Six Sigma Green Belt Project

Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to

packaging lead time

 Sanjeet Kumar
 Shib Sankar Barman
 Satrajit Sengupta
 Suchiro Chakraborty
DEFINE

2
 Project Charter
Project Name: Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging lead time
Date (Last Revision):
Prepared By:
Approved By:

Business Case: Opportunity Statement (High Level Problem Statement):

PSL machine is for Hi-End customers tolling. By reducing process to packaging time, we will enhance monthly
1. The production from this machine on daily basis is avg. 248 MT per dispatch by approx. 300 MT per month. Hence expected business
day. opportunity of INR 315000 per month.
2. Out of 248 MT, 179 MT is for coil form and 69 MT is WIP for
CTL/Blanking. Defect Definition: Any processed coil with lead time more than 2 days.
3. Out of 179 MT of coil form, 168 MT gets packed and 10 to 11 MT
remains unpacked on daily basis.
Due to this, avg. processing to packaging time is 2.96 days which creates
delay in delivery to end customers.
Goal Statement: Project Scope:
1. To reduce the average processing to FG declaration lead time from Process Start Point: Daughter batch generation at PSL.
existing 2.96 days (April to Nov 2013) to 2 days by May 2014. Process End Point: Declaration of daughter batches as Finished Goods,
2. Improve the no of coil packaging per shift
Expected Savings/Benefits: By reducing the lead time from 2.96 days In Scope: Daughter batches which will be dispatched in coil form.
(April to Nov 2013) to 2 days, monthly unpacked coil tonnage inventory Out of Scope: Daughter batches which will go to CTL and Blanking.
will decrease significantly thereby increasing monthly dispatch and thus
increasing the monthly cash inflow of CR Plant by INR 315000 per month
(approx.).
Project Plan: Team:
Task/Phase Start Date End Date Actual End Name: Role: Commitment (%):
Define 24.12.2013 30.12.2013 31.12.2013 Sanjeet Kumar Leader 100
Measure 02.01.2014 29.01.2014 29.01.2014 Satrajit Sengupta Leader 100
Analysis 30.01.2014 15.02.2014 14.02.2014 Shib Sankar Barman Member 100
Improve 16.02.2014 15.03.2014 20.03.2014 Suchiro Chakraborty Member 100
Control 16.03.2014 31.05.2014 31.05.2014

3
Measure DEFINE

4
High level Process Map
Process map of Coil processing at line as
Processing to per schedule
Hold clearance

Exit of daughter batch at

Process map of coil car and receiving in
Hold to FG EPAIS
Rework,
declaration
Not Ok
NO
(RM/EPA Hold in system and
Is material REASON) shift to HOLD area
OK for QA decision
Process map of
Processing to
FG Declaration YES
Ok downgrade

Generate the schedule for

packaging

Arrange the resources for

packaging

Microsoft Excel
Worksheet
Pack the material and paste
the system generated FG
sticker

5
 SIPOC
SIPOC DIAGRAM

Process/Project Name: Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging lead time
Date: 05.10.2013
Prepared By:
Notes:

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Input Output
Requirements Requirements
Provider Input Description (optional) Output Description (optional) Recipient of Output
Proper
packaging
Production processed coils Packed FG on time schedule Logistics
zero lost time in
packaging due to
unavailibilty of
packaging packaging
Procurement consumables consumables production
Schedule to be
compatible with
schedule for packaging
Planning production capability production
zero absentism in
HR manpower packaging production
See High zero breakdown of
Level
Cranes for
Process
Maintenance Availibility of Crane packaging production
Steps Below
Proper
maintenanace of
Availibility of packaging tools on
ITW (outsource) packaging tools time production

Start Boundary: End Boundary:

coil processing at line as FG coil declaration
per schedule

exit of processed coil

coil form recoiler packaging Arrange of
Coil arranged coil packing & FG
and received in schedule the resources
for packaging sticker sticking
EPAIS for packaging
making

