Kaizen FMEA (Uncompressed)

Click to edit Master title style

KBS1 Lowest Value Chain Cost with High Reliability

KBS 2 Rapid Growth of Added Value Independent Business

KBS 3 European Operations Optimisation

Support Strategies HR, IT & Technology

1. Think Safety; Act Safely

2. Embrace 5S

3. Foster Employee Development

4. Be Environmentally Responsible

5. Model Corporate Social Responsibility

6. Deliver Quality

7. Breathe Fact-Based Decision-Making

8. Show Visual Management

9. Deploy Standardisation

10. Live KAIZEN

11. Pursue Super Low Cost

12. Implement Synchronisation

S

E

Q

C

D

Title: FMEA to Meet RPL’s Robust Manufacturing ConstitutionStart Date: 2009Project Sponsor: Tim JamesManagement Support: Colin Weaver, Darren Nutting

Project Lead Name: Robert FarrJob Title: Product Recycling EngineerDepartment: Recycling EngineeringLog Number: K000433

Project Team Members (Optional): Robert Farr, David Newbrook, Rhona Davies, Tom Foster, Deborah Figueiredo-Daniels

Step 1 Introduction of Problem

Problem Statement: Inconsistent Approach to FMEA and Product Quality Defect Analysis / Countermeasure Techniques

Goal Statement:To develop the FMEA Template & Methodology to meet RPL’s Robust Manufacturing Constitution

Brief History

< 2010

• Supplies Recycling has Inconsistent Finished Goods Quality• No FMEA Conducted at New Model Introduction• Quality Controlled by Reactive Defect Management

2010

• Decision for New Model Introductions to incorporate FMEA (No Template)• Supplies Recycling Engineering develop basic 10 Scale FMEA

2011 > 2013

• SR Continue Evaluation of 10 Scale FMEA Definitions/Scaling Features • December 2012: IMS Procedure updated to use 5 Scale RPL FMEA Template

QA Approve SR Engineering to Continue Trials of 10 Scale Method

PERSEUS

MIDAS

RINMEI

SINCERECASSIS /

ADAM

SCHMIDT

PANACHE

JUPITER

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCPSk0dKXpscCFdAX2wodntAPvg&url=https://www.etoner.ca/index.php?manufacturers_id=25&page=1&sort=3d&ei=Sp7MVfTXHtCv7Aaeob_wCw&bvm=bv.99804247,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNGTHiZMnKh87kqQ_z4hNlU16glavw&ust=1439559623489362

Step 2 Investigation of Facts

PROBLEM 1 - No FMEA Situation (Before 2010)Through the years Supplies Recycling Right-First-Time (RFT) and IQ Sampling Quality has been inconsistent…This is particularly noticeable at New Model Introduction (NMI) phase, where quality can be poor whilst production is stabilising.Defects found at Final QC or QA Sampling were countermeasured reactively by Engineering/Manufacturing in Defect Meetings.

PERSEUSNMI

SINCERENMI

CASSIS /

ADAM

SCHMIDT

PANACHENMI

JUPITER PCUNMI

Current Product

JUPITER FUSINGNMI RFT Results take a long time to

stabilise after NMI, and are generally inconsistent throughout Product-Life-Cycle

RFT

% D

efec

ts a

t Pro

duct

ion

QC



Key Point: There was no Proactive Failure Mode Analysis in SR prior to 2010 for an FMEA to be incorporated in NMI.

PERSEUSNMI

SINCERENMI

CASSIS /

ADAM

SCHMIDT

PANACHENMI

JUPITER PCUNMI

Current Product

JUPITER FUSINGNMI

PROBLEM 1 - No FMEA Situation (Before 2010)

IQ Results take a long time to stabilise after NMI, and are generally inconsistent throughout Product-Life-Cycle

IQ %

Sam

plin

g R

ate



PROBLEM 2 - 2012 IMS Update (5 Scale FMEA Template)In December 2012 the QA Department updated the IMS Procedure to include an FMEA Procedure & Template.A template was based on a 5 Scale System.When reviewing this template in SR Engineering, there were issues found with 5 Scale FMEA as detailed below:

Rank Effect rate Criteria

No effect No effect.

