Project Title: Reliability improvement of Reaming … · machines in Frame assembly. Plant: Hosur-2, Tamil Nadu, ... Ashok Leyland (AL) –Business ... Program and Sponsor Training;

1

1

ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award (SATEA), 2017

Note: - Currency is mentioned in INR throughout the presentation.- Numbers in certain places are masked considering business confidentiality.

Project Title: Reliability improvement of Reaming machines in Frame assembly.

Plant: Hosur-2, Tamil Nadu, India

2

• A 69-year old pedigree. Founded in 1948 as Ashok Motors, became ‘Ashok Leyland’ in 1955 with equity participation from Leyland Motors, UK.

• One of India’s largest commercial vehicle manufacturers.

• A comprehensive product portfolio spanning 2.4 to 49 Tonne GVW.

• 7 Manufacturing facilities strategically located pan-India, 1 plant in RAK, Dubai, 1 plant in Bangladesh.

• History of Firsts.. To name a few..

– 2012 - World’s first front engine fully flat floor bus;

– 2010 - CNG Hybrid Plug-in bus

• 70 million passengers travel on our buses every day, nearly 70,000 Stallion trucks in service, we are the largest supplier of logistics vehicles to the Indian Army……., 700,000 of our vehicles keep the wheels of economies turning.

• Revenue for FY 16-17: 213 Billion, with a track record of unbroken profitability since inception.

Ashok Leyland (AL) - In the business of moving people & goods for over six decades - Profile

2

3

Ashok Leyland (AL) – Business footprint

3

Commonwealth of

Independent

States

ASEAN

South America

Africa

Added since 2009Present for over 5 years

Not present

Middle-East

• Bus assembly facility

at Ras-Al-Khaimah

• Channel partners in

multiple GCC nations

• Selling substantial

number of buses

• Importer company

established in Chile

• Sales commenced in

Peru

• Bus body

building partners

in the Ukraine

• Avia Russia office

in place, sales

commenced

• Company in Nigeria,

branch in Kenya

• Local assembler in

Nigeria, Channel

partners in Kenya

• Regular sales

underway- trucks

and buses

• Limited direct sales

• Partners selection

underway

4

Lean Six Sigma Journey @ AL

MD Launch & Senior leadership drive

• Kick-off by MD in 2010 with the Objective of “Establishing LSS as the Standard Problem Solving methodology leading to Cultural Change”.

• Emphasis on Problem Solving in all Quarterly MD communications;

• Periodic reviews by Senior leadership.

Capability development

• Structured Green Belt, Yellow Belt Program and Sponsor Training;

• Rigorous Training, Project Support & Closure, and Sustenance audit system.

• Dedicated LSS Team of BB’s & MBB;

• 1200+ Green Belt trained. 30% Executives are LSS-GB Trained.

Business Impact

• 1000+ Projects Completed. 74% of projects focusing on Quality Improvement;

• 104 Cr. of tangible Savings (Vetted by Finance);

• Warranty Cost Reduction by 21 Cr, and visible improvement in Customer satisfaction levels.

External recognitions & Culture building

• CII-First prize (National) in year 2012 & 2016. Runner up - 2014 & 2015;

• SCMHRD National Runner-up in 2012 & 2013, NIQR Gold winners in 2015 & 2016;

• Visible involvement of Employees at all levels in Lean Six Sigma journey to enable Cultural Change.

3

5

104

311

548

802932

10681223

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

No’s

Green Belt Trg. (Cum)

Lean Six Sigma Journey @ AL

44 100200

428

602674

995

0

300

600

900

1200

No’s

Projects Completed (Cum)

082.3

204.2

687769

9151044

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Rs.

Mill

ion

Financial Savings in Million (Cum)

Nearly 1000 projects completed30 % Executives are Green Belts

1 Billion (INR) Direct savings

Driving Continuous

Improvement through

Lean Six Sigma

is a Way of life at AL

6

Section 1: Project and Team Selection

4

7

Who was responsible for selecting the project? (1/2)1.1.1

CustomerAdvisors / Corporate Steering

CommitteeProject selection committee

President, Sales & Marketing

Sr. VP, Manufacturing & Project Planning

Vice President, Hosur plant operations

Sr. VP, Quality, Sourcing & Supply Chain

Master Blackbelt

Head -Manufacturing, Hosur plant

Head -Manufacturing services, Hosur plant

Head - Quality, Hosur plant

8

What background information on the company or those who selected the project was provided to better understand the context of the project? (2/2)

1.1.1

60,347

77,660

1,09,7621,13,296

Forecast

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

No

’s

Sales volume trend

* Figures are for M&HCV

26.5% 27.2%

31.3% 32.5%Aim

25%

35%

45%

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

%

Market Share trend

As per marketing dept., we can sell as much as manufacturing can produce…. hence high pressure on manufacturing team to produce more!!!

* Figures are for M&HCV

5

9

How was the gap brought to the attention of the project identification group? (1/3)1.2.1

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

PNR Hosur Ennore

No

. of

Veh

icle

s

Capacity Vs Actual production of AL plants

Capacity

Actual

Large Gap

Inference: Hosur plant has large gap between Capacity and Actual production hence opportunity to produce more vehicles lies at Hosur plant.

10

What was the gap (problem solving)? (2/3)1.2.1

52.5

40

30

40

50

Capacity Actual production

No

. of

Veh

icle

s

Hosur: Capacity Vs Actual production (per shift)

Gap: 12.5 vehicles per shift

Data Period: Mar’16 - Sept’16; Data Source: Production reportInference: Hosur plant can produce 12.5 more vehicles per shift [7,800 No’s per annum]

Data Period: Mar’16 - Sept’16; Data Source: Production report

6

11

What area of the organization had the gap? (3/3)1.2.1

Inference:

Frame assembly breakdown is the top reason (76.8%) for the gap [difference between Capacity and Actual production].

It is leading to vehicle loss of 9.6 no’s per shift.

Vehicles loss 9.6 1.9 1.0

Percent 76.8 15.2 8.0

Cum % 76.8 92.0 100.0

Qua

li ty iss

ues

Mater

ial s

hortag

e

Fram

e As

sembly Brea

kdow

ns

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

les lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

1.01.9

9.6

Causes for Vehicle loss

Drilldown of Gap (12.5 vehicles)


12

What data was generated to help select the project? (1/3)1.2.2

Inference: Gear failure is observed to be the top phenomenon for Reaming machine failures. If this phenomenon is reduced by 70%, we can produce 5.3 more vehicles [40 to 45.3 vehicles] per shift [3,289 No’s per annum].

Causes for Frame assembly breakdowns

Causes for Reaming Machine failures


Inference: Reaming machine failure is the top contributor of frame assembly breakdowns with contribution of 81%. This project addresses Reaming machine failures.

