Ernest DMAIC Project

8/4/2019 Ernest DMAIC Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ernest-dmaic-project 1/38

1

Version01_100407



2

Version01_100407

Reduction of Blo Holes defect

Team Leader: Ernest Manuel

Member: Fernando Arce

Noel Castillo

Eric Garalde

Jhonny Ledesma

Annaliza Kalaw

Lexter Roxas

Quinee Laco

SIX SIGMA BLACKBELT PROJECT

Champion: Eduardo Bagadiong

Josephine Tablada



3

Version01_100407

• Project Charter

•Project Background•Metric Chart

• Baseline Data

• Savings Computation

DEFINE PHASE



4

Version01_100407

PICO Fast Acting,250V and Slo blo products.Team will study, investigateand perform experiment. Team can implement any decisions based on

good data after discussion with MRB.

July 22, 2008 - Sept 2008

Project Title:

Problem Statement Business Case

Goal Statement

Team Leader

Members

Scope and Limitations

Time Line

Champion

Financial Benefit

Reduction of Blo Holes defect in PICO fuses

On the current PICO fuse process , several inspector were being utilized tosort out cosmetic defect induced during coating process with blo holes as the

top contributor. Reducing blo holes will result to reduction of inspection process.

This project adheres to the core values and beliefs for continuous

improvement through Lean Six Sigma strategies by elimination of non value

added process and reducing scrap cost by 50% .

Start

Define and Measure

Analyze and Improve

Control

Completion

Fernando Arce , Noel Castillo , Jessie Dela Pena, Ruel A. ,

Quennie Laco .

StakeholdersLittelfuse Philippines Inc Associates

Ernesto Manuel

Eduardo Bagadiong

Feb 20,2008 – March 20,2008

March 21,2007 – June 21,2008

To reduce blo holes defect from 1.6% to 0.8% July 2008 .

• PROJECT CHARTER

Annual savings of $114,000.

Feb 2008

Oct 2008



5

Version01_100407

PICO LEAN INITIATIVE PROJECT BACKGROUND

2004 PICO Layout

Identify

waste

Measure

&

Adjust

Current

state

Future

state

Implement

Continuous

Incremental

Improvement

The Lean Process2004 PICO PRODUCTION AREA (24,010 sq ft)

CYCLE TIME: 27 HOURS / FEET TRAVELLED: 525 FT



6

Version01_100407

PICO Lean Initiatives

• Leadtime is down from 8 weeks to

3 weeks

LEAN BENEFITS

• Process yield is up from 82% to 93%

• Quality also improved , our DPPM was

down from 332 ( 2004 ) to 10 ( 2007 )

• Able to accommodate new product on

same floor area (TR/TE and Thinfilm

and Distribution center)

2004 PICO Layout 2007 PICO Layout

Feet traveled = 525 ft

Hours = 27 hours

Feet traveled = 148 ft

Hours = 3.5 hours

• Work in process was reduced by 500%



7

Version01_100407

PICO PROCESS FLOW

MULTIMAG

ASSEMBLYWHEELCOATER

(COATING/ LASER MARKING/100%

RESISTANCE )

PAPER

TO TAPE

LASER MARKING EPOXY COATINGVISUAL INSPECTIONASSEMBLY PROCESS

PREMELT

JIFA 100% RES. TEST

AND LABELING

VISUAL INS.



8

Version01_100407

2009 CURRENT LAYOUT

127 ft

1 Sorter associate ( INSPECT fuses

while on rolling on belt) - done

2 VI associate (INSPECT fuse on tape)

2 JI associate ,

re-INSPECT fuse

prior Final Audit

Sources of Muda Sources of Muda

Paper to tape ( TRANSFER

fuse to paper tape for final

packaging / 100% resistance

TESTING)

1 Reeler associate ( INSPECT crossfuses while on conveyor)

PURSUIT OF PERFECTION !!!



9

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

Visual Defect Breakdown

• BACKGROUND

Team will focus on

reduction of Blo defect on

this project.