P/O Not to standard but does not affect overall appearance or function

Slight ef fect Fit & f inish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect likely to be noticed by customers.

C Functions but not to standard i.e. Scratch, misset or damaged parts

Moderate Item operable, but Comfort/ Convience item(s) inoperable. Customer experiences discomfort.

B Functions but not to RGS i.e. Not enough toner, print defects

Major ef fect Item inoperable, w ith loss of primary function.

A Does not function i.e. Machine does not pow er up

Extreme effect

Very high severity ranking w hen a potential failure mode affects personal safety, safe item operation and/or involves non-compliance w ith government regulation

AA Cause major ill effects, serious malfunction, damage to company image or lack of compliance to legislation

SEVERITY

5

4

1

2

3

Severity Rating

Severity Rank & Criteria Definitions are compressed into the RPL QA Defect Ranking.

(x1 Severity Rank for x1 RPL QA Rank)

This means the degree of severity of the Defect cannot always be accurately registered…

Example: The severity degree of Rank B Defects can vary…

RPL QA Ranking dictates a Copy Defect outside of specification is a Rank B Defect and therefore registers as 3 on the FMEA Rating.

However, some Rank B Copy Defects, although out of standard, are more obviously sever to the customer than others, meaning the customer complaint severity will also vary.

Varying Rank B Defects:

x11 0.5mm Black Spots on a White Chart

Large Black Mark on a White Chart


Rank CPK Failure Rate Criteria

> 1.17> 1.33

1 in 20001 in 15 000 Low

OCCURENCE

Failure is unlikely1 in 150 000< 1 in 1 500 000

> 1.50> 1.67

4

5< 0.33> 0.33 Very high

< 1 in 31 in 3

> 0.51> 0.67

1

2

3> 0.83> 1.00

Regular1 in 801 in 400

1 in 81 in 20 High

Occurrence Rating

Defect Quantity or CPK Values are have large ranges for each rank.

This means it is difficult for the occurrence to be accurately registered due to large quantity differences between each FMEA Rank Scale.

Also there is no probability rating which is helpful for New Model Introductions where the final production capacity is only an estimate.

Example: “Probability on most units” - “…on a daily basis” - “…every week”

Rank Detection rate CriteriaDesign Controls w ill almost certainly detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

100% w ill be detected

High chance the Design Control w ill detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Likely to be detected during normal process

Moderate chance the Design Control w ill detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Unlikely to be detected during normal process

Very Low chance the Design Control w ill detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

Ghost part present or failure mode not visible

Design Control w ill not and/or cannot detect a potential cause/ mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no Design Control.

Not likely to be detected

4

5

DETECTION

1

2

3

Almost certain

High

Moderate

Absolute uncertainty

Very low

Detection Rating

Criteria Definition has no clear distinction between 2 fundamental detection factors:1. Error Proofed Detection (e.g. Automation)2. Subjective Detection (e.g. Manual Inspection)

Criteria Definitions are also very vague in description.

Example:

“Likely” / “Unlikely” to be detected during normal process… What is likely? Is likely automated inspection or manual inspection method? How can we define the effectiveness of a manual inspection?

PROBLEM 2 - 2012 IMS Update (5 Scale FMEA Template)


Similarities with the Likert Scale:

The Likert Scale is a 5 Scale Method normally adopted for questionnaire studies. The RPL developed 5 Scale FMEA has clear similarities with this scaling.This does cause a problematic issue with predictive Severity, Occurrence, Detection ratings

Key Point: Avoidance of extreme ratings for categories that are hard to predict… “Central Tendency Bias”

RPL FMEA Scaling Different to the “General Industry Standard”:

PROBLEM 2 - 2012 IMS Update (5 Scale FMEA Template)

COMPANIES using 1-10

Scale Methodology

EDUCATION PROVIDERS using 1-10

Scale Methodology

Benchmarking the Industry Standard.In general, both Education Providers and Manufacturing Companies use a 1-10 Scale FMEA Methodology


RPL FMEA Procedure Different to the “General Industry Standard”:

RPL FMEA IMS Procedure does not include the requirement for the FMEA to be conducted as a team.It only requires the assignment of responsibility to an appropriate Engineer:

Key Point: The “Industry Standard” of conducting FMEA, is to incorporate a FMEA Team with select disciplines and product/production knowledge. This is to maximise product quality defect predictions.

