& M

ix p

H

95%

Con

form

ance

to V

olum

e

90%

Con

form

ance

to R

elea

se

95%

Con

form

ance

to P

lan

OE

E im

pro

vem

ents

fro

m c

urr

ent l

evel

to

81%

in

SD

OE

E im

pro

vem

ents

fro

m c

urr

ent l

evel

to

86%

in

VB

D

Yie

ld im

pro

vem

ent i

n S

D s

trea

m to

368

0 kg

/bat

ch

Yie

ld im

pro

vem

ent i

n V

BD

str

eam

to 1

170k

g/b

atch

Inve

ntor

y at

Site

Tar

get I

NR

40.

3 C

r

Red

uctio

n in

Cos

t of P

oor Q

ualit

y (1

5%)

(Abs

olut

e va

lue

of C

OP

Q)

Co

st in

volv

ed in

En

erg

y C

on

sum

ptio

n

(Co

st S

avin

g 3

.2C

r)

Uti

litie

s B

uyi

ng

Co

st s

avin

gs

(INR

Cr)

Hor

licks

Par

t B M

anuf

actu

ring

at S

ite b

y 20

18

OP

EX

/kg

at s

ite (2

0% R

edu

ctio

n a

gai

nst

pla

n)

No

. of C

om

mer

cial

Ble

nd

s (T

arg

et 4

)

SLZ

Util

izat

ion

Sco

re (

100%

)

Em

ploy

ee E

ngag

emen

t Sco

re (

75%

)

Div

ersi

ty H

iring

(20

)

5% Im

prov

emen

t in

FLL

Cap

abili

ty

Site

FLL

90%

Adh

eren

ce to

Lea

der

Sta

ndar

d

Wor

k

100%

SLT

& S

LT-1

com

plet

ed e

xecu

tion

of 1

CI

Fra

mew

ork

with

mul

tiple

pro

blem

sol

ving

cyc

les

% Im

prov

emen

t in

Site

Tec

hnic

al C

apab

ility

(>

5%

over

201

6)

R S

reed

har

Par

deep

Kum

ar

Dee

pak

Pur

i

Nav

deep

Kum

ar M

onga

Roh

it Ja

in

Man

pree

t Sod

hi

Kum

ar G

aura

v

Tap

as R

oy

Yuv

raj D

atta

Laba

nga

Bha

ttach

arya

Ris

hi C

haw

la

l Accident reduction and Zero major adverse event

lFocused effort towards carbon neutrality, water reduction

and recharge enhancement

lQuality Improvement through PnD reduced to 3%

consistently throughout the period

Be the First choice of our customers by on time delivery

l lDeliver Cost Reduction in OPEX/kg from Rs 50/kg- Rs

30/kg

lMake Site Flexible to utilize 100% of available

production days

l lDevelop highly capable team to deliver best in class

efficiency and quality of product

RAJAHMUNDHRY ANNUAL STRATEGY 2018

OWNER - Sreedhar Routh (Site Director)

m Secondary Responsibility

l Primary Responsibility

Resources

RAJAHMUNDHRY -Mother Strategies -

2018

Strategic Target / Metrics - 2018

RAJAHMUNDHRY - True North 2018-20

RAJAHMUNDHRY -True North

- 2018

Strategy Map X- Matrix

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Imp

act

Effort

PICK Chart

Implement

Possible

Challenge

Kill

1.05 Project Goals and Benefits

12

Priority Project Goals UOM Target (Current State to Desired State)

Gap / Benefit

Innovation Capacity Enhancement KT 32 to 40 8 KT

Performance

Cost Savings kGBP 0 to 700 700 kGBP

Availability Rate % 88.3 to 91.5 3.2% Performance Rate % 90.5 to 94 3.5% Quality Rate % 98.8 to 99 0.2%

Trust

Conformance to Plan % 90 to 95 5% Conformance to Volume

% 92 to 95 3%

Conformance to Release

% 89 to 95 6%

7

1.06 Success Measures/Criteria Identified

13

Identified Success Measures: 1. Increased OEE & Reduced Operational expenditures. 2. 100% adherence to the GSK’s change control procedure while incorporating any type of change

and modification in the process, resources and materials.

