Re Manufacturing Fit-For-Use Parts Supply

8/3/2019 Re Manufacturing Fit-For-Use Parts Supply

1/14

Lean Six Sigma Green BeltFinal Project Report-Out

Remanufacturing Fit-for-Use Parts Supply

Duration of Project:

June 14, 2004 to August 14, 2004


2/14

Team Membership

1

Operation Supervisor

Materials Manager

Operation Manager

Assembly Team Leader


3/14

Define the processIPO

2


4/14

Define the business case

3

Problem Statement (description)

Assembly was constrained because parts were not fit for use, causing

increased setup delays and repair problems.

Project Goals

Improve the productivity to 84%, Increase First pass Yield to 99%

Primary Metrics

Productivity Measure

FPY

Projected savings: 160K


5/14

Define the voice of the customer

4

Customers

Main customers of project focus are internal depts of Prep and Assemblyprocess with Warehouse as end customer of remanufacturing.

Critical customer requirements, specifications, and/orconcerns

Established customer requirements of Assembly process through

questioning operators and creating a QFD Matrix to determine priority of

issue resolution.


6/14

Defining the current process performance

5

QFD Analysis

Howca

nweaffectthewant

Improveinstructions

Improvethephotos

Betterguntorqueco

ntrol

Improvemachiningc

ontrol

Kitpartsfortheoper

ators

P ick t icke t has a l l parts listed 4 36 0 0 0 0

G ood th reads fo r sm ooth assy 5 0 0 15 45 0

C leare r p ic tu res in instruc tions 3 9 27 0 0 0

O pera to r parts a re grouped toge ther fo r them 4 12 12 0 0 36

N ot m issing parts a t line 4 12 12 0 0 36

Less l ine repa ir 4 0 0 36 36 0

Scores69 51 51 81 72

Fi l l the co lum ns w i th an impact v a lue 0 , 1 , 3 , 9 , (9 Hav ing the greates t im pact)

W hat does the customer want?

R ate

Impor t anc e

1- 5

( 5= Top)

Q F D

Qual i ty Funct ion Dep loyment

Analysis (Lite)

Process / Function

Rem an M odify to Assy

Date 7 /02/04


7/14

Measuring Fit For Use

6

Inspect orders prior to assembly for defective or missing

components

1. Created a form for logging issues encountered

2. Collected issues and assigned department responsible for error

3. Tabulated and summarized the categories

4. Created a further breakdown of the issues showing trends of failures

Measure the use of labor

Work Sampling

Units per Man-hour

Labor minutes expended per unit


8/14

Measure the current process performance

7

High output in area with least laborcontent.

Highest defect content in the area withhighest labor content.

0

10

20

30

40

50

# of Occur

Prep Stage Dassy Mod CLN Cr-Id

Process Area

Pareto Fit for Use Labor Min Spent / Unit of Production

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Dis Assy Modify Prep Assy

Process Dept

LabMin/unit

0

5

1015

20

25

3035

40

45

Prep Assy Dassy Flow Mod Core

Process Dept

Labor Min / Unit by Dept

0

50

100

150

200

250

UNITS

Dis Assy Modify Prep Assy

AREA

OUTPUT

24 26 28 30 3234 36 38 40 42 44


9/14

Analysis of Current Results

8

Work Load Imbalance

The right work being done in the wrong place

Productivity Imbalance

Extra capacity where the least amount of money was being spent

Poor Material FlowModify machine layout causing waste of space and motion


10/14

Improve the process

9

Shift Operational Responsibilities

Remove machining operations that gravitated to other areas back to the

modify machining area.

Merge similar small casting operation into modify to take advantage of

labor efficiencies

Kaizen Machine Layout of Area Remove unnecessary equipment and items from area

Group equipment according to flow of material

Move needed equipment but less frequently used out of the flow path of

frequently processed models


11/14

Control to hold the gains

10

Control plan for holding the gains

PCI stating the SOP responsibilities of the modify dept

and Quality characteristics

Feedback of performance beginning at flow through each dept back tomodify with accountability signoff and review for reworked material.

Productivity


12/14

Project Summary Scorecard before and after

11

metric before after change (%)

PRODUCTIVITY 43.4 75.4 74% Increase

FPY 90% 98% 9% Increase

Calculated annual savings for the portion related to this project:

4 head reduction @ 40% PAC = 119K Annual

Reduction in OT yields additional 21K

Total projected annual savings of 140K


13/14

Project Summary

12

Problem

Parts not Fit for Use causing an Assembly constraint

Baseline and Target Performance Improve productivity from the 40% range to the 80% range as well as

improve FPY to 99%

Analysis and Solution

Right work was being done in the wrong place, causing extra expense and

increased risk of defects at Assembly. Redistributed work load.

Results and Business Benefits

Productivity has improved 74%, FPY 9%, conservative hard savings of

140K annually.


14/14

Operational Improvements

13

Head counts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Months by week

Ser i es 1 Ser i es 2 Ser i es3 Pol y. ( Ser i es1) Pol y. ( Ser i es2)

Productivity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Month in Weeks

Ser ies1 Poly. (Ser ies1)

The Contin uous

improvement

direction is UP.

Percent Overtime

0

5

10

15

20

25

Months in weeks

Cont inuous

im provem ent

d i r e c t i o n i s

d o w n .

First Pass Yield 2004Goal 89% Annual Average

70%75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2003

AVG Ja

nFe

bM

arAp

ril May

June Ju

lyAu

gSept Oc

tNo

vDe

c

Monthly Avg. & Current Week Daily

Gross Shipments

0

50

100

150

200

250

Months by week

Documents

Re Manufacturing Fit-For-Use Parts Supply