Quoted from Quality Associates International Inc: FMEAs are conducted by a core team of three or four people with supporting Subject Matter Experts (SME). This group creates the Cross Functional Team (CFT). Ideally, the CFT should be selected from disciplines that have a slightly different view of the product or process under investigation. The synergy created by the CFT is what makes FMEA so powerful.

A single person will not be able to develop a comprehensive FMEA without input from the CFT. It is easy to tell when a FMEA is created by one individual rather than the team. Such FMEAs are typically generated to satisfy customer requirements but have very little value to the program or organization. FMEAs are a means to achieve better quality products and processes. Many Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) require the proper use of FMEA. Industry standards in diverse industries, such as automotive, medical device manufacturing, aerospace, chemical processing and more, have been developed to utilize the power of FMEA.

PROBLEM 2 - 2012 IMS Update (5 Scale FMEA Procedure)

Both RPL 5 & Industry Standard 10 Scale FMEA incorporate the requirement to reduce residual risk as much as possible.

Residual Risk is the remaining RPN Risk to a Process after all available actions from the FMEA Group has been implemented

Observed RPL & Industry Standard Problem:The tendency for the majority of FMEA approvers within RPL (particularly in NMI Gate Meetings), that high / medium residual risks are deemed to “have to be low”, that it is not satisfactory to have remaining RPN Risks above Low Ratings.

This is an extremely difficult mandate to achieve for all design or production processes, especially those developed around the following criteria limitations:

1. Small Investment for Design / Product / New Model Introduction 2. Product has a Low Volume of Production – Return On Investment (ROI) is High3. Product has Low Gross Margin – Return On Investment (ROI) is High4. Technology is not advanced enough to develop an Error Proofing Method (Automation or Mistake Proofing Gauge)

Examples of Residual Risk in Supplies Recycling:Since the first use of 10 Scale FMEA within Supplies Recycling, NO Process FMEAs have ran live within production without there being high or medium residual risks. See examples below:


PROBLEM 3 - FMEA Residual Risk Management (Monitoring)

MIDAS RINMEI

Note: Midas has a higher Production Volume, higher Gross Margin and larger NMI Investment than Rinmei, therefore

Midas had more investment for Residual Risk Reduction Practices, due to its ROI

Quality Residual Risk countermeasure is too High Cost for Product Investment

Key Point: Due to the nature of investment into products & ROI (the 4 limitations above), management of high residual risks are a problem

Step 3 Root Cause Analysis

Inconsistent Approach to FMEA

and Product Quality Defect

Analysis / Countermeasure

Techniques

No FMEA Conducted

5 Scale System – RPL FMEA Procedure

Industry Standard 10 Scale System –

No Residual Risk MonitoringNG RFT % Level

NG IQ % Level

No Proactive Defect Management

High Customer Complaint Probability

Poor Operator Awareness of High Risk Processes

NG NMI Vertical Launch

Inconsistent Failure Detection Ratings

Failure Severity Rating Not Always Precise

Vague Understanding of Detection Method Effectiveness (“How Subjective”)

No Requirement for an FMEA Team

Emphasis is placed on Residual Risk Reduction not Monitoring

No / Limited High / Medium Residual Risk Monitoring

Low Investment / ROI have limited Residual Risk Reduction Capability

4M Controls not always based on FMEAPatrol Inspections not always based on FMEA

Hard to Predict Failures Suffer “Central Tendency Bias”

Different to the General Industry Standard (Difficult to Benchmark)

Technology Limitations can limit Residual Risk Reduction Capability

No Standard for Residual Risk Monitoring

ImprovementArea

Quality:Right-First-Time Rate Increase

Quality:IQ Sampling % Increase

Quality:Reduce Customer Complaints

Quality:Residual Risk Understanding & Monitoring

No FMEA

Use RPL 5 Scale FMEA

Develop RPL “Industry Standard” 10 Scale FMEA

10 Scale FMEA with Residual Risk Monitoring Development

Step 4 Proposed Improvements

Measurable Items

Step 5 Implementation of Improvement

WHAT• Development of an RPL Version 10 Scale FMEA Template & Definitions• Development of a Residual Risk Management (Monitoring) Methodology

