Page 1 I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department Project: Improve Uptime in the production department Date Opened: March 4, 200x I&CIM

Page 1

I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department Project: Improve Uptime in the production department

Date Opened: March 4, 200xI&CIM Contact: Jim AltierProject Sponsor: Plant Manager

Customer: All Assembly Areas (Internal & External)Project status: Closed

Problem Definition

Terminal make area in Plant, Department• 25 % of all downtime related to Burrs• 8,000,000 parts scrapped 200x calendar year• $100,000 additional tooling cost associated with Burrs

Project Scope

Characterize Current State/ID failure modes

Increase uptime by reducing un-scheduled die maintenance.• Un-scheduled maintenance due to poor quality tool detailssupplied by outside vendors• Inspection criteria to be redefined

Implement improvements

Control and Maintain

•Tool & Die Makers indicated that current details were being received with surface and cutting edge imperfections due to wafer manufacturing process and shipping issues.• Samples of current vendors tool details sent to an independent lab for functional and dimensional analysis.• Numerous parts defective due to not meeting print specifications and other functional defects.• Current inspection criteria shuts the press down prematurelyfor defects that are within the specification limits. • Current inspection criteria limits the life of the tool detail byreplacing it before it has reached it full lifespan.• Manufacturing not following the Preventative Maintenanceschedule as written.

•Wafer study showed that life could be extended exponentially by changing the practices and procedures of the tool & die makers andthe inspectors as well as using good quality tool details. •Tool & Die makers to change practice regarding tooldetail changes. Specifically, only replacing or flipping thedetail in question, as opposed to changing or flippingall 4 details in the die when one fails.•Source wafer (tool details) to Vendor C• Inspectors to be re-trained regarding proper implementationof the current print specification regarding burrs and burrtolerances.• Eliminate the procedure of shutting the die down to repairburrs that are not out of specification in an effort to avoid the potential production of defective parts. • Preventative Maintenance schedule to be revised to to match criteria established during the wafer study.

• Inspection reports to be sent in tact with the tool detailsindicating the measurement of the details.• Wafer usage to be measured against pieces produced on an on going basis to verify pieces per wafer half.• Manufacturing and Quality General Supervisors to meetwith Inspectors in order to alleviate concerns regardingscrapping of defective parts that may be produced.• Preventative Maintenance Schedule to be maintained by the Die Maintenance Scheduler beginning first quarter of 200x. This will avoid over production of the die beyond theregular PM schedule.

Page 2

DE

FIN

ED

EF

INE

Six Sigma Project Team:

Black-Belt Candidate: Jim Altier

Green Belt Candidates:

Project Sponsor:

Project Champion:

Master Black-Belt:

Problem Statement and Background

Plant, Department supplies the male blade parts to Plant Assembly Area. These 5 part numbers are used in 39 part

numbers which supply 7 different Customer product lines. Annual requirements are 1,212,041,754 parts.

Currently department, is experiencing approximately 70% downtime, scrap cost of $80,000 (200x) and $100,000 in

additional tool cost. This encompasses 5 part numbers, 12 tools across 14 press’s. Of the 70% downtime, it has been

determined that burrs on the parts and poor wafer quality from the vendor is responsible for the 25% of the downtime.

It is imperative that Plant increase uptime , reduce scrap and additional tooling usage significantly to stay competitive.

Previous Kaizen Workshops have identified various root causes and possible solutions.

The following areas are being addressed first through a Six Sigma, DMAIC project.

First and foremost the wafer quality and dimensional tolerancing (through a separate project) will be defined and

resolved systematically to improve uptime and lower scrap & tool usage.

I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department

Page 3

BEC Area Press Profile

Stock Prob0.2%

Set Up2.9%

Misc2.5%

Tool Revisions/De-bug0.3%

Vision5.1%

Pipefitter1.4%

Mach Repair3.6%

PPAP1.0%

Press Rev/Re-Build/Safety/Vamco

0.7%

Stock Chgs11.9%

Interference4.0%

Insp3.5%

Preventive Maintenance1.5%

Run27.6%

Tool Room27.3%

Elec1.5%

Engr/Tech2.5%

Idle/Ineff iciency/Manning2.5%

Plant Kaizen WorkshopFacilitated by the TeamJanuary 22 – 24, 200xProblem Definitions• Unscheduled Die Maintenance• Zero Tolerance of Burrs on parts• Inspection Criteria

Stock Jams

Too much coolant pulls slugs & causes

jams Question the amountof stock to be runbefore shutdown

Stock changes, too many

Vamco feed out of adj.