Vehicle_loss 7.78 1.27 0.40 0.15

Percent 81.0 13.2 4.2 1.6

Cum % 81.0 94.3 98.4 100.0

Other

Sprin

g Ba

lanc

er S

truck up

Hoist

Up / d

own no

t working

Ream

ing Mac

hine

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

le lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

0.150.401.27

7.78

Causes for Frame Assembly breakdowns

Vehicle loss 7.15 0.50 0.13

Percent 91.9 6.4 1.7

Cum % 91.9 98.3 100.0

OtherArmature failureGear failure

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

le lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

0.130.50

7.15

Causes for Reaming machine failures

7

13

What methods and/or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for the project? (2/3)1.2.2

Business Case Project viability matrix

Definite No

(1)Mostly No

(2)

Possibly

(3)

Mostly Yes

(4)

Definite

Yes (5)

Scores (for 15

criteria)0 1 3 5 6

Vehicles loss 9.6 1.9 1.0

Percent 76.8 15.2 8.0

Cum % 76.8 92.0 100.0

Qua

li ty iss

ues

Mater

ial s

hortag

e

Fram

e As

sembly Brea

kdow

ns

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

les lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

1.01.9

9.6

Causes for Vehicle loss

Vehicle_loss 7.78 1.27 0.40 0.15

Percent 81.0 13.2 4.2 1.6

Cum % 81.0 94.3 98.4 100.0

Other

Sprin

g Ba

lanc

er S

truck up

Hoist

Up / d

own no

t working

Ream

ing Mac

hine

10

8

6

4

2

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

le lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

0.150.401.27

7.78

Causes for Frame Assembly breakdowns


Percent 91.9 6.4 1.7

Cum % 91.9 98.3 100.0


8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

le lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

0.130.50

7.15


14

Why were these methods and/or tools used to select the project? (3/3)1.2.2

Pareto Chart

Method / Tool

Business Case

Project viabilitymatrix

• To identify vital few causes for Frame assembly breakdowns.

• To scope the project so that it can be completed within agreed timelines.

Purpose

To understand the short term / long term threats and opportunities of taking up this project.

To understand if it is viable to go ahead with this project.

Reaming machine Gear failure is the top contributor leading to loss of 7.15 no’s of vehicles.

Conclusion

Opportunities indicate there’s a strong need to go ahead with the project.

15 point criteria reveals that we can definitely go ahead with the project.

8

15

What goals (organizational and/or local), performance measures, and/or strategies were the project expected to impact? (1/3)

1.2.3

Improved Sales

40

45.3

25

30

35

40

45

50

Existing throughput Target throughput

No

. of

Veh

icle

sThroughput (per shift)

Improved Market share

Local goal

Organizational StrategyOrganizational goal

16

What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1? (2/3)1.2.3

52.5

40

30

40

50

Capacity Actual production

No

. of

Veh

icle

s

Hosur plant: Capacity Vs Actual production (per shift)

Gap: 12.5 vehicles per shift


Percent 91.9 6.4 1.7

Cum % 91.9 98.3 100.0


8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ve

hic

le lo

ss (

No

's)

Pe

rce

nt

0.130.50

7.15


If Reaming machine gear failure phenomenon is reduced by 30%, we can produce 5.3 more vehicles [40 to 45.3 vehicles] per shift. This project will address42.5% of the gap.

9

17

Reaming machine gear failureDefect simulation

3

2

1

Spindle gearInter pinion gear

Internal gear

18

Project Metric

To reduce the occurrence of reaming machine gear failures, project metric considered was BPMH.

This metric was considered because, every vehicle and every variant will have varying no. of reamed holes ranging from 20 to 68.

BPMH: no. of reaming machine Breakdowns Per Million reamed

Holes

10

19

What was the problem/project objective statement that expresses where the organization wanted to be at the end of the project? (3/3)

1.2.3

Code LSS/2016/H2/023 Project Leader Name Babu. T Unit/Function H2 / Plant Engg.

Project Title Reliability improvement of Reaming machines in Frame assembly.

Problem Definition

Reaming machine gear failure is the top & chronic breakdown cause of frame assembly line leading to conveyor loss time of 60.24 mins per shift [No. of vehicles lost: 4699 per FY]. This project is top driven as there was high pressure on manufacturing to produce more volumes. This project has the potential to improve revenue by 4934 Million.

In Scope All reaming machines in Line-3 of H2 Out of ScopeAll reaming machines in Line-2 of H2 & other units.

Project Goal MetricNo. of Breakdowns Per Million Holes (BPMH)

Baseline 229 Target 69 (70% reduction)

Cost Savings (INR)Direct savings: 4.323 Million per AnnumOpportunity cost: 4934 Millions (Improved revenue)

Customer Assembly lineLinkage to Policy objective

Volumes realization

Timelines Define 06.10.2016 Measure 02.11.2016 Analyze 29.12.2016

Improve 02.03.2017 Control 18.03.2017 Lead time 163 days

Team members Ramasubramani, Sellamuthu, Seetharaman, Yogeesha, Mariadoss A, Gopinath V, Arun S

Approvals Sponsor: Subramanya C.L Champion: Srinivasan K Blackbelt: Sreedhar Reddy

20

How were the stakeholder groups identified? (1/2)1.3.1

Method-1

Method-2

Approver Resource Member Interested party

Individual whose sign-off is required to move forward with the project.

Expert whose skills are required for the project.

Those individuals making up the project team.

People who need to be kept up-to-date on the project

11

21

What or who were the stakeholder groups? (2/2)1.3.1

Steering Committee

Stakeholder group Who

Sponsor Frame Assembly Head, Hosur

Champion Maintenance Head, Hosur

Blackbelt Blackbelt

Project Team

Functional process Experts:• Maintenance Manager• Frame Assembly Manager• Quality Manager

ApproverSr. VP, Quality, Sourcing & Supply Chain

Interested party

Key Customers & Suppliers• Production Planning Manager• Production Engg. Manager

Sr. VP, Manufacturing & Project Planning

Master Blackbelt

Manufacturing Head, Hosur plant operations

Vice President, Hosur plant operations

Finance HeadPresident, Sales & Marketing

Project leader Project leader

22

What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project? (1/3)

1.3.2

Steering Committee

Stakeholder group Knowledge / Skill set

Approver Business orientation skills

Decision making, Innovative skills

SponsorDecision making, Influential, Communication, Motivating skills, Conflict resolution skills

Champion Analytical skills

Blackbelt Advance statistical knowledge, Analytical skills

Project Team

• Basic Problem solving skills• Advanced Problem Solving

Skills• Process / Product knowledge

Interested party

• Technical knowledge• Change management

(Challenge status-quo)

Business orientation skills

Project leader Planning, delegation, coordination, communication skills

12

23

To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills? (2/3)1.3.2

Interested party

Project Team

Project leader

Blackbelt

Champion

Sponsor

Steering Committee

Approver

Skill set possessed

Inference: Project leader & Project team are not having the required knowledge / skill.

24

What additional knowledge and skills were brought in to make the project successful? (3/3)1.3.2

Additional Knowledge / Skills provided to Project leader & Project Team

Major Topics

Advanced Problem Solving Skills

Advanced Statistical tools such as• Regression• DOE• Hypothesis testing• Anova• Process capability studies.

Process / Product knowledge

Understanding of • Process layout• Need for reaming process• Various aggregates being assembled.

Technical knowledge

Understanding of• Reaming machine assembly & its components• Gear wear patterns• Nomenclature of gears• Selection of gear properties (Eg: material).

13

25

Before the project started, what specific training was done? (1/2)1.3.3

Technical skills trainingGreen belt workshop

Process / Product knowledge training

26

Before the project started, what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team? (2/2)

1.3.3

• Importance of the project to achieve organizational objectives.

• Deliberated trust on the team.• Motivational speech on qualities of a

winning team.

• Know each other; Establishing relationships.

• Importance of working as a team• One team – One Goal

• Agree upon ground rules• Agree upon roles & responsibilities• Agree upon major milestone timelines• Agree upon review schedules• Agree upon toll gate reviews

Communication by Sponsor & Champion

Communication from Approvers / Steering Committee

Team building exercise for an Effective team

14

27

What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project? (1/3)1.3.4

Stakeholder group Role Expectation

• Approver• Steering Committee• Sponsor• Champion

• Create sense of urgency.• Provide strategic direction to the team.• Support on obstacles.• Ensure buy-in for the project.