WHEN• From 2010 - FMEA Requirement at NMI

WHY1. Improve Production RFT & IQ Rates, particularly after NMI stage – “Achieve Vertical Launch”2. Improve the current RPL 5 Scale Template which has weaknesses:

Severity Rating: Difficult to measure the “Degree of Severity” of a Defect

Occurrence Rating: Large Ranges (“Gaps”) between RanksNo Probability Statements

Detection Rating: Definitions are VagueNo Distinction between Subjective & Error Proofing Methods

No Requirement for FMEA to be conducted in Groups

3. Improve Method & Control of Residual Risks which are still High / Medium• Little Emphasis on Monitoring High/Medium Residual Risks that cannot be Reduced Further• High / Medium Residual Risks are difficult to reduce with Low Investment or Low Production

Volume / Gross Margin Products• Technology Limitation can mean some Residual Risk cannot be reduced from High/Medium

WHO• Robert Farr, David Newbrook, Rhona Davies, Tom Foster, Deborah Figueiredo-Daniels

WHERE• RPL Supplies Recycling Engineering & Production, with support from QA Department

HOW – 10 Scale ResearchThe general industry standard shows that there is a basic 5 Criteria Division, but of a 10 Scale Rating System:

1 – Remote Rating Measurement2 ~ 5 – Low Rating Measurement4 ~ 8 – Moderate Rating Measurement7 ~ 9 – High Rating Measurement9 ~ 10 – Very High Rating Measurement

Examples of this can be seen below…


This information is available at Quality Associates International Inc.


HOW – FMEA Scale Definitions ResearchSeverity:


The Severity Measurement is a rating for when a Potential Failure Mode results in a Customer or Final QC Manufacturing Defect.

The severity definition shown is a general industry standard for the training of the FMEA Tool.

Improvement Area: Severity Definition Scaling still compares well to the RPL QA

Defect Ranking Policy.

However, it also expands on this by having a severity degree.

Example: Degree of Rank B Defects:High = Customer Very DissatisfiedModerate = Customer DissatisfiedLow = Customer Somewhat Dissatisfied

QA RANK AA

QA RANK A

QA RANK B

QA RANK C

QA RANK PO

Occurence:The Occurrence Measurement is a rating given for the amount of times the Potential Failure Mode Defect happens within Production.

The occurrence definition shown is an example used in industry.

Improvement Area:The Failure Rate Criteria can be

adjusted to match any Production Quantities per Period (day, month, year etc), or can be

measured by Process CPK Values if known.

The ranges between quantity values are smaller meaning

scoring can be more accurate.

Also most industry models show a probability estimate

description.


HOW – FMEA Scale Definitions Research


Detection:The Detection Measurement is a rating given for the ability the production process has to detect a Potential Failure Mode Defect.

An example of a general industry standard definition is shown.

Inspection Types: A = Error ProofedB = Gauging or Mistake Proofing (Poka Yoke)C = Manual Inspection

Improvement Area:The Detection Rating is based

on how Subjective the Detection Method is.

Example:There is a clear distinction that Manual / Visual Inspections score worse than Mistake Proofing or Automation Inspections which are more Error Proofed.

The Criteria Definition is also very precise in description.


HOW – FMEA Scale Definitions Research


HOW – Testing SR Developed 10 Scale vs RPL 5 Scale


Using the Research Findings SR Engineering created an RPL 10 Scale Template & Definitions Scaling.This was then tested in some production process scenarios to compare risk results and precision of the risk rating:

Copy Check Inspection:Potential Failure Mode Effects of Failure S Class Causes of Failure O Current Prevention Current Detection D RPN Recommended Action S O D RPN

A defective print image is missed by the inspection

operator

Defective print image: any print defect. 7 B Operator Inspection Error. 8 Keypoints in WSPB.

Operator Training.