10

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND• BACKGROUND

Monthly Projected Output: 20,000,000

Baseline Data 97.30%

Target 98.30%

Projected monthly Saved Qty 200,000

Unit Cost $0.025

Monthly Savings $5,000.00

Annual savings $60,000.00

Inspection cost: 3000 / year for 1 associate

Target number of inspection process to be remove:3 associates / line ( a total of 6 lines )

= $ 54000

Scrap Reduction cost savings:

Labor cost savings:

Total annual cost savings : $ 114000



11

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

MEASURE PHASE

Operational Definition

Detailed Process Map

Attribute Agreement Analysis

Baseline Metrics and Sigma Level



12

Version01_100407

• Process Flow Chart

PremeltPremelt

MultimagMultimag

WheelcoatingWheelcoating

Visual

InspectionVisual

Inspection

Color BandColor Band

RadialRadial

TegamTegam

JI InspectionJI Inspection

Premelt

ProcessProcessProcessProcessKPIVKPIVKPIVKPIV KPOVKPOVKPOVKPOV

Multimag

(CLI)

Wheelcoating

VI

Radial

Quality of Caps & leadSolder Weight/ No Melt / Empty

Bend/ Exposed Copper

Caps & LeadSolder Lead

Bended/Damaged LeadBroken GlassFlyawayEmpty/ DoubleUnseated

Caps & LeadCLI Track/ HarmonicaTop / Bottom TrayHeat Set-upGlassingPin TrayTurning

D-D-MM-A-I-C-A-I-C

Tegam

TYPETYPETYPETYPE

C

C

C

C

C

C

TemperatureCoating wheelBend FuseMM Fall Apart FuseBare Fuse

Coating RejectsBlo HolesFalloutResistance defect

Coating RejectsDamage LeadGood Fuse

VI Escapee RejectsGood Fuse

VI Escapee RejectsGood FuseVI Escapee RejectsGood FuseDamaged Lead

VI Escapee RejectsGood FuseDamaged Lead



• Process Mapping• Process Mapping



13

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUNDMEASURE PHASE

DEFECT DEFINITION



14

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

Attribute Agreement Analysis (3 inspectors using 25 Good / 25 Reject w/ 3 trial each )

TinaQunnieHazel

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

Appraiser

P e r c e n t

95.0% CI

Percent

TinaQunnieHazel

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

Appraiser

P e r c e n t

95.0% CI

Percent

Assessment Agreement

Wit hin Appr aisers Ap pr aiser vs St and ar d

TinaQunnieHazel

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Appraiser

P e r c e n t

95.0% CI

Percent

TinaQunnieHazel

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Appraiser

P e r c e n t

95.0% CI

Percent

Assessment Agree ment

Wit hin Appraiser s Appr aiser vs St andard

All Appraisers vs Standard


# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

50 16 32.00 (19.52, 46.70)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known standard.Fleiss' Kappa Statistics

Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

A 0.687838 0.0471405 14.5912 0.0000

R 0.687838 0.0471405 14.5912 0.0000

All Appraisers vs Standard


# Inspected # Matched Percent 95 % CI

50 32 64.00 (49.19, 77.08)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known standard.

Fleiss' Kappa Statistics

Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

A 0.852435 0.0471405 18.0829 0.0000

R 0.852435 0.0471405 18.0829 0.0000

MEASURE PHASE

1ST Run

Date: March 10, 2008Validation Run:

Date: March 24, 2008

conclusion: kappa level is only 0.68 , need to conduct eyeball

correlation to correct judgment of inspectors.

conclusion: kappa level improved by 25% after eyeball correlation

and now above 0.7 requirement . We can now proceed

with the analyze phase..



15

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

5 why analysis on Blo Holes , Fallout and Coating defect

MEASURE PHASE



16

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

Prioritization of possible root cause

Y (% rate) = f(X1) + f(X2) + f(X3)

MEASURE PHASE



17

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

Baseline data

CURRENT

1 Number Of Units Processed N= 60,000,000

2 Total Number Of Defects Made D= 1,702,345

(Include Defects Made And Later Fixed)

3 Number Of Defect Opportunities O= 1

Per Unit

4 Solve For Defects Per Million Opportunities 28372

5 Look Up Process Sigma In Abridged Sigma Conversion Table Sigma= 3.41

Sigma Performance

MEASURE PHASE



18

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

ANALYZE PHASE

Validation of factors.

Using Dorian Shainin methodology:“Don’t’ let the engineer do the guessing

Let the parts do the talking”



19

Version01_100407

7 lbs min0.115” max

Negative correlation exist between cap retention and cap top to cap top.