3. Project should get completed with in 5% deviation of the project schedule.

4. Project should get completed with in the planned financial & resource requirements.

Identified Counter Metrics:

S.No. Counter / Consequence Metrics Target

1 Total Manufacturing Deviations < 2%

2 Average Water Consumption 700 KL / day

3 Material Yield 99%

4 Reportable Safety Incidents zero

Section 2: Project Framework

In this section, we will cover almost all project ‘charter’

information that was not already discussed, including:

1. A formal Project Statement

2. Type of Project

3. A Scope Statement

4. Assumptions and Expectations

5. Project Schedule

6. Resource & Financial Budget and

7. Risk Management Concerns

14

8

Project Framework / Charter

15

2.01 Concise Project Statement

16

The current condition of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness

(OEE) at Oven Operations (Bottleneck area) of Direct Value

Stream is at 79 % by the end of 2016. The desired future

state is to achieve OEE of 85 % by Dec'17 at Oven

Operations. The gap is to achieve 8 % improvement in OEE

of Direct Value Stream.

9

2.02 Type of Project

17

This project used a four step Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) developed

by GSK.

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal.

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities.

Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition.

Step 4: Solve the Critical Few problems.

GSK has developed its own production system (GPS) for achieving Zero Accidents,

Zero Defects & Zero Wastes. GPS has been used across all sites in the world for

dealing continuous improvement projects by using one of its standard called

Continuous Improvement Framework.

Basis for type of Project Methodology used

Transformational Goals Tactical Implementation Plan

Step Change in Systems contributing to Site Objectives

Continuous Improvement Framework (CIFs)

Capital expenditure is requirement CAPEX Project

Recurring issues at shop floor 6 Step Problem Solving

2.03 Scope Statement

18

S.No. In Scope Out of Scope / Limitations

1 All Horlicks Commercial Variants manufactured at Rajahmundry Site.

R&D Trial products and Non-commercial products

2 OEE at Oven Operations which is a bottleneck area.

OEE at Mashing section, Evaporation , Grinding and Mixing Section

3 Product manufactured at all three shifts.

4 OEE is considered for the existing 54 ovens New Ovens under trial phase

5 Unavailability of utilities is considered as breakdown loss (Equipment availability)

6 Non availability of the Malt (other than breakdown) is considered as performance loss

7 Quality defects are considered for Horlicks Commercial Variants

R&D Trial products and Non-commercial products

10

2.04 Assumptions / Expectations

19

1. For any modification or changes, appropriate funding to be provided by the Site

Leadership team.

Approver: Site director has approved for the same while signing project charter.

2. In-process parameters data on every shift to be collected as per the agreed method. In-

process parameters include Food per tray, Oven No. of Charging's, Oven Cycle time, No.

of Ovens operated, Solids Percentage and the CpK should be improved/ maintained.

Approver: Project Lead himself being the Manufacturing lead will ensure the same.

2.05 Project Schedule / High level Plan

20

Description Who 1/20 1/25 2/7 2/18 2/27 3/10 3/19 3/30 4/15 4/30 5/7 5/20 5/29 6/12 6/24 7/2 7/19 8/30

Team formation & Project charter preparation

PVSK

Step 1: Project Charter approval

SD

Step 2: Gemba Walk

Team

Step 2: Data Collection

Team

Step 2: Value Stream Map

Team

Step 2: Hypothesis formation & testing

Team

Step 3: Define the next target condition

Team

Step 4: PDCA Team

Step 4: Sustainability Measures

Team

Step 4: Sharing Lesson learn card

GPS Team

Repeat the cycle Team

11

2.06 Budget (Financial or Resource)

21

1. MIS people to collect the in-process parameters data on every shift as

per the agreed method.

2. All other resources are primarily workmen, operators and technicians

who will carry out their regular activities.

3. Approximate fabrication works for line modification is 1000 kGBP.

2.07 Risk Management

22

S.No. Risk Mitigation Approach

1

Risks are while carrying out modifications in the processes to improve the overall equipment effectiveness, there is always a possibility of potential quality and safety failures.

All changes / modifications in the process or process equipment will be routed only through GSK's Robust Change Control Procedure. Change control procedure will take care of quality, safety and compliance related issues before initiating the change.

2 Lack of resources and funds at the appropriate time will result in delay of the project schedule.

Key resource requirement and funds requirement are discussed and agreed before finalizing the project charter and are included in the project charter. Approvals from Site Director, Finance lead and HR Lead are taken in the form of signatures in project charter. The status of the resource and funds utilization are discussed during the regular tollgate reviews with the project champion.