• Resolve issues / barriers during execution / implementation.

• Budget approvals.

Project leader

• Utilization of resources.• Coordinate and delegate the work to

project team.• Provide direction to the project.• Risk analysis & Mitigation planning.• Focus on Time, Cost & Quality.

• Deliver project goals within time frame.

Blackbelt

• Planning, Coordination, Leading, Facilitation, Decision making.

• Training needs identification & execution.

• Analyzing information.• Training support• LSS tools support• Management support.

Project Team• To plan and work the plan.• Tracking of action items.• Review with project leader on progress.

• Perform assigned tasks within agreed timelines.

• Participate in review meetings.

28

What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of actually starting the project? (2/3)

1.3.4

Stage Activity Responsibility TDC

Define • Prepare Project charter & schedule.• Translate VOC into CCRs.• Financial benefits estimation.• Evaluate project risk & risk mitigation.

• Project leader• Blackbelt• Advisors / Steering Committee• Sponsor & Champion

06.10.2016

Measure • SIPOC / Process mapping• Quick wins identification• Measurement system analysis• Establish baseline

• Project leader• Project team• Blackbelt

02.11.2016

Analyze • Identify and prioritize potential causes.• Verify critical root causes.• Assess & reduce complexity.


29.12.2016

Improve • Develop potential solutions.• Evaluate and select solutions.• Execute pilot / full scale implementation.


02.03.2017

Control • Revision of standards• Statistical process control• Horizontal deployment• VOC post improvement

• Project leader, Project team• Blackbelt• Advisors / Steering Committee• Sponsor & Champion

18.03.2017

15

29

Before the project started, what team routines, including communication, were established? (3/3)1.3.4

#Routine / Communication plan

Agenda Periodicity Medium / Venue Timings

1Steering committee review

• Status update• Support on barriers

Monthly (or) on need basis

Oral / Email / Skype6th of every month

2 Sponsor review

• Status update• Support on barriers• Adherence to Project

Progress timelines

Fortnightly (or) on need basis

Oral / Email / Plant Head office

1st or 16th ofevery month (or) on need basis

3 Champion review• Technical analysis &

supportWeekly

Oral / Email /Onsite / HOD office

Monday10 AM

4 Blackbelt review

• Analyzing data / information & application of tools.

• Capsule trainings

Twice WeeklyOral / Email / Onsite / PEX office

Tuesday & Friday3 PM

5Team internal meetings

• Update on action items

Twice WeeklyOral / Email / Onsite / office

Monday & Thursday9 AM

30

Section 2: Current Situation and Root Cause Analysis

16

31

What specific goals and/or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project? (1/2)2.1.1

229.5

69

0

50

100

150

200

250

Baseline Target

BP

MH

Project Metric (BPMH)

70% reduction

40

45.3

25

30

35

40

45

50

Existing throughput Target throughput

No

. of

Veh

icle

s

Throughput (per shift)

60.24

18.07

0

25

50

75

Before Target

Bre

akd

ow

n t

ime

Breakdown time (per shift)

32

What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and/or measures, was the project expected to impact? (2/2)

2.1.1

• Opportunity cost: 4934 Millions (Improved revenue)

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits

• Improved resource utilization.

• Improved knowledge on advanced

problem solving tools / techniques.

• Planning, delegation & Coordination

skills.

• Presentation & Communication skills

4934 Million (INR)

17

33

What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root causes? (1/3)2.2.1

SIPOC diagram Frame process flow & layout study

Process mappingCause & Effect diagram

34

Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify possible root causes? (2/3)2.2.1

# Method / Tool Purpose

1 SIPOCTo understand the suppliers, inputs, output & customers to the process.

2 Process flow studyTo understand the broad level flow / various stages of the process.

3 Process layout studyTo understand the how many parts are being assembled at each stage.

4 Process mappingTo understand the detailed process flow, input factors to the process and output responses.

5 Cause & Effect diagramTo group all input factors under 6 categories (Man, Machine, Material, Method, Measurement, Environment)

18

35

How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify possible root causes]? (1/3)

2.2.1

# Method / Tool ResponsibilityCurrent level of understanding of the method / Tool

Action plan toperform the task better

1 SIPOC Project leader Practitioner Blackbelt to assist.

2 Process flow studyFunctional process Experts (3 executives)

Expert N/A

3Process layoutstudy

Functional process Experts (3 executives)

Expert N/A

4 Process mappingFunctional process Experts (3 executives)

Practitioners

• Blackbelt Assistancefor pilot areas.

• Capsule training sessions.

5Cause & Effect diagram

Entire team Expert N/A

36

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root causes? (1/2)2.2.2

Top level & Detailed Process mapping 8 causes

Standards (PFMEA, Control plan & Work Instruction Sheet (WIS)

Gemba observation & Brainstorming

12 causes

5 causes

19

37

What were the possible root causes? (2/2)2.2.2

# Possible causes

X1 Operator skill

X2Wrong selection of reamer size

X3Non-adherence to WIS while performing Reaming operation

X4 Aligner design

X5Improper assembly of gears during repair

X6 Machine capacity less

X7Internal Gear design (Module)

# Possible causes

X8Reamer Design (No. of flutes)

X9Alignment (between Spindle and FSM) during Machine replacement

X10Reaming motor (Armature) failure

X12 Gear hardness

X13 Gear material composition

# Possible causes

X11(12 sub-causes)

Aggregate dimensions

Cross membera) Hole diameterb) Hole position

Internal Flitcha) Hole diameterb) Hole position

Frame Side Member (FSM)a) Hole diameterb) Hole position

External Flitcha) Hole diameterb) Hole position

Spring Bracketa) Hole diameterb) Hole position

Spacera) Hole diameterb) Hole positionTotal 25 causes (13 Main & 12 Sub-causes)

38

What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)? (1/3)2.3.1

43.50

43.25

43.00

42.75

42.50

1

43.5

42.5

Boxplot of 1

1614121086

Existing Ali

Modified Ali

mean of Modified Ali (p < 0.05).

The mean of Existing Ali is significantly greater than the

> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.000

6.04.53.01.50.0

results of the test.

samples. Look for unusual data before interpreting the

-- Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of

that the true difference is between 4.3773 and 5.5414.

the difference from sample data. You can be 90% confident

-- CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating

greater than Modified Ali at the 0.05 level of significance.

-- Test: You can conclude that the mean of Existing Ali is

Sample size 32 32

Mean 12.356 7.3969

90% CI (11.82, 12.89) (7.1625, 7.6312)

Standard deviation 1.7946 0.78184

Statistics Existing Ali Modified Ali

4.9594

(4.3773, 5.5414)

Distribution of Data

Compare the data and means of the samples.

Mean Test

Is Existing Ali greater than Modified Ali?

90% CI for the Difference

Does the interval include zero?

Difference between means*

90% CI

* The difference is defined as Existing Ali - Modified Ali.