Visual Check of Unit Prints. Sampled QA

Inspection.5 28

0

1) Production Monitor Copy Defect Mis-Judgements.2) 4M QA Check of Operator checking Copy Samples.3) Process Confirmation in Training Document.

7 7 5 245

Defective Print Image missed by inspection

operatorDefective Print Image 3 Operator Inspection Error.

Poor assembly of product. 3 Visual Check.QA Sampled Check. 2 18

1) Production Monitor Copy Defect Mis-Judgements.2) 4M QA Check of Operator checking Copy Samples.3) Process Confirmation in Training Document.

3 2 2 12

Copy Check Inspection for a Recycling Process is one of the most important Quality Check Processes. It is extremely subjective in that it is totally reliant on manual inspection, and because of this operators used to conduct Copy Inspection are highly trained and highly critical with their judgements based on strict Ricoh Japan Copy Standards. Automation of this process is extremely difficult with high cost implications which most (if not all) recycling products cannot invest against.Result: • 5 Scale shows a Medium Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is the lowest medium rating.• 10 Scale shows a High Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is a mid-level high rating.

10 Scale:

5 Scale:

Development unit over/under filled with toner.

Defective print yield: The unit does not complete its designed print yield.

5 B

The Toner Filling Jig might fail due to any number of

running conditions moving out of specification.

5Every unit is 100%

checked by an integral load cell on the filling jig.

Units are weighed. 4 100 5 5 4 100

Under Weight Development Unit

Defective Print Yield as rans out of Toner 3 Filling Jig running out of

specifications 2 Weight Check. 1 6 3 2 1 6

Damage to OPC during the fitting of the LEFT/RIGHT

CUSHIONCopy quality problems. 7 B

Poor holding and assembly process or process

adherence.6 Keypoints in WSPB.

Operator Training. Sampled QA Inspection. 9 378

1) 4M QA Check of Operator correctly holding PCU whilst inserting into Packaging Cushions/2) Process Confirmation in Training Document.

7 5 9 315

Damage to OPC during fitting of the Left/Right

CushionCopy quality problems 3 Poor handling and assembly

of product into packaging 2 QA Sampled Inspection 4 241) 4M QA Check of Operator correctly holding PCU whilst inserting into Packaging Cushions/2) Process Confirmation in Training Document.

3 1 4 12


Manual Packing of Exposed / Sensitive OPC Unit:Potential Failure Mode Effects of Failure S Class Causes of Failure O Current Prevention Current Detection D RPN Recommended Action S O D RPN

Packing of exposed or sensitive products (like OPC Units) are inherently risky processes. This is because there is no way to Quality Check that the unit has not been damaged in some way after the packing process. Automation of this process is extremely difficult with high cost implications which most (if not all) recycling products cannot invest against.Result: • 5 Scale shows a Medium Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is the lowest medium rating.• 10 Scale shows a High Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is a mid-level high rating.

10 Scale:

5 Scale:

Toner Filling a Unit:Potential Failure Mode Effects of Failure S Class Causes of Failure O Current Prevention Current Detection D RPN Recommended Action S O D RPN

Automation process with automatic weight check. Process still has a subjective possibility if operator ignores fill-weight result.Result: • 5 Scale shows a Low Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is a very low, low rating.• 10 Scale shows a Medium Risk rating before / after countermeasures. Final residual risk is a low-level medium rating.

10 Scale:

5 Scale:

HOW – Testing SR Developed 10 Scale vs RPL 5 Scale

HOW – FMEA Methodology Research - “Industry Standard”From various FMEA Education outlets (Websites, Textbooks, University) an FMEA Study is generally conducted as follows:

Establish FMEA Group

• Engineering Control of FMEA

• Group consists of Product Designer, Production Design Engineer, Production Staff (including Key Operators), Offline Support Staff (Warehouse), Process Book Author

Conduct FMEA

• Estimate Potential Failures

• Investigate Potential Failure Effect

• Detail Root Cause of Failure

• Score the Severity of the Failure to the Customer

Identify Current Controls

• Identify any Current Prevention Methods to stop the failure from happening

• Identify any Current Detection Methods to detect the failure has happened within the process.