6
Baseline

Production to FG Production to FG through Hold Production to FG through rework

Month
Inventory(MT) Lead Time(Days) Inventory(MT) Lead Time(Days) Inventory(MT) Lead Time(Days)
April 4268.71 2.13 568 7.6 281.6 22.4
May 4834.55 2.86 1515 5.5 651 11.08
June 4787.95 2.80 2006 5.0 648.8 17.8
July 5602.13 2.84 1441 5.8 496.7 10.95
Aug 5518.55 3.22 1078 7.6 219.7 10.79
Sep 6023.69 3.76 152 10.5 0 0
Oct/Nov 12480.30 2.94 3718 5.7 77.7 7.89
Average 6216.6 2.96 1496.7 6.8 339.4 11.6

Presently average lead time of production to FG is 2.96 days, while

approx. 24% of total produced volume goes under Hold, which
increase the lead time average by 3.9 days
Six Sigma Root
Work Sheet

7
CTQ Performance Characteristics

Operational
CTQ Data Type UOM Definition LSL USL TARGET
Start: Coil processed
at line
Lead time between
coil processing to End: FG coil
FG coil declaration Discrete Days declaration. 0 2.96 <2

Start: Coil placed in

packaging saddle
End: FG sticker pasted
No of coil packed in in packing coil.
a shift Discrete No’s 8 12 >10

8
 Sigma level of current process

Process Sigma Calculator - Discrete Data

Number of Units Processed N 4984

Total Number of Defects D 1342

Number of Defect Opportunities per Unit O 1

Defects per million opportunities dpmo 269261.6

Defects as percentage 26.93%

Process Sigma Level Sigma 2.12

9
Analyze Measure DEFINE

10
 Cause and Effect Diagram: Reasons of Coil left
unpacked
CAUSE & EFFECT (FISHBONE) DIAGRAM

Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging

lead time
Process/Project Name:
Date:
Prepared By: Satrajit
Notes:

People Material Environment

Unavailibility of prime Fatigue among packaging

In-efficient manpower coil for packaging persons

High lead time in clearing High ambient temperature

Poor skill
materials hols due to
Quality/Planning issues

Coil left unpacked

poor packaging rate per Packaging tools

shift malfunctioning

Improper coil packaging

layout and procedure

Improper way of usage

of packaging tools

Machine/
Method Measurement
Equipment

11
 Pareto Analysis of Hold Categories
100% 100%
95%
400 90%
379
85%
350 Avg. Lead time 80%
2.07 days
70%
300

60%
250
50%
No. of cases

200
Avg. Lead time 40%
14 days
150
Avg. Lead time 30%
5.39 days
100
20%

50 44
10%
23

0 0%

EPA-REASON
TSL QUALITY

TSL Planning

Hold analysis_Oct
to Nov 2013
Hold Category

12
 Pareto Analysis of TSL Quality Defects in Oct-Nov(13)

100% 100%
100%
98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99%
94% 95% 96% 97%
300 92%
89% 91% 90%
Avg. Lead time 87%
1.5 days 84%
81% 80%
250 77%
71% 70%
64% Avg. Lead time
200 Avg. Lead time Avg. Lead time 2.03 days Avg. Lead time 60%
55% 3.39 days 1.78 days 1.47 days
50%
150
132
41% 40%
Count

100 30%

20%
50 46
30 24 19 10%
13 10 8 7 6 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0%
Sliver/Lamination/Hole

winding problem
shape problem

Off Gauge

Edge Damage

Herring bone
SLP Issue

Black line/Spot
Dent

Rust

Testing

Pin pricks
Unalloyed/Zn Lump

LSD

Sticker Mark
RIS

Pot Roll Mark

RM Patch

Scratch

uncoated

Black Oil

Coil slip
Uncoated
REASON

13
 Correlation matrix for hold due to TSL Quality Defects in Oct-Nov(13)
SLIVER RM Shape problem
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to Pearson Correlations
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to
Pearson Correlations clearance FG clearance FG
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Hold 1.0000 0.9672
clearance 1.0000 0.3745 clearance
Lead Time in Lead Time in 1.0000
Production to FG 1.0000 Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to
Pearson Probabilities
Pearson Probabilities clearance FG clearance FG
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Hold 0.0000
clearance 0.0000 clearance
Lead Time in Lead Time in
Production to FG Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to
Spearman Rank Correlations
Spearman Rank Correlations clearance FG clearance FG
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Hold 1.0000 0.7240
clearance 1.0000 0.3366 clearance
Lead Time in Lead Time in 1.0000
Production to FG 1.0000 Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Production to
Spearman Rank Probabilities
Spearman Rank Probabilities clearance FG clearance FG
Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in Hold 0.0000
clearance 0.0000 clearance
Lead Time in Lead Time in
Production to FG Production to FG