Comments

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of Existing Ali and Modified Ali

Summary Report

2 Sample t-test

37332925211713951

43.2

43.0

42.8Ind

ivid

ua

l Va

lue

_X=43.0338

UCL=43.3290

LCL=42.7385

37332925211713951

0.4

0.2

0.0

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0.1110

UCL=0.3628

LCL=0

4035302520

43.2

43.0

42.8

Observation

Va

lue

s

43.5043.3543.2043.0542.9042.7542.60

LSL Target USL

LSL 42.5

Target 43.0

USL 43.5

Specifications

43.443.243.042.8

Within

Overall

Specs

StDev 0.09843

Cp 1.69

Cpk 1.58

PPM 1.11

Within

StDev 0.1101

Pp 1.51

Ppk 1.41

Cpm 1.45

PPM 12.16

Overall

Process Capability Sixpack of RSM X-member Hole-1

I Chart

Moving Range Chart

Last 25 Observations

Capability Histogram

Normal Prob PlotA D: 0.356, P: 0.440

Capability Plot

Process Capability studies for 12 causes

Verification of check sheets

Box plots where data was limited

Detailed Cause validation for each of the possible root causes

20

39

Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify the final root cause(s)? (2/3)2.3.1

# Method / Tool Purpose

1 Data collection planPlanning for what data to be collected, by whom, when, where, why etc.

2 RegressionTo understand the relationship between Effective diameter & Current drawn by the reaming machines.

3Process capability study[for 12 causes]

To understand the stability & capability of the processes.To validate variable type of data.

4Histogram / Box plot / Individual Value plot

To check if sample dimensions are meeting the specification limits. Box plots are used wherever the data collection is limited. For eg: Gear hardness, Material composition.

5 Pareto chartTo verify if the occurrence of a cause is high as compared to other causes.

6Check sheets / Lab reports / Technical literature

To investigate / validate the discrete causes.

7 2 Sample t-testTo test if there’s significant difference in the mean current drawn by the reaming machines with existing aligner and improved aligner.

40

How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify the final root cause(s)]? (3/3)

2.3.1

# Method / Tool ResponsibilityCurrent level of understanding

Action plan

1 RegressionProject leader &Functional process Expert

Practitioner• Blackbelt assistance.• Capsule training session

2Process capability study[for 12 causes]

Project leader &Functional process Experts (3 executives)

Expert N/A

3Histogram / Box plot / IV plot

Functional process Expert

Expert N/A

4 Pareto chartFunctional process Expert

Expert N/A

5Check sheets / Lab reports / Technical literature

Entire team Expert N/A

6 2 Sample t-test Project leader Practitioner• Blackbelt assistance.• Capsule training session

21

41

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root cause(s)? (1/3)

2.3.2

5R2H5R1V5R1H5L2H5L1V5L1H4R3H4R2H4R1V4R1H4L3H4L2H4L1V4L1H

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

Stage

Curr

ent

(Am

ps)

Rated Current: 6.8 Amps

Boxplot of Current drawn by Stages

Inference: Gear failures are high in those stages where high no. of child parts are assembled together. Current drawn by the machines is also observed to be high in those stages.

42

15.515.014.514.013.513.012.5

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

Effective diameter

Cu

rre

nt

Scatterplot of Current vs Effective diameter

Pearson’s Correlation

coefficient: 0.99

What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root cause? (2/3)2.3.2

Regression: Effective diameter Vs Current drawn by the machine

Pictorial representation of Alignment of Aggregates / Child parts using Existing aligner

Note: Not to Scale. For visualization purpose only.

Inference: During alignment with existing (tapered) aligner, effective diameter of aligner is holding only the spring bracket and rest of the aggregates are not aligned properly. Effective diameter is lesser than the ideal diameter. Inference: Effective diameter is

significant on Current drawn / Load by reaming machine.

22

43

What was (were) the final root cause(s)? (3/3)2.3.2

Why

• Reaming machine is drawing higher current than the rated load

Why• Effective diameter less

Why

• Holes offset between aggregates

Why

• Existing Aligner is not touching the inner diameter of some Aggregates.

Why• Aligner shape is tapered.

300

200 100

5 Degree

44

How was (were) the final root cause(s) validated? (1/2)2.3.3

1614121086

Existing Ali

Modified Ali

mean of Modified Ali (p < 0.05).

The mean of Existing Ali is significantly greater than the

> 0.50.10.050

NoYes

P = 0.000

6.04.53.01.50.0

results of the test.

samples. Look for unusual data before interpreting the

-- Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of

that the true difference is between 4.3773 and 5.5414.

the difference from sample data. You can be 90% confident

-- CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating

greater than Modified Ali at the 0.05 level of significance.

-- Test: You can conclude that the mean of Existing Ali is

Sample size 32 32

Mean 12.356 7.3969

90% CI (11.82, 12.89) (7.1625, 7.6312)

Standard deviation 1.7946 0.78184

Statistics Existing Ali Modified Ali

4.9594

(4.3773, 5.5414)

Distribution of Data

Compare the data and means of the samples.

Mean Test

Is Existing Ali greater than Modified Ali?

90% CI for the Difference

Does the interval include zero?

Difference between means*

90% CI

* The difference is defined as Existing Ali - Modified Ali.

Comments


Summary Report

3128252219161310741

15

10

53128252219161310741

difference.

Ali, you would have a 100.0% chance of detecting the

If the true mean of Existing Ali was 2 greater than Modified

For alpha = 0.05 and sample sizes = 32:

100%

1.0293

90%

0.66757

60%< 40%

2

Data in Worksheet OrderInvestigate outliers (marked in red).

5 60.0

6 70.0

8 80.0

10 90.0

Both Samples Power

difference of 2?

What sample sizes are required to detect a

32, 32 100.0

Your Samples

Existing Ali Modified Ali

Power

What is the chance of detecting a difference?

Difference of interest: 2

Power is a function of the sample sizes and the standard deviations. If the power is not satisfactory, consider increasing the sample sizes.


Diagnostic Report

3128252219161310741

15

10

53128252219161310741

difference.

Ali, you would have a 100.0% chance of detecting the

If the true mean of Existing Ali was 2 greater than Modified

For alpha = 0.05 and sample sizes = 32:

100%

1.0293

90%

0.66757

60%< 40%

2

Data in Worksheet OrderInvestigate outliers (marked in red).

5 60.0

6 70.0

8 80.0

10 90.0

Both Samples Power

difference of 2?

What sample sizes are required to detect a

32, 32 100.0

Your Samples

Existing Ali Modified Ali

Power

What is the chance of detecting a difference?

Difference of interest: 2

Power is a function of the sample sizes and the standard deviations. If the power is not satisfactory, consider increasing the sample sizes.


Diagnostic Report

Power of the test: 100%

Inference: Mean current drawn by the Reaming machines using the modified aligner (7.39 Amp) is significantly lesser than that of the existing aligner (12.35 Amp). Moreover, there’s reduction in Variation of current drawn.

2 sample t-test for the mean current drawn by the reaming machines with Taper aligner and Improved (Stepped) Aligner

23

45

What evidence showed that the final root cause(s) were validated prior to solution development? (2/2)

2.3.3

Jan'17 W2Dec'16 W1Nov'16 W1Oct'16 W1Sept'16 W1Aug'16 W1July'16 W1June'16 W1May'16 W1Apr'16 W1Mar'16 W1

480

360

240

120

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue _

X=229.5

_X=220.1

_X=119.7

UC L=472.4UC L=351.6

UC L=148.4

LC L=0

LC L=88.7

LC L=90.9

Before Interim Aligner design modified


300

200

100

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge __

MR=91.3

__MR=49.4

__MR=10.8

UC L=298.4 UC L=161.5

UC L=35.3

LC L=0 LC L=0

LC L=0


Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Action-1Comparison of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Action-1

Inference: Average BPMH reduced from 229 to 119.7 (48% reduction) but the target of 69 BPMH is not yet met.

46



Problem Definition


In Scope All reaming machines in Line-3 & Line-2 of H2 Out of ScopeAll reaming machines in other units.