Score FMEA

• Score Occurrence Rate Potential of the Failure Happening based on current Prevention Methods

• Score Detection Rate for finding the failure in the process based on current Detection Methods

Identify Corrective

Actions• Identify

Recommended / Corrective Actions to further reduce Risk Rating Score (RPN)

Implement Corrective

Actions• Assign Responsibility• Assign Completion

Date• Change Process

Approve Residual Risks

• Score Implemented Corrective Actions to provide Residual Risk (RPN)

• Create Priority List of Residual Risks for future RPN risk reduction exercises

Note: Risk Rating (RPN) is produced by the multiplying of Severity / Occurrence / Detection Rating Scores (S x O x D)


HOW – FMEA Methodology Improvement

Establish FMEA Group Conduct FMEA Identify Current

Controls Score FMEA

Identify Corrective

Actions

Implement Corrective

Actions

Prioritise Residual Risks

• Score Implemented Corrective Actions to provide Residual Risk (RPN)

• Create Priority List of Residual Risks for future RPN risk reduction exercises

• Identify any Process Monitoring Techniques for High / Moderate Residual Risks that cannot be immediately reduced or reduced cost effectively

Implement Residual Risk

Actions• Action RPN Risk

Reduction Exercise• Create High /

Moderate Residual Risk Monitoring Documentation (i.e. Process Confirmation, 4M, Patrol Inspections)

Improvement Area: This feature is being conducted in Supplies Recycling FMEA but is missing from RPL IMS 2012 ENG

027 Procedure


SR Engineering reviewed the FMEA methodology, but expanded the Residual Risk Management at the end of the process flow. This enabled an understanding of how high / medium residual risks that can no longer be reduced in a cost effective way can be monitored and managed. This alternative flow is as follows:

Improvement Area

Step 6 Confirmation of Effect

RFT Results since 10 Scale FMEA Implementation

MIDASNMI

RINMEINMI

APOLLONATHENANMI

RINMEILBGNMI

TAURUS TCRUNMI

RFT Results are within Good Ratings 1~2 Months after NMI

Note: Residual Risk Monitoring Methodology was completely incorporated into Apollon/Athena NMI and onwards.Results further improved from this point…

RFT

% D

efec

ts a

t Pro

duct

ion

QC

Step 6 Confirmation of Effect

IQ Results since 10 Scale FMEA Implementation

MIDASNMI

RINMEINMI

APOLLONATHENANMI

RINMEILBGNMI

TAURUS TCRUNMI

IQ Results are within Good Ratings 0~1 Month after NMI

IQ %

Sam

plin

g R

ate

Step 7 System Improvement

SR FMEA Final 10 Scale Definition DocumentationAfter 10 Scale FMEA Trials on Midas, Rinmei, Apollon/Athena and Taurus NMI, Supplies Recycling have compiled a complete FMEA Template Spreadsheet including Definition Rating Scale Template.

(See Kaizen Presentation Attachment – SR FMEA Template v2.0)

SR FMEA Residual Risk Management Supporting Documentation High / Medium Residual Risk Items found on the FMEA RPN after all countermeasures are implemented are recorded as requiring Residual Risk Monitoring techniques within the “Recommended Action” column.

Potential Failure Mode

Charge Frame is C1, C2 or C3 type.

RPN Recommended Action

Responsibility and Target Completion

Date

Action Taken

Seve

rity

Occ

urre

nce

Det

ectio

n

RPN

392

1) Process Book Page 25319 / 25437 - Add Visual Inspection for Charge Frame Types (James Radnor to confirm visual differences)2) Create Keypoint Memo for Frame Variations.3) Process Confirmation in Training Document.4) 4M QA Check of Charge Frames in Buffer Trolleys.