Conclusion-:Since I r I <0.05, hence

although a weak association (I r I is Conclusion-:Since I r I is 0.9672, hence
0.3745), but technically positive strong positive correlation
correlation

14
 Correlation matrix for hold due to TSL Quality Dent Issue in Oct-Nov(13)

Pearson Correlations
Lead Time in Hold clearance Lead Time in Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.6678
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Pearson Probabilities
Lead Time in Hold clearance Lead Time in Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold

clearance 0.0000
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Spearman Rank Correlations

Lead Time in Hold clearance Lead Time in Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.5470
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Spearman Rank Probabilities

Lead Time in Hold clearance Lead Time in Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 0.0006
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Conclusion-:Since I r I is 0.6678, hence moderate positive correlation

15
 Cause and Effect Diagram: TSL Quality Issues
CAUSE & EFFECT (FISHBONE) DIAGRAM

Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging

lead time
Process/Project Name:
Date:
Prepared By: Satrajit
Notes:

People Material Environment

Clearance delayed
Knowledge gap in
taking decision Unavailibility of defectve
samples frommother coil
Improper training
No SLP/improper SLP
from Mother coil
Irregular daily hold
clearance rate Testing issues in Mother
coil

High Lead time due to

TSL Quality issues
In adequate TPR/Inspection Insufficient light in
norms inspection table

Inadequate provision
unavailibility/inadequacy of taking accurate
measurement of
of limit samples
shape critical SKUs
Cross bow issue in
Nisan GH01 TWB
Winding procedure for
this SKU not established

Machine/
Method Measurement
Equipment

16
 VERIFICATION OF TSL Quality ISSUE
COMPONENT PROBABLE CAUSES VERIFICATION

High chance since this can lead to wrong decision of coils

Man KNOWLEDGE GAP IN TAKING DECISION by raising false alarm or miss case for at least 50% of all
coils processed per day.

High chance since this hampers day to day clearance of

Man IRREGULAR DAILY HOLD CLEARANCE RATE
hold materials by atleast 80-100 MT per day.

High chance since this hampers online clearance for at

Method IN ADEQUATE TPR/INSPECTION NORMS
least 70% of cases per day

High chance since this hampers online clearance for at

Method UNAVAILIBILTY/INADEQUACY LIMIT SAMPLES
least 50% of cases per day

COILS GETTING HOLD DUE TO CROSS BOW ISSUE IN

High chance since in 15% of cases, coils getting hold due to
Method NISSSAN GH01 TWB APPLICATION DUE TO WINDING
this reason with average lead time of 3.47 days.
PROCEDURE NOT ESTABLISHED

TSL Quality Issue

verification data

17
Pareto Analysis of EPA Quality Defects in Oct-Nov(13)
100% 100%
96%
91% 90%
20 19
83%
80%
Avg. Lead time
2.47 days 70%
15
60%

50%
10
40%
Count

30%

5 20%

2 10%
1 1
0 0%
Unslit/Cutter damage
Winding problem

Shape problem
Dent

REASON

18
 Correlation matrix for hold due to EPA-Quality Winding Problem in Oct-
Nov(13)

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in

Pearson Correlations clearance Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.9434
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in

Pearson Probabilities clearance Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 0.0000
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in

Spearman Rank Correlations clearance Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.8493
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Lead Time in Hold Lead Time in

Spearman Rank Probabilities clearance Production to FG
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 0.0000
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Conclusion-:Since I r I is 0.9434, hence strong positive correlation