Volumes realization



Team members Ramasubramani, Sellamuthu, Seetharaman, Yogeesha, Mariadoss A, Gopinath V, Arun S


How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed (or, what changes were made)? (1/4)

2.4.1

Timelines remain unchanged.

Line-2 included in Project Scope

24

47

How were stakeholders involved and/or communicated with during the root cause phase of the project? (2/4)

2.4.1

ApproverStatus update on validation of possible root causes & identification of final root cause.

During regular Skype review

Stakeholder group Communication Medium / Venue

Steering CommitteeSponsor

Multiple Status updates on validation of possible root causes & identification of final root cause.

Oral / Plant Head office

ChampionDirectly involved during validation of possible root causes & identification of final root cause.

Oral / Email / Onsite / HOD office

BlackbeltInvolved during validation of possible root causes & identification of final root cause.

Oral / Email / Onsite / PEX office

Project LeaderProject Team

Involved during data collection, validation of possible root causes & identification of final root cause.

Oral / Onsite / office

48

What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this phase of the project? (3/4)2.4.1

ApproverSteering Committee

Stakeholder group

Maintenance manager


-

Type of ResistanceLevel of

Resistance

Lack of resources to manage daily routine jobs

• Inadequate problem solving skills.

• Fear of failure as project target is not met

-

Action plan

Working time of the project team is agreed upon & fixed.

• Capsule training sessions by Blackbelt to retain learnings.

• Sponsor & Champion deliberated trust on the project team to improve further.

SponsorChampion

- -

Blackbelt - -

25

49

How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines confirmed (or, what changes were made)? (4/4)

2.4.1

• Functional process Experts:

• Maintenance Manager

• Frame Assembly Manager

• Quality Manager

• Key Customers & Suppliers

• Production Planning Manager

• Production Engg. Manager

• OEM (Reaming machine manufacturer) Manager

There observed a high degree of compliance to review schedule adherence.

Freshly added for additional inputs

Review / meeting adherence: Compliance %

Steeringcommittee review

Sponsor reviewChampion

reviewBlackbelt review

Team internal meetings

100% 90% 100% 98% 92%

Change in Core Execution Team

50

Section 3: Solution/Improvement Development

26

51

What methods and/or tools were used to identify the possible solutions? (1/3)3.1.1


480

360

240

120

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue _

X=229.5

_X=220.1

_X=119.7

UC L=472.4UC L=351.6

UC L=148.4

LC L=0

LC L=88.7

LC L=90.9



300

200

100

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge __

MR=91.3

__MR=49.4

__MR=10.8

UC L=298.4 UC L=161.5

UC L=35.3

LC L=0 LC L=0

LC L=0


Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Action-1Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Action-1

Project metric (BPMH) reduced by 48% only . Target of 70% reduction is not met.

Brainstorming coupled with Subject matter expert inputs led the team to test the gear life with various combinations of gear properties.

1. Module of gear2. Gear Hardness3. Gear material

StdOrder RunOrder CenterPt Blocks Module Hardness Material Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

1 1 1 1 0.8 38 EN18 8704

2 2 1 1 1 38 EN18 14505

3 3 1 1 0.8 42 EN18 11608

4 4 1 1 1 42 EN18 25111

5 5 1 1 0.8 38 EN353 12216

6 6 1 1 1 38 EN353 17714

7 7 1 1 0.8 42 EN353 13498

8 8 1 1 1 42 EN353 36216

9 9 1 1 0.8 38 EN18 9647

10 10 1 1 1 38 EN18 16118

11 11 1 1 0.8 42 EN18 10876

12 12 1 1 1 42 EN18 22954

13 13 1 1 0.8 38 EN353 13159

14 14 1 1 1 38 EN353 19850

15 15 1 1 0.8 42 EN353 12692

16 16 1 1 1 42 EN353 29999

Data collection sheet

Which combination will offer the maximum gear life?

52

Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify the possible solutions]? (2/3)3.1.1

Response Factors Low Level High Level No. of Replicates: 2

No. of Centre points: 1

Total No. of Runs: 16

Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

A) Module 0.8 1.0

B) Hardness (HRC) 38 42

C) Material EN18 EN353

Design of Experiments (DOE) - to find the best combination of gear properties so

that the gear life can be maximized which in turn will reduce the no. of gear failures.

Pareto Chart of Significance Residual plots

BC

AC

ABC

C

AB

B

A

14121086420

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.31

A Module

B Hardness

C Material

F actor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is Gear Life (No. of reamed holes), Alpha = 0.05)

400020000-2000-4000

99

90

50

10

1

Residual

Pe

rce

nt

3000025000200001500010000

4000

2000

0

-2000

-4000

Fitted Value

Re

sid

ua

l

3000200010000-1000-2000-3000

8

6

4

2

0

Residual

Fre

qu

en

cy

16151413121110987654321

4000

2000

0

-2000

-4000

Observation Order

Re

sid

ua

l

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Histogram Versus Order

Residual Plots for Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

Inference: Residuals are normally distributed but NOT randomly distributed(as evident in Residuals Versus Fits graph).

27

53

How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify the possible solutions]? (3/3)

3.1.1

• Capsule training on DOE by Blackbelt• Inputs on advanced DOE topics by

Master Blackbelt

StdOrder RunOrder CenterPt Blocks Module Hardness Material Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

1 1 1 1 0.8 38 EN18 8704

2 2 1 1 1 38 EN18 14505

3 3 1 1 0.8 42 EN18 11608

4 4 1 1 1 42 EN18 25111

5 5 1 1 0.8 38 EN353 12216

6 6 1 1 1 38 EN353 17714

7 7 1 1 0.8 42 EN353 13498

8 8 1 1 1 42 EN353 36216

9 9 1 1 0.8 38 EN18 9647

10 10 1 1 1 38 EN18 16118

11 11 1 1 0.8 42 EN18 10876

12 12 1 1 1 42 EN18 22954

13 13 1 1 0.8 38 EN353 13159

14 14 1 1 1 38 EN353 19850

15 15 1 1 0.8 42 EN353 12692

16 16 1 1 1 42 EN353 29999

Data collection sheet

Team has coordinated with Reaming machine OEM to supply different combination of gears to assess the gear life at each combination.

Unique combination of gears

54

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine the possible solutions? (1/3)

3.1.2

Transformation of Gear Life data to Normal data using Box-cox Transformation

5.02.50.0-2.5-5.0

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

Lambda

StD

ev

Lower CL Upper CL

Limit

Estimate -0.66

Lower CL -2.43

Upper CL 0.97

Rounded Value -0.50

(using 95.0% confidence)

Lambda

Box-Cox Plot of Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

0.0120.0110.0100.0090.0080.0070.0060.0050.004

99

95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

5

1

Transformed_Gear Life

Pe

rce

nt

Mean 0.008109

StDev 0.001578

N 16

AD 0.182

P-Value 0.895

Probability Plot of Transformed_Gear LifeNormal

Inference: Suggested Lamda value for transforming the non-normal Gear life data to Normal Gear life data is -0.5

Inference: Transformed Gear life data is normally distributed. P-value=0.895

28

55

What are the possible solutions? (2/3)3.1.2

Pareto Chart of Significance

Residual plots

DOE – After Transformation of Gear Life data to Normal data

AB

C

B

A

181614121086420

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.20

A Module

B Hardness

C Material

F actor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is Transformed_Gear Life, Alpha = 0.05)

0.000500.000250.00000-0.00025-0.00050

99

90

50

10

1

Residual

Pe

rce

nt

0.0100.0090.0080.0070.006

0.00050

0.00025

0.00000

-0.00025

-0.00050

Fitted Value

Re

sid

ua

l

0.00060.00040.00020.0000-0.0002-0.0004

4

3

2

1

0

ResidualF

re

qu

en

cy

16151413121110987654321

0.00050

0.00025

0.00000

-0.00025

-0.00050

Observation Order

Re

sid

ua

l

Normal Probability Plot Versus Fits

Histogram Versus Order

Residual Plots for Transformed_Gear Life

Inference: Residuals are randomly and normally distributed. Fits are randomly distributed.