Lower cap top will result to higher cap retention value .

SIGNIFICANT

Effect of Cap retention

P-Value = 0.00 P-Value = 0.03

Remarks: p-value<0.05,accept Ha: proportion A

≠ proportion B

Conclusion: there is

Significant difference

exist , lower capretention will result

blo holes defect.

Remarks: p-value<0.05,

accept Ha: proportion A

≠ proportion B

Conclusion: there is

Significant difference

exist , lower cap top tocap top dimension will

result to lesser blo

holes defect.



20

Version01_100407

ANALYZE PHASE

Validation run:Build 2 sets of samples using solder weight with an average

of 0.043 grams and 0.045 grams respectively. Compare the

cap retention using hypothesis test .

Remarks: p-value<0.05, accept Ha: proportion A ≠ proportion B

Conclusion: there is Significant

difference exist , lower solder weight will result to lower

cap retention. SIGNIFICANT

0.045 g cap ret0.043 g cap ret

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

c a p

r e t e n t i o n

7 . 5 0 6 6 7

1 0 . 0 2

Boxplot of Cap retention ( 0.043g vs. 0.045g)

X1 :Variation on Solder Weight

P-Value = 0.00



21

Version01_100407

ANALYZE PHASE

SIGNIFICANT

BEND UPRIGHT

Validation run:Build 2 sets of samples using tray with bend upright

(mis-align fuse condition ) and trays in a good condition.

Compare the cap top using hypothesis test .

cap top align fusecap rention mis align fuse

0.125

0.120

0.115

0.110

0.105

c a p

t o p

t o

c a p

t o p

0.11386

0.108903

Boxplot of Cap top to cap top ( Mis al ign vs. ALign fuse)

X3: improper handling of trays during assembly process

P-Value = 0.004

Remarks: p-value<0.05, accept Ha: proportion A ≠ proportion B

Conclusion: there is Significant

difference exist , lower solder weight will result to lower

cap retention.

Cap top mis-align fuse Cap top align fuse



22

Version01_100407

CURRENT

-Temperature are being adjusted to optimize the diameter , length of fuse and quality of cured epoxy powder .Fuse after curing process should

pass acetone test and no significant change on resistance value of the fuse.

ANALYZE PHASE

- defect increases during transition of single coating to double

coating since NO define temperature setting per series

(single or double coating ) .

- Temperature specification is too wide

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

471 ( optr A) 473 (Optr A) 471 ( optr B)

Shift to Shift variation on wheelcoater

coating defect

fallout

Blo holes

2.0%

2.8%

SIGNIFICANT

X5 : Not optimize wheelcoater temperature setting



23

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

IMPROVE PHASE

Hypothesis test for solder wt evaluation

DOE on wheelcoater

Hypothesis test for Coating Adjuster

Improvement plan on Handling of trays



24

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUND

Current:-Too many moving parts

- adjustment of solder pellet length

base on on set screw position

- difficult to troubleshoot

- Pinch wheel is adjusted by screw

Modified:

-Less moving parts

-adjustment of solder cut is base on

digital controller integrated on servo motor

- Rubber lining on both pinch wheels

instead of on just one wheel

- Spring loaded pinch wheels with

adjustable spring load instead of

pinching the solder wire thru set screw

- rollers are equipped with bearings

IMPROVE PHASE

Low Cpk of Solder Weight at Premelt Machine

P-Value = 000



25

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUNDIMPROVE PHASE


0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

current Premelt Optimize Premelt

EFFECT OF OPTIMIZE PREMELT

high resistance

open fuse

flyaway

fallout

Fallapart

Blo holes

2.8%

2.1%

P-Value = 000

Using optimize premelt machine , projected reduction ofdefect related to solder weight is only at 0.7% .

Cost of 1 machine: $3050

Total cost for 10 machines: $30500

ROI at 0.7% defect reduction: 9 months



26

Version01_100407

IMPROVE PHASE

Blo holes fallout,resistance and

mechanical bond

defect

Still OK


On current specification , defect such as blo holes , falloutand resistance are already being encountered even

with just a shift of below 3 % from the nominal value

Improvement plan:

Shift the nominal solder weight specification by 11% ,from 0.0045g to 0.0050g to compensate the variation of solder weight.