19
Cause and Effect Diagram: EPA Quality issue
CAUSE & EFFECT (FISHBONE) DIAGRAM

Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging

lead time
Process/Project Name:
Date:
Prepared By: Satrajit
Notes:

People Material Environment

In-efficient Excess Oil in Mother coil

manpower

Poor skill

Poor Quality of carpets

High Lead time due to

Process Quality issues
Wrong Inline Pressure variation in Wrong Quality
set up pressure pad and Parameters
insufficient surface tension measurement

More clearance between separators

Frequent line stoppages Machine malfunction

Carpet change and coil As load increases, recoiler

inspection current increases which tends to
reduce line speed

Machine/
Method Measurement
Equipment

20
Action Plan of Process issue (Winding Problem & Unslit issues)
Ve r i f i c at i on

Verified

Verified

Verified

Verified
Verified
Verified

Verified

Verified

Verified

21
Pareto Analysis of TSL Planning Reason in Oct-Nov(13)

43 100% 100%
98%
40 90%
Avg. Lead time
14.3 days
35 80%

70%
30

60%
25
50%
20
Count

40%
15
30%

10
20%

5 10%
1
0 0%

Over weight
Under weight

REASON

22
 Correlation matrix for hold due to TSL Planning Underweight in Oct-Nov(13)

Lead Time in Hold

Pearson Correlations
Lead Time in Production to FG
clearance
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.8490
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Lead Time in Hold

Pearson Probabilities
Lead Time in Production to FG
clearance
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 0.0000
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Lead Time in Hold

Spearman Rank Correlations
Lead Time in Production to FG
clearance
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 1.0000 0.9098
Lead Time in
Production to FG 1.0000

Lead Time in Hold

Spearman Rank Probabilities
Lead Time in Production to FG
clearance
Lead Time in Hold
clearance 0.0000
Lead Time in
Production to FG

Conclusion-:Since I r I is 0.8490, hence strong positive correlation

23
 Cause and Effect Diagram: TSL Planning Issue
CAUSE & EFFECT (FISHBONE) DIAGRAM

Reduction in PSL Slit coil Production to packaging

lead time
Process/Project Name:
Date:
Prepared By: Satrajit
Notes:

People Material Environment

Low weight of RM Coil

from TSL
High limit standard of
minimum weight as per
Over rejection of defect customer Removal of SLP/Tagged
portion

Removal of defective portion

without SLP during 1st time
processing or during rework
High Lead time due to
TSL Planning Issue
(majorly underweight)

Bare coil hold due to underweight Processing issues like line

getting handling damage and removal of trippage or strip damage from
the same line and removal of same

Machine/
Method Measurement
Equipment

24
 VERIFICATION OF TSL Planning ISSUE
COMPONENT PROBABLE CAUSES VERIFICATION

Material REMOVAL OF SLP/TAGGED PORTION High chance since 70% of the coils are
MAKING THE REST COIL UNDERWEIGHT underweight

REMOVAL OF DEFECTIVE PORTION

WITHOUT SLP DURING 1ST TIME High chance since 25% of the coils are
Material PROCESSING OR REWORK MAKING THE underweight
REST COIL UNDERWEIGHT

Material HIGH LIMIT STANDARD OF MINIMUM High chance since 24 out of 42 Coils
WEIGHT AS PER CUSTOMER (57%) hold are from Nissan and Ford

TSL Planning
issue verification data

25
Hypothesis testing: Reason of Hold Categories
Levene's Test For Equal Variance: Hold Duration
(Use with non-normal data)

H0: Variance 1 = Variance 2 = ... = Variance k

Ha: At least one pair Variance i ≠ Variance j

Reson for Hold EPA-REASON TSL Planning TSL QUALITY

Count 23 44 379
Mean 5.391 14 2.071
Median 1 7 1
StDev 11.892 16.516 3.227
AD Normality Test P-value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Levene's Test Statistic 90.970

DF Num 2
DF Den 443
P-value 0.0000

Conclusion-:Since p-value<0.05,null value is rejected . It means all the reason

categories are significantly different as far as Lead time is concerned. So we have
to treat all these 3 defect categories separately.