Inference: Main effects of Module, Hardness & Material are significant on Gear life. Interaction between Module and Hardness is also significant.

56

What evidence showed that the solutions identified were possible instead of final? (3/3)3.1.2

Factorial Fit: Transformed_Gear Life versus Module, Hardness, Material

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Transformed_Gear Life (coded units)

Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P

Constant 0.008109 0.000079 102.47 0.000

Module -0.002536 -0.001268 0.000079 -16.02 0.000

Hardness -0.001145 -0.000573 0.000079 -7.24 0.000

Material -0.000997 -0.000498 0.000079 -6.30 0.000

Module*Hardness -0.000568 -0.000284 0.000079 -3.59 0.004

S = 0.000316544 PRESS = 2.331933E-06

R-Sq = 97.05% R-Sq(pred) = 93.75% R-Sq(adj) = 95.97%

Main Effects Plot

EN353EN18

20000

19000

18000

17000

16000

15000

Material

Me

an

Ge

ar L

ife

Main Effects Plot for Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)Data Means

Interaction Plot

4238

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

Hardness

Me

an

Ge

ar L

ife

0.8

1.0

Module

Interaction Plot for Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)Data Means

Inference: R-sq (adj) indicating that the significant factors & interaction are explaining variation of 95.97% on Gear life.

Inference:Best settings:- Module: 1.0- Hardness:

42 HRCInference: Best setting for Material: EN353

29

57

What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)? (1/3)3.2.1

Contour plot

Response Optimizer

5.02.50.0-2.5-5.0

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

Lambda

StD

ev

Lower CL Upper CL

Limit

Estimate -0.66

Lower CL -2.43

Upper CL 0.97

Rounded Value -0.50

(using 95.0% confidence)

Lambda

Box-Cox Plot of Gear Life (No. of reamed holes)

BC

AC

ABC

C

AB

B

A

14121086420

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.31

A Module

B Hardness

C Material

F actor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is Gear Life (No. of reamed holes), Alpha = 0.05)

Module

Ha

rd

ne

ss

1.000.950.900.850.80

42

41

40

39

38

Material EN353

Hold Values

>

–

–

–

< 15000

15000 20000

20000 25000

25000 30000

30000

reamed holes)

Gear Life (No. of

Contour Plot of Gear Life (No. of reamed holes) vs Hardness, Module

Design of Experiments Box-cox Transformation

Risk analysis

Risk analysis reveals there are no major risks involved.

Benefit is huge with little investment on new gears.Payback period: 2.2 days

Cost - Benefit analysis

58

Why were these methods and/or tools selected [to identify the final solution(s)] (2/3)3.2.1

Design of Experiments

Method / Tool

Box-cox Transformation

Contour plot /ResponseOptimizer

To understand main effects & interaction effects between factors on Gear life.

Purpose

As residuals were NOTrandomly distributed, gear life data is converted to Normal data.

To understand the best settings of the factors to maximize gear life.

Main effects of Module, Hardness & Material are significant.Interaction between Module and Hardness is also significant.

Conclusion

Suggested Lamda value is -0.5

The best gear life that can be achieved is 33,107 at optimum settings of Module (1.0), Hardness (42 HRC), Material (EN353).

Cost - Benefit Analysis

To understand if cost overshoots the benefits of implementing the solution.

Benefit is huge with little investment on new gears. Payback

period: 2.2 days

Risk AnalysisTo study the potential risks and plan for risk mitigation.

No major risks involved.

30

59

How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools [to identify the final solution(s)] (3/3)3.2.1

Review of DOE analysis & final solutions with Master Black belt

Orientation session & Brainstorming Exercise for Risk analysis, Cost - Benefit analysis

Verified feasibility of implementation with OEM.

60

How were the methods and/or tools used to determine the final solution(s)? (1/2)3.2.2

CurHigh

Low0.81075D

Optimal

d = 0.81075

Maximum

Gear Lif

y = 33107.50

0.81075

Desirability

Composite

EN18

EN353

38.0

42.0

0.80

1.0Hardness MaterialModule

[1.0] [42.0] EN353

Module

Ha

rdn

ess

1.000.950.900.850.80

42

41

40

39

38

Material EN353

Hold Values

>

–

–

–

< 15000

15000 20000

20000 25000

25000 30000

30000

reamed holes)

Gear Life (No. of

Contour Plot of Gear Life (No. of reamed holes) vs Hardness, Module

Contour plot Response optimizer

Inference: Maximum Gear life that can be achieved is > 30,000 reamed holes at the settings of Module (1.0), Hardness (42 HRC), Material (EN353). Inference: The best gear life that can be

achieved is 33,107 reamed holes at the optimum settings of Module (1.0), Hardness (42 HRC), Material (EN353).

31

61

What was (were) the final solution(s)? (2/2)3.2.2

S. No. Root cause Solution

1 Existing Aligner shape is TaperedAligner design to be modified.Taper aligner to Stepped aligner.

2 Internal Gear design (Module) Module to be changed from 0.8 to 1.0

3 Gear hardness Hardness to be changed from 39 HRC to 42 HRC

4 Gear materialGear Material to be changed from EN18 to EN353

62

How were the final solution(s) validated? (1/2)3.2.3

Coordinated with Reaming machine OEM and arranged gears with properties as suggested by DOE experimentation.

New gears are assembled on Reaming machines and put on trial.

Improved Gears life is tracked for 2 weeks to

validate the improvement.

32

63

What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to implementation? (2/2)3.2.3

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

Gear Life_Before

Gear

Life (

No

. o

f re

am

ed

ho

les)

Gear Life_Pilot

9022

29911

Boxplot of Gear Life - Before Vs Pilot results

Inference:Median gear life improved from 9,022 to 29,911 reamed holes.

Improved Gears life is tracked for 2 weeks to validate the improvement.

3.3X

64

What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solution(s)? (1/2)3.2.4

Potential benefits

Improved resource utilization. (Better utilization of time by

Maintenance personnel on preventive maintenance)

Improved knowledge on advanced problem solving tools / techniques.

Planning, delegation & Coordination skills.

Presentation & Communication skills

33

65

Were the additional potential benefits anticipated prior to implementation? (2/2)3.2.4

Improved resource utilization. (Better utilization of time by

Maintenance personnel on preventive maintenance)

Improved knowledge on advanced problem solving tools / techniques.


Anticipated

Anticipated

Anticipated

Presentation & Communication skills. Anticipated

66

Feb'17 W2Jan'17 W1Nov '16 W4O ct'16 W3Sept'16 W2A ug'16 W1June'16 W4May '16 W3A pr'16 W2Mar'16 W1

480

360

240

120

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=229.5

_X=227.9 _

X=119.1 _X=51.9

UC L=472.4UC L=436.8

UC L=243.8UC L=182.1

LC L=18.9

LC L=0LC L=0


Pilot

LC L=0


300

200

100

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=91.3

__MR=78.6 __

MR=46.9

__MR=49.0

UC L=298.4 UC L=256.7

UC L=153.2

UC L=159.9LC L=0 LC L=0LC L=0

LC L=0


Pilot

Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Pilot results

What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the chosen final solution(s) should be implemented? (1/2)

3.2.5

Improved Gears life is tracked for 2 weeks to validate the improvement.