Operatornot feeding stock

properlyChamfer too smallsupposed to be

.32

Tolerancing Inspectors scared to pass

questionable parts

0 tolerance to difficult

InconsistentinspectorsNearing max

tolerance so we shutdown before we

are out of spec.

Measurement system error

Not sharpeningenough on the

punches.Poor heattreating.

Large nick on the punch.Quality of

Punches

Operators changingsettings

Running too hot

Low coolant

Too much coolantpulls slugs & causes jams

Broken IDCArm

Worn backupblocks

Stripper inserts aremis-aligned

OROR

BURRS

280

SERIES

MALE

BLADES

OROR

OROR

OROR

OROR

Quality of the Wafer

Poor surfacefinish

Not grinding in a cross hatching

pattern

Too many wafersstacked.

Cutting too manyat once.

Poor Inspection(incoming)Sampling

Poor grind job(too much too fast)

Small nick on the wafer (incoming)

Poor heat treatingburning the part

Poor supplierquality

Too few passeswith the EDM

OROR

OROR

Wafer Life

Carbide backup blocksare stronger, better

wafer support but theycrash instead of wear

Steel backup blockswear & dwell out,

wafer support is lostnot as good as carbide Stock jams

deteriorate the life of a wafer

Poor handlingwhich leaves

nicks or deformation

Tool Crash

Location in the diemay not be reliable

OROR

Areas ofConcentration

SIX SIGMASIX SIGMA personnel and the TOOL & DIE MAKERS created a Fault Tree Analysis to determine potential causes of the problemsdefined by the Kazien Workshop.

34 potential X’s were identified4 important paths are 2 SIX SIGMASIX SIGMA projects1. Quality of the Wafer2. Wafer Life3. Tolerancing4. Inspection Criteria

DE

FIN

ED

EF

INE


Page 4

Good Quality Wafer Sharp, Clean Cutting Edges

Poor Quality WaferDamaged & Jagged

Cutting Edges


ME

AS

UR

EM

EA

SU

RE

All Photosprovided by

an independent Metrology lab.

Page 5

Data Collection Summary:Pieces per Wafer Range

385,633 – 470,500Average

3.2 to 4 hours of run time between wafer changes

Press xxx27 events

Average:470,500pieces between events

Press xxx32 events

Average: 385,633 pieces between events

(An event is: an incidentthat requires a tool & die maker to open the die and

either flip or change wafers.)

Vendor A(current vendor)

Vendor “A”

Vendor B (recommended)

Vendor “B”

Vendor C(recommended)

Vendor “C”

Vendor D(in house)

Vendor “D”

Study began June 3Study began June 3The next step in data

collection.

An experimentto quantify wafer

(processing)quality in regards

to production.

The plan is to compare4 different vendors

head to head.

The goal is toThe goal is todetermine if waferdetermine if waferquality increasesquality increases

uptime, reduces scrap uptime, reduces scrap and lowers overalland lowers overall

tooling cost.tooling cost.

Currently a majority of wafers and punches

do not meet the printspecifications of

+/-.0001+/-.0001

Completed April 200x

0.00150.00100.0005-0.0000-0.0005-0.0010-0.0015

USLLSL

Process Capability Analysis for Difference

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

777788.28

395562.57

382225.70

723460.79

369903.61

353557.18

527343.75

274305.56

253038.19

0.09

0.10

0.09

0.09

*

0.11

0.13

0.11

0.12

0.0003543

0.0002825

2304

0.0000062

-0.0001000

*

0.0001000

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

* A majority of tool details do not meet the print specifications* A majority of tool details do not meet the print specifications


ME

AS

UR

E /

AN

AL

YZ

EM

EA

SU

RE

/ A

NA

LY

ZE

Page 6

Vendor “B”1. Use only “Crucible

CPM-M4” (no substitutes), we buy 1” x 4” x 24” bars (ordered lengthwise grain)

2. Wire cut .160 thick, 4” x 6” plates

3. Drill start hole & tapped hole pattern

4. Heat treat to specification (Cryogenic Freeze for Stabilization)

5. Grind to .1255 thickness6. Stack 6 high & wire cut

with 5 passes7. Finish grind outsides;

grinding wire cut forms into location.