26
Pareto Analysis: Packaging activity

60 100%
90%
50 80%
39 70%
Time in minutes

40
60%
30 25 50%
20 40%
20 16 16 15 30%
13 12 12 11
10 8 20%
5
2 10%
0 0%

Activity

27
 Hypothesis testing: Shift wise variation
Mood's Median Test: Total coil

H0: Median 1 = Median 2 = ... = Median k

Ha: At least one pair Median i ≠ Median j

SHIFT A B C
Count (N <= Overall Median) 20 19 21
Count (N > Overall Median) 10 11 9
Median 9 8 9
UC Median (2-sided, 95%) 9.771 10 9
LC Median (2-sided, 95%) 8.229 8 8

Overall Median 9
Chi-Square 0.300000
DF 2
P-value (2-sided) 0.8607

Conclusion-:Since p-value >0.05,so null value is accepted. It means that there is

not very much difference in between shift wise packaging. So we have to improve
the overall packaging trend

28
Packaging process Study

packaging actvity

55% 16% 26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
VA NVA NNVA

29
Improve Analyze Measure DEFINE

30
Action Plan of Process issue (Winding Problem & Unslit issues
Probable sub causes from Fish
Sl. No. Defect Action Point
Bone
AS LOAD INCREASES RECOILER Keep the pressure constant at initial
CURRENT INCREASING MORE and reduce gradually after 1000 OD to
1
THAN 250 AMPS WHICH TENDS TO compensate with the increasing
REDUCE THE LINE SPEED current
PRESSURE VARIATION AT Tension at Tension pad needs to be
2
PRESSURE PAD constantly monitored.
MORE CLEARANCE GIVEN AT
INLINE LOOP SEPERATOR (5 mm Clearance at Inline Loop seaparator
3
or more) not to be given more than 3 mm.

FREQUENT STOPPING OF LINE DUE

Winding Problem Dirty/black carpets to be discarded
TO PROCESSING ISSUES LIKE
4 and line speeds for critical coils not to
INSPECTION/CARPET CHANGE
be more than 120 MPM.
CARPET BECAME MORE OILY
6 Dirty/black carpets to be discarded
CAUSES SLIPPING
Increase the cross section of the exit
Insuffi cient tension in coil at
7 deflector roll to impart better tension
recoiling end
on the coil
MORE RP OIL IN THE MOTHER Carpets getti ng balck/dirty by excess
8 COIL oil from mother coil needs to be
discarded
Root cause of line trippage to be Recoiler spiral coupling alignment
9 Cutter damage/Unslit
analysed and rectified adjusted by maintenance crew

31
 ACTION PLAN ON RM ISSUE
COMPO
NENT PROBABLE CAUSES VERIFICATION ACTION PLAN ACTION TAKEN
High chance since this can lead to Training at RCL provided to the
Provide adequate training
KNOWLEDGE GAP IN TAKING wrong decision of coils by raising Quality Inspectors and line
Man to the inspectors and line
DECISION false alarm or miss case for at least operators responsible for
operators of PSL
50% of all coils processed per day. inspection at PSL
High chance since this hampers
IRREGULAR DAILY HOLD day to day clearance of hold Daily Hold clearance rate Regularised visit of Manager
Man
CLEARANCE RATE materials by atleast 80-100 MT per to be regularised (CRM-TS) to TSPDL CR Plant
day.
1. Inspection norms in lieu with
RCL of CRM developed and
established as approved by
High chance since this hampers Proper inspection norms
IN ADEQUATE TPR/INSPECTION Head CRM-TS and HEAD EPA-
Method online clearance for at least 70% of to be provided at line for
NORMS FPTG and displayed in line.
cases per day speedy decision at PSL
2. New TPR along with
photographs of limit samples
provided at Line

Standard and Limit samples

High chance since this hampers Customer approved
UNAVAILIBILTY/INADEQUACY signed by EPA-FPTG/CRM-TS
Method online clearance for at least 50% of limit/standard samples to
LIMIT SAMPLES and RCL Managers displayed
cases per day be provided at PSL
line as per severity