12

Section 3: Project Stakeholders and the Project

Team • In this section, we will cover basic information

about our stakeholders: specifically our sponsor,

but also other stakeholders in general.

• We will then cover who was on the project team

and how they were prepared to work together as a

team, including team routines.

23

3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified

24

Suppliers Input Process Output Customers

1. Project Lead. 2. Team members. 3. GPS Coach 4. Project Sponsor 5. GSK Management

a) Benchmarking (with other sites)

b) Subject Matter Experts (1-3)

c) Training on GPS standards & other lean tools (3)

d) Continuous Improvement Framework process flow and methodology (3)

e) Site Leadership sponsorship and communication of the project (4-5)

A) Translate the site goal into a meaningful team goal.

B) Identify current state obstacles and opportunities.

C) Define the Next target condition.

D) Action plan for the critical few problems using PDCA methodology.

i) Cost savings (I – II) ii) Operational

Excellence / GPS culture. (III)

iii) Capability building on driving continuous improvement projects. (III)

iv) Sharing with other sites through lessons learned cards. (I – III)

I. Project Sponsor II. GSK Management III. ISC GPS Lead

Process Stakeholders include all value stream members: Manufacturing Lead

Quality & Assurance Lead

Engineering Lead

Human Resource Lead

Technical Lead

Environmental Health & Safety Lead

13

3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified

25

Stakeholder Project Impact

Level of Influence

Level of importance

Current attitude

Action Plan

Project Sponsor High 5 5 5 Continuous Collaboration meetings.

GSK Management Medium 5 3 3 Involving the stakeholders during reviews

Manufacturing Lead High 5 5 5 Project Lead.

QA Lead Medium 3 3 3 Continuous monitoring planned.

Engineering Lead High 3 5 3 Protecting & defending during interaction

HR Lead Medium 3 3 1 Continuous monitoring planned.

Technical Lead Low 3 3 3 Continuous monitoring planned.

EHS Lead Low 3 3 1 Continuous monitoring planned.

GPS Coach High 5 3 5 Involving the stakeholders during reviews

Scale for Level of influence / level of importance / current attitude 1 – Low 3 - Medium 5 - High

Stakeholder Analysis & Strategy

3.02 Project Champion

26

Who delivers What message To Whom By What method How often

Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Face-to-face presentation

Second Thursday of each month

Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Team members

E-mail Second Friday of each month

The director of the Rajahmundry site is the Project Sponsor /

Project Champion.

Communication Plan

14

3.03 Project Team Selection

27

Skills required

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g Le

ad

Engi

nee

rin

g Le

ad

QA

Le

ad

HR

Le

ad

Tech

nic

al L

ead

Fin

ance

Lea

d

EHS

Lead

Understanding of Continuous Improvement Framework Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Understanding of 6 step problem solving methodology Y Y Y Y Y Y Y OEE Understanding Y Y Y N N N N

Understanding of Performance Management GPS Standard Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lean Tools knowledge Y N N N N N N Technical & process skills and knowledge Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Gaps are identified in OEE Understanding & Lean Tools knowledge in few of the team members. Basis the

skill gaps, we have planned different training sessions on the required skills. We had also organized

refresher training sessions on all the skills before kickstarting the project.

3.04 Team Preparation

28 Project Kick-off meeting

Team Brainstorming

session Training on skills

requirement

Team Reward &

Recognition

Continuous improvement

framework

• Goal translation

• Analyze the current condition

• Hypothesis Testing

• Next target condition

• Coaching

6 Step Problem Solving Methodology

• Is/ Is not

• Process flow diagram

• SIPOC

• Cause and effect analysis

• 5 Why analysis

• Action prioritization

Performance management

• Analyze the chronic and sporadic problems

• Trend analysis

• Lead & Lag KPIs

OEE

• Basics of OEE calculation

• Capacity utilization

• Availability rate

• Performance Rate

• Quality Rate

• Losses

Lean Tools

• Value stream mapping

• 7 Wastes

• VA / NVA activities

TRAINING ON ABOVE TOOLS

Team

Lunch /

Dinner

15

3.05 Team Routines

29

• Leader Standard Work (LSW) which is one of the GPS standard is used in GSK for

daily team routines.