8. Reload a singles into wire & cut 4 axis shape & 4 holes finished

9. Cut 45 degree chamfers on 4 holes in milling machine with carbide C’sinks

10. Grind extra thickness stock off back

11. Grind Relief slot

Vendor “A”1. 4-6 plates that are

ground approximately .020 + oversize

2. Weld or bolt together3. Wire the inside of

wafer to size, outside to approximately .0005 oversize

4. Grind outside to size5. Grind

approximately .001 oversize on thickness

6. Glass bead inside of shape to knock off burr & clean up inside of shape

7. Grind to size which sharpens the wafer & leaves a .0005 burr

Vendor “C”Plates are ground individually1. Plates are ground to

size on the thickness and +.004 on the outside dimensions

2. Plates are stacked in a fixture and wired to size using 5 passes to achieve the finest surface finish and the sharpest cutting edges. Because thickness was ground to size prior to wire cut, no measurable burr remains

3. The outside dimensions are then ground to locate the wire(d) opening(s)

Vendor “D”

1. Use CPM-M4 hardened to 61-63 RC and ground flat to .0001 flatness

2. Blank sizes are 3” x 6” x .130 thick

3. Stack 4 blanks at a time in a holder

4. Use a hole burner for start holes

5. Wire cut using 4 passes

6. Inspect using the View 1220

7. Grind to thickness using Okamoto wet grinder

8. Tap on EDM taper9. Grind slots and mark

parts


AN

AL

YZ

EA

NA

LY

ZE

Page 7

Vendor “A” is a 5x improvement in comparison to where we were before the study began. The only difference in these wafers compared to previous wafers is that they were measured and picked according to dimensionality. This practice was used for all 4 vendors. Statistically, the only dimension that shows a strong correlation to life was dimension 12, which is the overall outside length of the wafer.

Vendor “B”. These wafers showed a 3x improvement over our current piece count per wafer half. Dimensionally these parts were the second best, however, numerous parts did not meet the required harness level per Rockwell standards. These wafers were actually run through the study twice due to a lubrication problem with the die. The parts showed extreme wear and were prematurely fatigued due to lack of lubrication. Therefore, Vendor “B” has more data points in comparison to the other vendors.

Vendor “C”. The study on these wafers was stopped prematurely. The parts had such good wear characteristics that the parts were pulled to move on to another vendor. These wafers averaged a 12x improvement over our current piece count. This vendor exhibited the best dimensional characteristics.

Vendor “D”. This is last vendor to run in the die. These parts averaged a 7x improvement. This set of wafers were put in after the die received a complete PM due to cycling. Of all the vendors these wafers consistently were out of specification in regards to the +/- .0001 tolerance. This indicates that hardness and the PM cycle are factors.

Metallurgical studies indicate differences in the heat treating is an important factor in the life of the wafer. Vendor “B” produced parts that were dimensionally superior to vendors “A & D” and equal to Vendor “C”, however, due to lack of hardness and proper heat treating, these parts wore more rapidly than the others. Vendor “D” ranked 4 th dimensionally, however, ranked 2nd in pieces per wafer half. This indicates that dimensionality is not the number 1 factor in life. Vendor “C” produced the best overall parts, dimensionally, hardness and heat-treating. Consequently, the results indicate that a combination of all factors is needed to extend the life of the wafer. Additional metallurgical testing is being done to provide more information in regards to the tool steel structure. This will aid in the processing of the wafers both internally and externally.


AN

AL

YZ

EA

NA

LY

ZE

Page 8

2249390

1471809

4970651

2803670

400000

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

Series1

Series1 400000 2249390 1471809 4970651 2803670

Previous Average

Vendor "A"

Vendor "B"

Vendor "C"

Vendor "D"

Pieces Per Wafer Half (Average)

ImprovementImprovementOver Over

Previous Previous AverageAverage

3.6 X3.6 X

5.6 X5.6 X

7.0 X7.0 X

12.4 X12.4 X

Vendor to Vendor Comparison for number of pieces produced between wafer halves


Old Process

New Process

IMP

RO

VE

IMP

RO

VE

N/AN/A

Page 9

Old Process Financial New Process

Vendor “A” Factors Vendor “C” Vendor “D” Vendor “A” Vendor “B”