COILS GETTING HOLD DUE TO SKU wise winding

High chance since in 15% of cases,
CROSS BOW ISSUE IN NISSSAN procedure to be Reverse winding established for
coils getting hold due to this
Method GH01 TWB APPLICATION DUE established at PSL for Nissan 1.372*GH01 and over
reason with average lead time of
TO WINDING PROCEDURE NOT shape critical SKUs of winding for Nissan 1.96*GH01
3.47 days.
ESTABLISHED Nissan TWB Application

32
 ACTION PLAN ON FPP ISSUE
COMPO PROBABLE CAUSES VERIFICATION ACTION PLAN ACTION TAKEN
NENT

REMOVAL OF
SLP/TAGGED High chance since Speedy clearance of Speedy clearance
Material PORTION MAKING 70% of the coils are underwight coils to be ensured on Regular
THE REST COIL underweight ensured since SLP/Tagged basis meeting with EPA
UNDERWEIGHT portion has to be removed Manager (FPP)

REMOVAL OF
DEFECTIVE PORTION
WITHOUT SLP High chance since Provide adequate training Done after arranging of
Material DURING 1ST TIME 25% of the coils are to the inspectors and line inspectors training of
PROCESSING OR operators of PSL to prevent QA Inspectors and Line
REWORK MAKING underweight over rejection operators at RCL
THE REST COIL
UNDERWEIGHT

HIGH LIMIT High chance since

Material STANDARD OF 24 out of 42 Coils Clearance standard to be Done after consultation
MINIMUM WEIGHT (57%) hold are from reset with FPP and CAM
AS PER CUSTOMER Nissan and Ford

33
Pugh Matrix After Brainstorming

Placing of Thickness and Explore Explore

Generatio Width Layout of some
Evacuation of coils on Coil
n of KB list verification by packaging
Craddles turnstile
Automatic Current
the FG from saddle as
in advance EPA operator in area has to be type packaging
Key Criteria Weight saddles in the per KB list to
for next advance of the redesigned to machine or Baseline
same shift in to be minimise structure
coming coils which will minimise the to pack coil master Datum
which packed packed in the crane narrow
shift next shift be packed in next motion loss delay
shift coils

Cost to Impliment 3 S S S S - - - - S
Safety 5 S S S S + + + + S
Effectiveness 3 + + + + + + + + S
Ease to Impliment 4 S + + + - - - - S
Development time 2 S S S S - - - - S
long term benefit 1 S S S S + + + + S
Productivity 4 + + + + + + + + S

Sum of Positives (+): 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

Sum of Negatives(-): 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3
Sum of Sames (S): 5 4 4 4 0 0 0 0
Positives - Negatives: 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1

Weighted Sum of 7 11 11 11 13 13 13 13
Positives (+):
Weighted Sum of 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9
Negatives (-):
Weighted Sum of 15 11 11 11 0 0 0 0
Sames (S):
Weighted Positives - 7 11 11 11 4 4 4 4
Weighted Negatives:

34
 Spaghetti diagram: Man movement(In Present
Layout)
C
o PSL
Manpower movement
i
l

I 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

N
saddle1 saddle2 saddle3 saddle4 saddle5 saddle6 saddle7 saddle8

2500
Coil Incoming

saddle9 saddle10 saddle11 saddle12 saddle13 saddle14 saddle15 saddle16

2500 All
packagin
g
WIP
Area
Walkway saddle17 saddle18 saddle19 saddle20 saddle21 saddle22 saddle23 saddle24 consuma
ble stand
2500

saddle25 saddle26 saddle27 saddle28 saddle29 saddle30 saddle31 saddle32

saddle25 saddle26 saddle27 saddle28 saddle29 saddle30 saddle31 saddle32

2500

Hold and Narrow slit coil stand

35
Spaghetti diagram: Man movement
C Metal jackets material movemnt
o PSL
Packaging consumables movement
i
l

I 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

N
saddle1 saddle2 saddle3 saddle4 saddle5 saddle6 saddle7 saddle8

2500
Coil Incoming

saddle9 saddle10 saddle11 saddle12 saddle13 saddle14 saddle15 saddle16

2500 All
packagin
g
WIP
Area
Walkway saddle17 saddle18 saddle19 saddle20 saddle21 saddle22 saddle23 saddle24 consuma
ble stand
2500

saddle25 saddle26 saddle27 saddle28 saddle29 saddle30 saddle31 saddle32

saddle25 saddle26 saddle27 saddle28 saddle29 saddle30 saddle31 saddle32

2500

Hold and Narrow slit coil stand

36
 Spaghetti diagram: Proposed Layout (Implemented)
Metal jackets material movemnt
PSL
Manpower movement
PackagingConsumables movement