Inference: Average BPMH (Project metric) reduced from 229 to 52 (77% reduction) against the target of 69 BPMH.

34

67

What evidence showed that justification was performed prior to implementation? (2/2)3.2.5

Risk analysis

Risk analysis reveals there are no major risks involved.

Benefit is huge with little investment on new gears.Payback period: 2.2 days

Cost - Benefit analysis


80

60

40

20

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=60.2

_X=61.2

_X=20.7

_X=13.1

UC L=94.0

UC L=80.0

UC L=32.6 UC L=17.9LC L=26.5

LC L=42.4

LC L=8.8 LC L=8.3


Pilot


40

30

20

10

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge __

MR=12.70__MR=7.07

__MR=4.47

__MR=1.81

UC L=41.49 UC L=23.10

UC L=14.62 UC L=5.92

LC L=0

LC L=0 LC L=0


Pilot

LC L=0

Breakdown time trend (Mins per Shift): Before Vs Pilot

Inference: Mean breakdown time reduced from 60 to 13 minutes per shift against the target of 18.07 minutes.

68



Problem Definition


In Scope All reaming machines in Line-3 & Line-2 of H2 Out of ScopeAll reaming machines in other units.





Volumes realization



Team members Ramasubramani, Sellamuthu, Seetharaman, Yogeesha, Mariadoss A, Gopinath V, Arun S, Gopi


How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed (or, what changes were made)? (1/4)

3.3.1

No changes

35

69

How were stakeholders involved and/or communicated with during the solution phase of the project? (2/4)

3.3.1

Approver Status update on solution development.During regular Skype review

Stakeholder group Communication Medium / Venue


Multiple Status updates on solution development.

Oral / Plant Head office

Champion- Approved change of gear properties.- Directly involved during physical validation of new gears & solution development.

Oral / Email / Onsite / HOD office

BlackbeltInvolved during solution validation & development.

Oral / Email / Onsite / PEX office


Directly involved during physical validation of new gears & solution development.

Oral / Onsite / office

70

What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this phase of the project? (3/4)3.3.1

Steering Committee

Stakeholder group

Champion

Project Team

-

Type of ResistanceLevel of

Resistance

-

Action plan

Sponsor - -

Blackbelt - -

- -

- -

Approver - -

Project Leader - -

36

71

How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management routines confirmed (or, what changes were made)? (4/4)

3.3.1

• Functional process Experts:

• Maintenance Manager

• Frame Assembly Manager

• Quality Manager

• Key Customers & Suppliers

• Production Planning Manager

• Production Engg. Manager

• OEM (Reaming machine manufacturer) Manager

There observed a high degree of compliance to review schedule adherence.

Review / meeting adherence: compliance %

Steeringcommittee review

Sponsor reviewChampion

reviewBlackbelt review

Team internal meetings

100% 94% 100% 100% 100%

Core Execution Team

No changes

72

Section 4: Implementation and Results Verification

37

73

How were stakeholders involved in planning the solution implementation? (1/2)4.1.1

Approver Entire Root cause analysis & solution development is reviewed.

Stakeholder group Activity


- Approved budget for new gears.- Requested Reaming machine OEM to quickly supply new gears.

Champion Approved to put new gears on trials.

BlackbeltPrepared a checklist and given to the team to collect gear life data for further analysis & validation.


- Reaming machine OEM is formally updated on best settings of gear to maximize gear life.- Follow-up with OEM to supply new gears.- Planned for pilot implementation, testing & validation.

74

How were stakeholders involved in implementing the solution? (2/2)4.1.1

Steering Committee- Requested support from all departments for smooth implementation.


Sponsor- Approved budget for new gears.- Requested support from other departments for smooth implementation.

Champion- Organized regular review meetings to understand the progress of implementation.

Blackbelt Support on Validation of gear life data.

Project Team Updated OEM on implementation status & results.

Approver - Received regular feedback / development on implementation.

38

75

What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred? (1/3)4.1.2

A meeting was organized to brief all interested parties and those who gets affected by the implementation.

Points discussed:• What was the project about.• Why the project was initiated.• What are the root causes / findings.• What are the final solutions.• When is the timeline of implementation of solutions.• How each of these parties will get affected / benefited from the implementation.

76

What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution implementation? (2/3)

4.1.2

Dept.Level of support

Strongly against

Moderately against

NeutralModerately supportive

Strongly supportive

Production

Planning

Quality

Production Engg.

Stores

Maintenance

Sourcing / SAP team

Reaming machine OEM

39

77

How was the actual resistance identified? (3/3)4.1.2

Dept. Description of Resistance

Production Engg.Felt as an extra & tedious job to prepare fresh drawing for new gears.

Sourcing / SAP team New gear -> New part code. Doesn’t it choke the system?

Reaming machine OEMHow come my customer who will not have knowledge on my equipment can research and innovate better?

Resistance was observed / felt during interaction with the parties.

78

How was the actual resistance addressed? (1/2)4.1.3

Addressed resistance of all 3 parties through one-to-one interaction.

Dept. Description of Resistance How we dealt with resistance?

Production Engg.Felt as an extra & tedious job to prepare fresh drawing for new gears.

- To quickly prepare the drawings, customized version of gear model on CATIA is arranged through R&D.

Sourcing / SAP team New gear -> New part codeAssured the team that the part code of existing gears will be deleted from the system after clearing the inventory.

Reaming machine OEM

How come a customer who may not have knowledge on my equipment can do research and innovate better?

To address his resistance, team has briefed the complete analysis and findings. He agreed with the analysis and solution development.Given clearance to OEM that they can supply new gears to other clients, not just Ashok Leyland group companies.

40

79

How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance? (2/2)4.1.3

Dept. How we knew, we addressed resistance successfully?

Production Engg.Engineer was able to quickly produce drawing within 1 day time. He felt happy and expressed gratitude to the team for understanding his pain in freshly preparing a tedious drawing.

Sourcing / SAP team New part code is created almost instantly.

Reaming machine OEM

• OEM designer has acknowledged the team’s contribution for supporting his work. He said “I couldn’t think beyond the boundaries while designing the product. This is an eye opener for me. This learning will go a long way in my career. Thanks to the team”.

• OEM quickly arranged fresh gears for full scale implementation.

80

What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in? (1/2)4.1.4

• Steering Committee• Sponsor• Champion

- Physical follow-up of the implementation status in the line.


• Customer• Approver

- Appreciated the team for fantastic results. Requested the team to quickly complete the implementation. Briefed to the team about the market dynamics and increased demand to our products.

41

81

What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation? (2/2)4.1.4

Equipment BOM changed (New Part numbers are generated with approval from Champion & Sponsor)

Reaming machine design change formally approved by Champion & Sponsor

82

What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the solution? (1/2)4.2.1

Aligner drawing standardizedNew Part numbers generated for new gears

- Reaming machine design changed by OEM (M/s. KPT) & supplied new gears

42

83

What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the implementation? (2/2)

4.2.1

S. No. Description

1 Dedicated team is formed to replace gears on all reaming machines in Line-2 & Line-3.

2New members are added to the Team to help with close monitoring and collection ofimproved gear life data.