• As a mandatory requirement of GPS, every one has to spend at least 10% of their

week’s time on continuous improvement activities.

• Continuous improvement framework leaders will interlock their time with the team

members.

Team Routine Who By What Method How often

Project discussions & review Team Leader Team Members

Meetings Gemba Walk

Daily: A Shift – 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM B Shift - 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Progress report discussion Team Leader Project Sponsor

Face-to-face presentation


Progress report communication

Team Leader Project Sponsor Team Members


Team evaluation with coach Team Members Coach

Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month

Lessons Learned card Team leader GSK Fraternity

E-mail, GPS knowledge base

Post-completing the project

Section 4: Project Overview

• In this section, we will cover details of how the

project was run. This will include:

• Project Approach

• Tools Used to Complete the Project

• Tool (Data) Output Needed for Decisions

• Team Preparation for Tool Usage

• Dealing with Project Risk

• Resistance as a Type of Risk

• Stakeholder Involvement in the Project

30

16

4.01 Project Approach

31

• As discussed in section 2.02, the project used a four step Continuous Improvement

Framework (CIF) developed by GSK.

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal.

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities.

Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition.

Step 4: Solve the Critical Few problems using PDCA methodology.

• Steps 2,3 and 4 are repeated to progressively close the performance gaps via a

series of next target conditions and rapid improvement cycles.

4.01 Project Approach - Template

32

17

4.02 Tools Used Throughout Project

33

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities

Step 3: Define Next Target Condition

Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems

SIPOC to capture process, interactions and stakeholders

GEMBA Walk to identify obstacles and opportunities

Lag & Lead KPIs to

monitor performance. PDCA to solve critical few problems

Stakeholder Analysis to prioritize stakeholders

Value Stream Mapping to identify wastes & NVA’s in the system.

6 Step Problem Solving Methodology to arrive at CAPA.

Benchmarking to establish the best performance for the given process

Analyze 4M to identify obstacles & opportunities w.r.to Man, Machine, Material & Method.

Ishikawa Diagram to identify potential causes

Communication Plan to communicate with all stakeholders

Hypothesis testing to test all the obstacles & opportunities

5 Whys to arrive at root causes

LSW interlocking to support and enhance team / meeting routines

Lessons Learned Cards to share lessons learned across GSK.

Project Charter as a formal contract between the Champion and GPS Coach

4.03 Tools Output at Different Stages of Project

34





SIPOC: Stakeholders & interactions

GEMBA Walk: Obstacles & opportunities

Lag & Lead KPIs: Lag & Lead KPIs

PDCA: Methodology to solve problems

Stakeholder Analysis: Strategy & Importance

Value Stream Mapping: Wastes & NVA’s

6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: CAPA

Benchmarking: Best performance of other sites.

Analyze 4M: Obstacles & opportunities

Ishikawa Diagram: Potential causes

Communication Plan: Stakeholders communication

Hypothesis testing: Impact of identified obstacles & opportunities

5 Whys: Root causes

LSW interlocking: Team / meeting routines

Lessons Learned Cards: Sharing of lessons

Project Charter: Formal contract

18

4.04 How Team was Prepared to Use the Tools

35

• Gaps w.r.to usage of the tools

were identified for all the team

members as shown in the table.

(Before Training)

• Understanding & usage of tools

of the team members was

improved with an extensive

training approach.

• Site GPS team with an

experienced Black Belts &

Master Black Belts trained the

team through ‘teach’ and then

‘do and coach’ approach.

• Evaluations are done with after

the training questionnaires and

on the job exercises. The results

of after training are evident in the

table.

• Once in every six months, all the

team members will go through

the refresher training sessions

on Tools usage.

4.05 Dealing with Project Risk

36

• As discussed in section 2.07, the key project risk is while carrying out modifications in the processes to improve the overall equipment effectiveness, there is always a possibility of potential quality and safety failures. Mitigation approach: All changes / modifications in the process or process equipment will be

routed only through GSK's Robust Change Control Procedure. Change control procedure will take care of quality, safety and compliance related issues before initiating the change.

• The next anticipated risk was lack of resources and funds at the appropriate time will result in the

delay of the project schedule. Mitigation approach: Key resource requirement and funds requirement are discussed and

agreed before finalizing the project charter and are included in the project charter. Approvals from Site Director, Finance lead and HR Lead are taken in the form of signatures in project charter. The status of the resource and funds utilization are discussed during the regular tollgate reviews with the project champion.