2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

S4 S3 S2 S1

2500 packagin
Separate Area for
One shift coil g
packaging S5 S6 S7 S8 consuma
ble stand

2500

S12 S11 S10 S9

Hold coil Hold coil Hold coil Hold coil
stand stand stand stand

S13 S14 S15 S16

packagin
Separate Area for g
another shift coil S20 S19 S18 S17 consuma
packaging ble stand

2500

S21 S22 S23 S24

2500 Narrow slit coil stand

Packaging consumable stand

37
Standard Procedure of Coil Packaging
Step1 Generation of KB list before the end of running shift for next shift
: coil packaging by EPAIS operator Parallel
Operations
operatio
are in series
n
Step2 Coil searching and placing of coils at packaging saddle for next
: shift packaging

Coil packaging continue of running

shift
Step3 Coil Thickness and Width verification by EPA operator in running
: shift for next shift coil packaging

Step4 All the measurements noted in logbook and handover to next

: shift packaging supervisor

Step5 Arranging of packaging consumables at near to workstation by

: current shift supervisor
OD protector and GP sheet jacket
Step6 preparation and removing of
Wrapping of bare coils with VCI film for special packaging by next
: previous shift packed coil from
shift packaging crew
saddle by crane

Step7 Wrapping coil with LDPE and HDPE with the help of crane
:

Step8 ID & OD side edge protector on both side & GP sheet wrapping
: over coil

Step9
: Step 1 to step 5 for next shift
Sealing & strapping of coil and sticker pasting
38
Control Improve Analyze Measure DEFINE

39
 Result comparison

Lead time in days Base line (April13-Nov 13) Apr-14 May-14

Production to FG 2.96 1.82 1.95
Hold to clearance 3.02 1.6 1.29
Hold to clearance via Rework 11.6 6.84 10.3

40
 Pareto Analysis of Hold Categories
BEFORE IMPROVEMENT AFTER IMPROVEMENT
100% 100% 100% 100%
95%
94%
300
400 90% 90%
379
85%
72% 80%
350 80%
250
235 Average
70% Lead time 70%
300 3.5 days
200 60%
60% Aver-
250 Average age

Although lead-time increased marginally in

Avg. 50%
150 Cases of TSL
Lead time
4 days
Lead
time
50%
No. of cases

200 Lead Winding

Count
QA reduced 6.4 40%
time 14 problem
TSL-QA & PROCESS Categories, hold due
40% by 38% days
days case 11
150 100 30%
30% Lead time of

to such cases has significantly reduced, 68

TSL Planning Cases of
100 reduced by winding 20%
20% 50 problem
71%
50
thereby increasing dispatch !!!!!
44
23
10%
reduced21
42 %
by 10%

0 0%
0 0%

TSL Planning
TSL Quality

EPA-Reason
EPA-REASON
TSL QUALITY

TSL Planning

ReasonCategory
Reason Category
Hold analysis data
apr-may 2014
41
 Pareto Analysis of Lead Time in April-14 to May-14
for TSL-QUALITY
BEFORE IMPROVEMENT AFTER IMPROVEMENT
100%
100% 98%
98% 99%99% 100%
100%
98%
97% 98%
98% 99%
99% 100%
99%
95% 97%
96% 100%
96%
95%
94% 92%94% Average Lead
300 92%
91% 90% 88%90%
89% 86% time 2.94 90%
87% Average Lead
83%
84% 200 days
81% 80% 79% time 3.66
250 77% 74% 80%
days
71% 70% 67% 70%
64% 150 60%
200 60% Cases of 60%
55% sliver/laminati
132 50% 50%
150 on/hole
100 31% reduced by
41% 40% Cases of RM 40%
Average Lead 49%
74 Patch reduced
Count