Reaming machine gear life tracking sheet created

StageReplacement

date & timeGear life

Next Replacement


Next Replacement


Next Replacement


Next Replacement


4L1H

4L1V

4L2H

4L3H

4R1H

4R1V

4R2H

4R3H

5L1H

5L1V

5L2H

5R1H

5R1V

5R2H

Reaming machine gear life tracking sheet

84

What were the results? (1/2)4.3.1

Comparison of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs After

Inference: Mean breakdown time reduced from 60 to 11.5 minutes per shift against the target of 18.07 minutes.

Mar'17 W3Feb'17 W2Jan'17 W1Nov'16 W4Oct'16 W3Sept'16 W2Aug'16 W1June'16 W4May'16 W3Apr'16 W2Mar'16 W1

480

360

240

120

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=229.5

_X=227.9 _

X=119.1 _X=44.1

UC L=472.4UC L=436.8

UC L=243.8UC L=187.1

LC L=0 LC L=18.9

LC L=0LC L=0


Gear properties changed


300

200

100

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge __

MR=91.3 __MR=78.6

__MR=46.9

__MR=53.8

UC L=298.4

UC L=256.7 UC L=153.2 UC L=175.7

LC L=0LC L=0 LC L=0 LC L=0



Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Before Vs Action-2


80

60

40

20

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=60.2

_X=61.2

_X=20.7

_X=11.5

UC L=94.0

UC L=80.0

UC L=32.6 UC L=21.7LC L=26.5

LC L=42.4

LC L=8.8 LC L=1.2




40

30

20

10

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=12.70

__MR=7.07

__MR=4.47

__MR=3.86

UC L=41.49 UC L=23.10

UC L=14.62 UC L=12.61LC L=0 LC L=0

LC L=0 LC L=0



Breakdown time trend (Mins per Shift): Before Vs Action-2

Inference: Average BPMH (Project metric) reduced from 229 to 44 (81% reduction) against the target of 69 BPMH.

Comparison of Frame assembly Breakdown time: Before Vs After

43

85

How did the results compare to the specific project goals/measures from Item 2.1.1? (2/2)4.3.1

229.5

6944.1

0

50

100

150

200

250

Baseline Target Achieved

BP

MH

Project Metric (BPMH)

81% reduction

40

45.3 46.2

253035404550

Existingthroughput

Targetthroughput

Achievedthroughput

No

. of

Veh

icle

s

Throughput (per shift)15.5%

60.24

18.0711.5

0

25

50

75

Before Target Achieved

Tim

e (M

ins.

)

Breakdown time (per shift)

With increase in throughput, the no. of additional vehicles that can be produced per year: 3802

86

What additional benefits were realized from the project? (1/3)4.3.2

• Direct savings: 4.323 Million per Annum

• Opportunity cost: 5703 Millions (Improved revenue)

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits

• Sense of pride for the team to have

contributed to the highest business

objective.

• Improved resource utilization.

• Improved knowledge on advanced

problem solving tools / techniques.

• Planning, delegation & Coordination

skills.

• Presentation & Communication skills

5707 Million (INR)

44

87

How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were “soft”? (2/3)4.3.2

Improved knowledge on advanced problem solving tools / techniques

- Demonstrated during DOE exercise & other root cause analysis.

Soft benefits Evidence

Improved resource utilization- Breakdown man hours spent by maintenance personnel reduced. Better utilization of time on preventive maintenance.


- Project got completed within agreed timelines.


- Demonstrated during presentation preparation.- Project got completed within agreed timelines.

Sense of pride for the team to have contributed to the highest business objective.

88

Benefits Expected Actual

Tangible benefits 4934 Million (INR) 5707 Million (INR)

Improved resource utilization

Improved knowledge on advanced problem solving tools / techniquesPlanning, delegation & Coordination skills


Sense of pride for the team to have contributed to the highest business objective.

How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified in Item 3.2.4? (3/3)

4.3.2

Unanticipated

45

89

Section 5: Sustaining and Communicating Results

90

What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation (Item 4.2.1) continued to be followed? (1/2)

5.1.1

Electrical drawing revisedMaintenance work procedure revised

Machine assembly drawing revised

Work instruction sheet revised

46

91

What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy? (2/2)5.1.1

New Gears are being supplied to All Ashok Leyland plants.

New Gears are being supplied to other CV manufacturers too !!!

Auditing of new process at the end of 6 months by internal auditors.

92

What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation (Item 4.2.1) will be maintained? (1/2)

5.1.2

Aug'17 W3June'17 W4May'17 W1Mar'17 W2Jan'17 W3Nov'16 W4Oct'16 W1Aug'16 W2June'16 W3Apr'16 W4Mar'16 W1

480

360

240

120

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=229.5

_X=227.9 _

X=119.1 _X=44.1

_X=40.4

UC L=472.4UC L=436.8

UC L=243.8

UC L=187.1UC L=164.6

LC L=0 LC L=18.9

LC L=0

LC L=0 LC L=0



Sustenance Monitoring


300

200

100

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=91.3

__MR=78.6

__MR=46.9

__MR=53.8 __

MR=46.7

UC L=298.4 UC L=256.7

UC L=153.2

UC L=175.7UC L=152.7

LC L=0 LC L=0

LC L=0

LC L=0LC L=0




Trend of Project Metric (BPMH): Sustenance Monitoring


80

60

40

20

0

Week

In

div

idu

al

Va

lue

_X=60.2

_X=61.2

_X=20.7

_X=11.5

_X=11.2

UC L=94.0 UC L=80.0

UC L=32.6 UC L=21.7 UC L=22.2LC L=26.5

LC L=42.4LC L=8.8 LC L=1.2 LC L=0.2

Before Interim Aligner design modifiedGear properties changed



40

30

20

10

0

Week

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=12.70

__MR=7.07 __

MR=4.47__MR=3.86

__MR=4.13

UC L=41.49 UC L=23.10UC L=14.62UC L=12.61 UC L=13.50

LC L=0LC L=0

LC L=0 LC L=0 LC L=0

Before Interim Aligner design modifiedGear properties changed


Breakdown time trend (Mins per Shift): Sustenance Monitoring

Sustenance monitoring of Project Metric (BPMH)

Inference: Improved process is stable. Improvement is sustained for the last 5 months.

Inference: Improved process is stable. Improvement is sustained for the last 5 months.

Sustenance monitoring of Frame assembly Breakdown time

47

93

What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy? (2/2)5.1.2

Sustenance monitoring of projects is an organizational policy at Ashok Leyland.

All closed projects undergoes internal & external audit.

Horizontal deployment of learnings to other plants of Ashok Leyland

Every project will be monitored for sustenance for 12 months from the month of closure of the project.

94

How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder groups?5.2.1

MD & CEOApproversSteering CommitteeSponsorChampion

• Team had the pleasure of presenting the project to MD & CEO.• Status update on project results, horizontal deployment, control

/ standardization measures taken, validation of financial benefits by Finance dept.

• Project team thanked the management for providing opportunity to work on such business critical project.

• Management appreciated the team efforts for fantastic results.

Stakeholder group Communication

BlackbeltProject LeaderProject Team

Team congratulated each other for their active involvement in the project.

Interested partyProject results & benefits shared through Email & Communication boards.

48

95

Reward & Recognition

Thank You !

Appreciation by

Mr. Vinod K. Dasari MD & CEOAshok Leyland Limited.

Documents

Project Title: Reliability improvement of Reaming … · machines in Frame assembly. Plant: Hosur-2, Tamil Nadu, ... Ashok Leyland (AL) –Business ... Program and Sponsor Training;