400,000 Pieces per Wafer Half 4,970,651 2,803,670 2,249,390 1,471,809

$75.00 Cost per Wafer $133.00 * $60.22 $75.00 $110.00

.0001875 Wafer Cost per Piece produced .000026757 .000021478 .0000333 .0007442

911,653,988 2003 BEC blade volume 911,653,988 911,653,988 911,653,988 911,653,988

$170,935.12 Wafer cost for 2003 volume $24,393.18 $19,581.40 $30,396.71 $68,135.16

N/A Savings $146,541.94 $151,353.71 $140,538.42 $102,799.96


IMP

RO

VE

IMP

RO

VE

Tooling SavingsTooling Savings

• Vendor “C” has been awarded the blankets for wafer details per the results of this study. (* wafers for the study were $110.00,

once blanket was awarded average cost is now $133.00) • Vendor “D” will begin wafer production first quarter of 2003 and will assume responsibility of supplying wafer details.• Vendor “A” had lost the blanket for the wafer details prior to the completion of the study due to quality issues with Distributors.• Vendor “B” was not on the approved supplier list, provided experimental parts for the study.

During the course of the wafer study (June 3 to October 31) the project saved $6010.00. This was capable by changing the process andDuring the course of the wafer study (June 3 to October 31) the project saved $6010.00. This was capable by changing the process andonly flipping and or changing the wafers that were worn out or broken. This method used only 40 details, where asonly flipping and or changing the wafers that were worn out or broken. This method used only 40 details, where asthe previous method would have used 96 details. This $6010.00 has been added on the financial tracker.the previous method would have used 96 details. This $6010.00 has been added on the financial tracker.

Page 10

CO

NT

RO

LC

ON

TR

OL

• 3/15/02: Cutting Edge Requirement for Cutting Wafers / Dies and Cutting Punches Letter (Distributors)

Effective immediately, cutting wafer/die and cutting punch edges must be free of any manufacturing burr. Cutting edges must be sharp, not to exceed a measurable 0.005mm(.0002”) burr height, with an optional 0.025mm (.001”)radius allowed on the cutting edge for burr removal. All non-conforming cutting wafers/dies and cutting punches will be routed through the discrepancy process and returned to the supplier for replacement or rework. The majority of suppliers are currently aware of and complying with the above standard. However, recently, manufacturing has identified product that does not meet the above requirement. To allow for any process changes or additional inspection process, we will begin enforcing this requirement March 25th, 2002. All cutting wafers/dies and cutting punches received after March 25 th, 2002 must conform to this requirement.

• 7/17/02: Spare Tooling Requirements ( Distributors & Engineering)

Die Spare Tooling Requirements

The following requirements apply to Die Spare Tooling only and are to be used as standards unless otherwise specified on the print. Deviations from requirements in this document will not be accepted without prior authorization via Deviation Request. Plating repairs or weld repairs of any kind will not be accepted without prior authorization via Deviation Request. Amendments, additions or omissions to this document must be authorized by the representative below.

• 11/4/02: Letter to Distributors regarding tool details being sourced to (Vendor “C”)

•( Supervisor)

Effective Monday November 4th 200x, all of the Wafers, (8xxxx, 8xxxxx0, 8xxxxx, 8xxxxx and 8xxxxx), must be purchased from Vendor C only.If you have any questions, please call me.

• 11/8/02: Verified & Reviewed the proper inspection criteria with Department. (Quality)

Going forward inspectors will only shut the press down when a terminal has a defect beyond the limits of the specification. Past practice was to shut down and fix a defect that was close to be out of specification.

• 11/21/02: Reviewed results of wafer study and improvement plan with Die Makers. (Six Sigma Project Leader)

The new practice will be to only flip or change the wafer (any die detail) that is responsible for the defect at that given time. No longer will the wafers be flipped or changed 4 at a time unless required due to the quality of the part.

• First Quarter 200x: Die Maintenance Scheduler to assume the role of handling Die Maintenance and Preventative Maintenance Scheduling. ( Supervisor)

This will remove the responsibility from the manufacturing supervisor and allow for a consistent adherence to the schedule. Results of the study also indicated that various tool details do not last the full PM cycle, therefore, changes will be communicated to tool engineering for review and implementation.


Documents

Page 1 I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department Project: Improve Uptime in the production department Date Opened: March 4, 200x I&CIM