19

4.06 Encountering and Handling resistance as a Risk

37

Project Step Type of Resistance How it was Identified How it was addressed

Step1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal

Conflict in agreeing to the scope of the project

Not agreeing on the stretched target

Catch ball session delivery target


Data collection and analysis Delay in the data collection and analysis

Periodic reviews with Project sponsor & GPS Coach

Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition

NA NA NA


Delay in CAPA execution Postponing the execution of CAPA actions

Track all CAPA points through tiered accountability board and review it by owner and target date.

Addressing the Sustenance of the project

Action Sustenance Process confirmation by first line leaders in every shift.

4.07 Stakeholder Involvement in Project

38





SIPOC: Team members

GEMBA Walk: Team members

Lag & Lead KPIs: Team members & GPS coach

PDCA: Team members

Stakeholder Analysis: Team members

Value Stream Mapping: Team members & GPS coach

6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: Team members

Benchmarking: Project Sponsor, GPS Coach & GSK Management

Analyze 4M: Team members

Ishikawa Diagram: Team members

Communication Plan: Team members & GPS Coach

Hypothesis testing: Team members & GPS coach

5 Whys: Team members

LSW interlocking: Team members & GPS Coach

Lessons Learned Cards: Team members & GPS coach

Project Charter: Team members, project sponsor, GPS coach & GSK management

20

Section 5: Project Walkthrough

• In this section, we will stage-by-stage walk through

the project and the specific tool output, showing how

each tool fed into the next and drove us to the

conclusions we reached.

• We will then review some ‘little detail’ such as project

Validation, Justification, and review of Results,

among other details.

39

5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow

40





SIPOC: Stakeholders & interactions

GEMBA Walk: Obstacles & opportunities

Lag & Lead KPIs: Lag & Lead KPIs

PDCA: Methodology to solve problems

Stakeholder Analysis: Strategy & Importance

Value Stream Mapping: Wastes & NVA’s

6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: CAPA

Benchmarking: Best performance of other sites.

Analyze 4M: Obstacles & opportunities

Ishikawa Diagram: Potential causes

Communication Plan: Stakeholders communication

Hypothesis testing: Impact of identified obstacles & opportunities

5 Whys: Root causes

LSW interlocking: Team / meeting routines

Lessons Learned Cards: Sharing of lessons

Project Charter: Formal contract

Items in Green bold above are the General Tool

outputs. We will shortly walk through the

detailed tool results.

(1/26)

21


41

(2/26)

Over the next few

slides we will look

at the tools, tool

outputs, and

conclusions from

each of the four

project steps

Step 1 was mostly

covered in sections

2 to 4. It will be

briefly reviewed in

next few slides


42

(3/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: SIPOC

22


43

(4/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Stakeholder Analysis


44

(5/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Benchmarking

• Internal benchmarking is done for the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) with the other two sites operating with similar processes.

83.00% 82.00%

79.00%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

Site 1 Site2 Rajahmundry Site

OEE%

• Benchmarking reveals that Rajahmundry site is operating at the lowest OEE% among the Indian Sub Continent (ISC) sites. Hence, we have taken a stretched target of 85% to meet the best performance standards.

• Rajahmundry site goal for 2017 is to deliver 1.2 mGBP cost savings. Improving OEE from 79% to 85% will result in a savings of 700 kGBP which itself is a 60% of the total site goal.

23


45

(6/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Communication Plan

Who delivers What message To Whom By What method

How often

Team leader Progress report Project sponsor



Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Team members


Coach Team evaluation

Team members Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month

Team leader Lessons Learned Card

All GSK Fraternity

GPS Knowledge Base E-mail

Post-completing the project


46

(7/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: LSW Interlocking

• Leader Standard Work (LSW) which is one of the GPS standard is used in GSK for

daily team routines.

• As a mandatory requirement of GPS, every one has to spend at least 10% of their

week’s time on continuous improvement activities.