This will improve the cap retention by approximately 25%.



27

Version01_100407

IMPROVE PHASE


Increase nominal solder weight specification from 0.045g to 0.050g ( 11% increase) to compensate variation of premelt operation.

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

0.0045 grams 0.0050 grams

Increase on Solder weigth evaluation

low resistance

open fuse

flyaway

coating defect

fallout

exposed solder

Fallapart

Blo holes

increase solder wtsummary

defect related to solder will be reduced

from 3.5% to 2.28%

will have 1.2% reduction on defect.Supporting document: PCP 08-043



28

Version01_100407

CURRENTIMPROVEMENT PLAN ( PCP 08-044)

- Perform DOE :

- to define optimize set up per series to minimize variation on set up

- to allow entrapped air to escaped prior curing process

-Temperature are being adjusted to optimize the diameter , length of fuse and quality of cured epoxy powder .Fuse after curing process should

pass acetone test and no significant change on resistance value of the fuse. Note temperature should not exceed 300C (melting point of solder )to avoid solder reflow.

IMPROVE PHASE

Not optimize wheelcoater temperature setting

- defect increases during transition of single coating to double

coating since NO define temperature setting per series

(single or double coating ) .

- Temperature specification is too wide



29

Version01_100407

IMPROVE PHASE

X2 : Not optimize wheelcoater temperature setting

Pareto chart shows that Preheathas the most significant effect in

reducing blo holes defect .

Main effect graph shows thathigher preheat will result to lesser

blo holes.

DOE on Wheelcoater Temperature

Design: 4 factors w / 2 level each

Next step: Validate result of DOE optimize setting on larger samples.



30

Version01_100407

IMPROVE PHASE

Not optimize wheelcoater temperature setting

Using DOE set up , projected reduction

on wheelcoater defect is at 0.9%.

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

old setting DOE best

setting

Validation run on DOE setting

Exposed cap

falloutexposed solder

Blo holes



31

Version01_100407

CONTROL PHASECONTROL PHASE

Summary of Corrective / Preventive Actions

and Documentations

SPC and Reaction Plan

Trend Chart

Acknowledgement



32

Version01_100407

• BACKGROUNDCONTROL PHASE

W P 107 PICOimag Turning Opera

solder weightdrawing

DO and Donts ofhandling trays

F9 006oater Temperature

Summary of Corrective and Preventive Action



33

Version01_100407


• Update SPC Chart to Reflect change on Solder Weight specification from 0.0045g ±5% to 0.0050 ±5% )



34

Version01_100407


• Update SPC Chart to Reflect change on Cap retention specification from 7lbs min to 10 lbs min



35

Version01_100407


• Generate Out of Control Reaction plan for Blo Holes and Exposed solder

Blo Holes OCAPflow

Out of Control Action Plan will serve as

systematic guideline for troubleshooting

blo holes and exposed solder defect.



36

Version01_100407


Perform eyeballcorrelation

DOE on wheelcoatertemperature

Orientation on Do andDonts of Handling trays

Increase solder wt

from 0.045 to 0.050g



37

Version01_100407


Intangible Benefits

• Break traditional set up for PICO Wheelcoater process

• Application of Six Sigma Tools in doing Process Improvement.

• Develop TEAMWORK while ACHIEVING WORK SATISFACTION in making improvement

Tangible Benefits

• $ 60,000 annual cost saving on scrap

• $ 54,000 annual savings on wages and fringes as a result of reduction of 10 sorter associates

Future Plans

• Pursue Solder weight Cpk improvement as a greenbelt project



38

• BACKGROUNDAcknowledgementAcknowledgement

The team would like to acknowledge our associates for sharing their genuine ideas and ourfellow Technician and PE for their cooperation and during the evaluation run

• To the management for giving us a chance to be part of LF 6 sigma culture

• Also for the guidance of our superiors:

Ms. Zorayda Zordilla – Improvement Manager

Mrs. Josephine Tablada - Production ManagerSir Ed Bagadiong – Plant Manager

Sir Dan Onken - Operations Director

There's always room for improvement, you know--it's the biggest room in the house."--Louise Heath Leber

Documents

Ernest DMAIC Project