Ian Collins/ James Radnor

(15/08/14)Carlton Everett

(29/08/14)John Pountney

(29/08/14)

1) Process Book Addition2) SRO raised by James Radnor3) Added to Training Documents4) 4M Check Added

7 6 5 210

Apollon / Athena C2.5 PCU Recycling Process Confirmation - Strip 1

Operator Name:

Ref: Item Result CommentN/A Why is there a Downdraft Bench on the Station25305 Explain / Demonstrate remove charge cleaner

roller (to not damage unit lugs)25316 & 19

Explain / Demonstrate the method checking Charge Frame to appearance standards

25319 Explain / Demonstrate the method checking Charge Frame type is a C2.5 (Keypoint Memo to be created)

25128 & 25130

Explain / Demonstrate the method checking Coating Bar Spring to appearance standards

PROCESS

SR Invented Process Confirmation Documents – Operator Examination of Process Understanding of Risk Areas

4M QA Operator Patrol Inspection – Process Surveillance

Item No Photograph STN Check Contents MON TUE WED THR FRI

8 Strip Stn 1

Visually check x2 harness lugs HARNESS LUGS MUST NOT BE DAMAGED OR MISSING

FRAME STDS REF SRO 14-SR017CLEANLINESS STDS REF SRO 14-SR015

Ref Control No. 25278

9 Strip Stn 1

Visually check correct Charge Frame Type COVER STDS REF SRO 14-SR016

GENERIC CLEANLINESS COVER STDS REF SRO 14-SR015UNIT CONDITION STDS SRO 15-SR020


10 Strip Stn 1

Visually check x9 harness lugs on side of frame & harness routing.

HARNESS MUST BE ROUTED CORRECTLYFRAME STDS REF SRO 14-SR017, CLEANLINESS SRO 14-SR015


Production Line

4M Control Check (Apollon / ATHENA PCU - STRIP)mm/WK

Check by

4M CONTROL Patrol Inspection Check

Proc

ess

Key

Po

int

Proc

ess

Key

Poi

nt

Pr

oces

s K

ey

Poin

t

Pr

oces

s K

ey P

oint

Proc

ess

Key

Po

int

Proc

ess

Key

Poi

nt

Pr

oces

s K

ey P

oint

Proc

ess

Key

Poi

nt

Pr

oces

s K

ey P

oint

Asse

mbl

y Co

nditi

onAs

sem

bly

Con

ditio

nRe

turn

ed P

art

Cond

ition

Retu

rned

Par

t Co

nditi

on

Proc

ess

Key

Po

int

Asse

mbl

y Co

nditi

onRe

turn

ed P

art

Cond

ition

Retu

rned

Par

t Co

nditi

onRe

turn

ed P

art

Cond

ition

Retu

rned

Par

t Co

nditi

onM

anuf

actu

ring

Cond

ition

DIRECTLY LINKED

WITH FMEA

“CONSTANT

TRAINING

APPROACH”

Step 8 Horizontal Deployment

RPL ENGINEERING

All other Engineering Departments are currently using 5 Scale RPL Template(This potentially includes not using a Residual Risk Management / Monitoring Techniques)

• QA Department create a FMEA Focus Group for 10 Scale Development Findings

• RPL Engineering to be trained to FMEA Focus Group Conclusions

RPL POLICY

• IMS Procedure and Flow to be adjusted with FMEA Group Conclusion

RICOH MANUFACTURING GROUP

• FMEA Focus Group Findings to be shared with Ricoh Japan (RCL) – Ricoh Academy

Step 9 Summary of Improvement

QUALITYIQ Increase

IQ Stable at > 99.5% quickly after NMICOST

Product Rework

Reduction

QUALITY

Higher Operator Risk

Awareness

QUALITY

Right-First-Time Increase

COST

QC Rectification Reduction

DELIVERY

Lower Chance of Finished Goods

Shortage

ENVIRONMENT

Product Rework Part Usage Reduction

RFT Stable at > 95% quickly after NMI

QUALITY

Customer Complaint Reduction

QUALITY

IMS Procedure Improvement

DELIVERY

Lower Chance of Parts Shortage from Rework

Step 10 Remaining Issues & Future Plans

Future Plans Time FrameFMEA Focus Group (Engineering & QA Departments) June – Dec 2015

Create new FMEA Template & Definitions June – Sept 2015

Develop FMEA Course June – Sept 2015

Pilot Training for FMEA Course Oct – Dec 2015

Update IMS Procedure Eng-027 Dec 2015

Start-Up of RPL Academy Training for FMEA Course Jan – Mar 2016

All the above form part of this years SMO.