• Continuous improvement framework leaders will interlock their time with the team

members. Team Routine Who By What Method How often

Project discussions & review

Team Leader Team Members

Meetings Gemba Walk

Daily: A Shift – 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM B Shift - 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Progress report discussion

Team Leader Project Sponsor



Progress report communication

Team Leader Project Sponsor Team Members


Team evaluation with coach

Team Members Coach

Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month

24


47

(8/26)

Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Project Charter


48

(9/26)

25


49

(10/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: GEMBA Walk

GEMBA Walk Plan Where will you go ? SEE Area, Ovens area and Grinding & Packing area When will you go ? 05/02/2017; 20/02/2017 What will you observe ? Obstacles & opportunities w.r.to OEE improvement Who will you interview ? Operator, Store Operator, Scrapping workmen

What key questions will you ask ?

1. What are the major issues related to Ovens, SEE & other equipment machinery? 2. Which machine is giving repeated failures? 3. What are the possible causes for the failures at each machine? 3. How do you measure losses? 4. How do you handle issues? 5. Quick wins to eliminate issues at each area?

What do you expect to see at each point ?

1. Amount of wastage being generated at each point. 2. Possible causes for wastage at each point.

What benchmarks can help you ? Major losses at Nabha & Sonepat sites Who can help you on this walk ? CI Project Team Members


50

(11/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: GEMBA Walk

S.No. Major Opportunities & Obstacles identified from the GEMBA Walk Observed by

1 Frequent line Jamming at the Mashing section. Operator

2 Manual dumping of raw materials resulting in the misinterpretation of levels at the slurry tank.

Team member

3 Frequent breakdowns at the slurry tank. Technician

4 Frequent breakdowns at the husk separator area. Operator

5 Frequent vapor locks and cooling tower water fluctuations at the Second Effect Evaporator (SEE) area.

Operator

6 Frequent gland leakage issues at the second effect evaporator area Technician

7 Frequent no malt situations at the Second effect evaporator area Team member

26


51

(12/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Value Stream Mapping

A consolidated snapshot of the Current State Map Working

• Total Process Cycle Time 3 hours

• Lead time 3 days

• Total HC involved 750

• Customer Demand (averaged) 990 Batches / Month

Digitized Current State Value Stream Map for Horlicks manufacturing

Other Key Elements Covered

• Inventory – Before & After Each Stage

• Yield, Reject & All Material Wastage

• Overtime, Shift Pattern

• Information Flow

• Capacity, Availability & Utilization


52

(13/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Value Stream Mapping

A consolidated snapshot of the Future State Map Working

• Total Process Cycle Time 2.1 hours (from 3 hours – 30% Reduction)

• Lead time 2.4 Days (from 3 Days – 20% Reduction)

• Total HC involved 700 (from 750 – 9% Reduction)

Digitized Future State Value Stream Map for Horlicks Manufacturing

Improvements will also be reflected in :

• Inventory (for 2 days in Lead Time Reduction)

• Material Losses Reduction (Quality Lab)

• Capacity & CAPEX Alignment

• Overtime & Shift Pattern

• Standardized Information Flow

27


53

(14/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Analyze 4M

Man : Lack of computer SCADA operations in

Second stage Lack of knowledge addressing the

vapor locks Oven loading & unloading time Partial loading at ovens Manual Operations

Machine : process jamming's at mashing and

evaporators (SSE) Spreading of less Food per tray High oven cycle time High cycle time at second effect

evaporators High pumping time No visual alerts for the abnormalities in

SCADA programing

Material :

Product stickiness at ovens

Low solids from SSE

Method : Standard calculation for the OEE SOP is not available No procedure for the solids monitoring


54

(15/26)

Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Hypothesis Testing

S.No. Hypothesis formation Type

1 Frequent jamming and breakdowns at the husk separator area is affecting the availability rate.

Opportunity

2 Reduction of Mash cycle time from 2 hours to 1 hr. 50 min will improve the performance rate

Opportunity

3 Frequent breakdowns at the slurry tank is affecting the availability rate. Opportunity

4 Inconsistent food weight at the spreading machine is affecting the performance rate.

Opportunity

5 Frequent vapor locks and cooling tower water fluctuations at the Second Effect Evaporator (SEE) area is effecting performance rate.

Opportunity

6 Improving the heat transfer rate at the second effect evaporator will improve the Performance rate

Opportunity

7 Manual dumping of raw materials is resulting in the misinterpretation of levels at the slurry tank.

Obstacle

8 Frequent no malt situation at the Product holding tank is affecting the Performance rate.

Obstacle

9 High oven cycle time is affecting the performance rate Opportunity

10 High SEE cycle time is affecting the performance rate. Opportunity

28


55

(16/26)


56

(17/26)

Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition (NTC): Identification of Lead and Lag KPIs

NTC 1: Four weeks from Feb’17, there should be no breakdowns at the Husk Separator area.

Lag KPI: Availability Rate (%)

Lead KPI: Husk Separator Breakdowns (hrs.)

NTC 2: Three weeks from Mar’17, there should be no breakdowns at the Slurry Tank area.

Lag KPI: Availability Rate (%)

Lead KPI: Slurry Tank Breakdowns (hrs.)

NTC 3: Two weeks from Apr’17, Mashing cycle time must be 1hr 50 min instead of 2hr

Lag KPI: Performance Rate (%)

Lead KPI: Mashing Cycle time (hrs.)

NTC 4: Four weeks from May’17, there should be zero cooling tower water fluctuations and

vapor locks


Lead KPI: No. of vapor locks (Nos.)

NTC 5: Four weeks from June’17, SEE cycle time must be 2.1 hrs. instead of 3 hrs.


Lead KPI: SEE cycle time (hrs.)

29


57

(18/26)

Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition (NTC): Identification of Lead and Lag KPIs

Value Stream members

Lag & Lead KPIs tracking at Value Stream Performance management Board


58

(19/26)

30


59

(20/26)

Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: PDCA Methodology


60

(21/26)

Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: 6 Step Problem Solving Methodology

31


61

(22/26)

Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Ishikawa Diagram


62

(23/26)


Ishikawa Diagram for NTC1

32


63

(24/26)


Ishikawa Diagram for NTC2


64

(25/26)

Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: 5 Whys

S.No. Next Target Condition

Root causes from 5 Whys CAPA

1 Reduction of Husk separator area breakdowns

1. There is no spare husk separator available to manage Mashing operations. 2. Slurry tank pump is starting before the husk separator is reaching its desired rpm.

1. Permanent position created for the spare husk separator. 2. Logic is modified at the SCADA, where the pumping operation will start only after the husk separator reaches its desired rpm.

2 Reduction of Slurry Tank breakdowns

1. Slurry tank 2 agitator design is not compatible and is different from other 2 slurry tanks. 2. Level sensor found malfunctioning.

1. Modified the slurry tank 2 agitator as per the other two slurry tank designs. 2. Level sensor adjusted and included the check in preventive maintenance.

3 Decrease the mashing cycle time from 2 hrs. to 1hr 50 min.

1. Low capability of operators to run SCADA operations 2. Mashing process to be redesigned to ensure starch conversion.

1. Training provided to all operators to run SCADA operations, equipment functioning and trouble shooting. 2. Mashing process redesigned after confirming with R&D team.

4 Reduce cooling tower water fluctuations and vapor locks at SEE

1. Number of bends are very high in the cooling tower water connecting lines. 2. Vacuum setpoint at the boiling stage to be improved to minimize vapor locks.

1. Number of bends in the connecting lines were reduced. 2. Vacuum setpoint interlock provided and program changed in SCADA.

5 Reduce SEE cycle time from 3 hrs. to 2.1 hrs.

1. Heat transfer is not happening effectively in all the evaporators. 2. Delayed cycle time due to SCADA logic issues.

1. Individual steam trap for the drum & Jacket provided to improve the heat transfer rate. 2. SEE logics were modified after consulting OEM.

NOTE: All CAPA solutions are routed only through GSK’s Change Control Procedure

33


65

(26/26)

Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Lessons Learned Cards

5.02 Solution Validation

66

Solution Validation Criteria

Proposed Solutions

Spare Husk Separator & modification

Slurry tank 2 agitator modification

Operators training

Reduction in number of bends

Individual steam trap

Project Goals

Capacity Enhancement (43 KT)

OPEX Cost (372 GBP/kg)

Availability Rate (91.5%)

Performance Rate (94.5%)

Quality Rate (99%)

CTP (95%)

CTV (95%)

CTR (95%)

Success Measures

Change Control Procedure Adherence

Project Schedule Adherence

Budget violations

Counter metrics

Reportable incidents (Zero)

Manufacturing deviations (<2%)

Water consumption (700 KL/day)

Material Yield (99%)

Positive Impact No Impact / Not Applicable Negative Impact

34

5.03 Solution Justification

67

Financial Details

Proposed Solutions Spare Husk Separator & modification

Slurry tank 2 agitator

modification

Operators training

Reduction in number of

bends

Individual steam traps

Total

Expenses for modifications [kGBP]

200 50 0 0 100 350

Pay back period (months) 12 1 NA NA 5 NA

• Expenses incurred for all proposed solutions are 350 kGBP, which is with in the range of the approved budget of 1000 kGBP.

• Organization norm for pay back period is 24 months. The maximum payback period for the proposed solutions is 12 months which is well within the acceptable range.

• Basis the solution validation criteria and financial details, we had received approvals from project sponsor and finance lead to go ahead with the implementation of the solutions.

5.04 Results

68

5.3

6.55

5.05

5.1

1.55

1.1

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17

Ho

ur

Break Down - Husk Seperator Hours

Solution 1: Husk Separator Modification

Before After Result 1: Downtime reduced by 80%

Solution 2: Slurry Tank Agitator Modification

0

8.55

5

1 1

00.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17

Hour

Slurry Tanks Break Down Hours

Result 2: Downtime reduced by 100%

35

5.04 Results

69

Solution 3: Husk Separator Modification

Result 3: Mashing Cycle time reduced by 10%

Solution 4: Reduction in number of bends

Result 4: Cooling tower water

fluctuations incidents reduced by

100%

Before After

5.04 Results

70

Solution 5: Individual Steam traps arrangement

Result 5: Second Effect Evaporator cycle time reduced by 8%

36

5.04 Results

71

72.7

81.1

83.4 83.5

80.02

86.43

82.78 83.64

86.40

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

April'17 May'17 June'17 July'17 Aug'17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17

OEE %

84.4

92.1 93.0 93.4 89.40

93.1 91.4 93.9 95.3

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

Performance Rate %

87.4 89.2

90.5 92.3

90.5

94.2

91.9 90.2

91.7

85.0

90.0

95.0

Availability Rate %

98.6 98.7

99.2 99.4

99.00

98.5 98.5 98.7 98.8

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

Quality Rate %

Project Goals

87.08 87.41 86.93

85.14

82.98

85.57 85.19 86.23

88.20 89.46

78.00

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

Jan'18 Feb'18 Mar'18 Apr'18 May'18 Jun'18 Jul'18 Aug'18 Sep'18 Oct'18

OEE (%)

5.04 Results

72

85 90

95.5

50

70

90

2015 2016 2017

CTP (%))

87 92

95.5

50

70

90

2015 2016 2017

CTV (%))

82 89

96

50

70

90

2015 2016 2017

CTR (%))

Project Goals

28 32 33 34

41

10

30

50

2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018 LE 2018

Production Volumes (KT))

37

5.04 Results

73

Success Measures

Success Measure Target Achieved Adherence to Change Control Procedure 100% 100% Project Schedule deviation 5% 0% Budget 1000 kGBP 350 kGBP

Counter Metrics

Counter Metrics Target Achieved Reportable incidents Zero Zero Manufacturing deviations <2% 1.60% Water consumption 700 KL/day 690 KL/day Material Yield 99% 99.30%

5.04 Results

74

Overall Benefits

Benefits Target Achieved Cost Savings 700 kGBP 780 kGBP Production Volumes 40 KT 41 KT Yield Savings Zero 25% Absenteeism 8% 6%

38

5.05 Maintaining the Gains

75

• Lag & Lead KPIs are identified and

monitored at value stream performance

management board by the value stream

members on daily basis to ensure

sustenance of the gains obtained from

this project.

87.08 87.41

86.93

85.14

82.98

85.57 85.19

86.23

88.20

89.46

78.00

80.00

82.00

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

Jan'18 Feb'18 Mar'18 Apr'18 May'18 Jun'18 Jul'18 Aug'18 Sep'18 Oct'18

OEE (%)

5.06 Project Communication

76

• As discussed in the communication

plan, post the completion of the project

Lessons Learned Cards (LLCs)

shared with all GPS Fraternity and

LLCs were uploaded in the GSK

Knowledge Base.

• We have nominated our project for the

internal Business Excellence Awards

at GSK and received award under

performance category.

39

Thank You

77

Documents

ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award (SATEA), 2018 · 2019-09-23 · 1 Continuous Improvement Project: Overall Equipment Effectiveness Improvement in Horlicks Manufacturing Value