67

Count
100 30% time 4.11 by 96%Cases of shape 30%
days problem
20% 50
46 reduced by 20%
Cases of dent
50
3024 reduced by 73 Cases
63% of
1913 10% 1717 scratch 10%
10 8 7 6 5 5 10 9 8 5 5 4 4 %
3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1reduced
1 1 by 1 84
0 0% 0 % 0%

black spot and line

Off Gauge

winding problem

Shape problem
SLP Issue
Sliver/Lamination/Hole

Edge Damage

Herring bone

Edge Damage
Rework issue
Dent

oiling issue
Off gauge
slp issue

Unalloyed/Zn Lump
LSD

Sticker Mark

oxidation mark

RM Patches
Scratch
uncoated

Black Oil

Dent

pot roll mark

rust
testing

tong mark
uncoated

Coil slip

Scratch

RIS
sliver/Lamination/Hole

REASON REASON

42
 Pareto Analysis of Lead Time in April-14 to May-14 for TSL
Planning
99% 100%
96% 100%

Cases of 90%
60 underweight
reduced by
21% 80%
50 Average
Lead time 70%
3.4 days Average
Lead time 60%
40 50% 4.1 days
34
31 50%
30
40%
Count

Lead time of
20 30%
underweight
reduced by
76% 20%
10
10%
2 1
0 0%

Planning issue
underweight

Thickness Not OK

width variation
REASON

43
 Pareto Analysis of Lead Time in April-14 to May-14 for EPA Reason

Average 100%
20 Lead time 90% 100%
Cases of 4.7 days 90%
winding
problem 80%
reduced by 71%
15 42% 70%
52%
60%
11
50%
10

40%
Count

30%
5 4 4 20%
2
10%

0 0%
Unslit/Cutter damage
Winding Problem

weight problem

Handling Damage
REASON

44
 CTQ Level after Project Completion

CTQ UOM Baseline(April13 - Nov13) April-14' May-14'

Lead time
between coil
processing to FG
Days 2.96 1.03 1.35
coil declaration

Avg. No of coil
packed in a shift
Nos. 8.1 10.2 9.4

Packaging data Root Data Apr-14 May-14 Root Data

for April-May
45
Sigma level of current process after improvement

Process Sigma Calculator - Discrete Data

Number of Units Processed N 1098

Total Number of Defects D 73

Number of Defect Opportunities per Unit O 1

Defects per million opportunities dpmo 66484.5

Defects as percentage 6.65%

Process Sigma Level Sigma 3.00

46
 Control Chart of current Packaging process after
improvement
20.00
18.00
X-Bar: Total coilS PACKED

16.00
14.00 14.20

12.00
10.00 9.77
8.00
6.00
5.34
4.00
2.00
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r y ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay
Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap Ap a
1- 3- 5- 7- 9- 11- 13- 15- 17- 19- 21- 23- 25- 27- 29- 1-M 3-M 5-M 7-M 9-M 1-M 3-M 5-M 7-M 9-M 1-M 3-M 5-M 7-M 9-M 1-M
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3

18.00
16.00
14.00
R: Total coilS PACKED

12.00
10.00
8.00 7.70
6.00
4.00
2.00 2.36

0.00 0.00

-2.00
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y
-Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma -Ma
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

47
 Trend Chart of current process after improvement
Average monthly Processing to FG Lead time (in Days)
2.5 2

2
2
1.92 1.9 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.96
1.77 1.83 1.79
1.5 1.66 1.64
1.48
Days

1.35
1
1.03

0.5

0
Series1
Time period

Target Actual

48
 SAMPLE OF DAILY MONITORING
Daily Management to track QA Hold Daily Management to track packaging in slitting lines

Daily Management to track packaging in slitting lines Daily Management to track Slit batch FG

49
 IMR Chart of process Before Improvement Sep-Nov 2013

Te sts f or Spe ci al C ause s - Indi vi dual s: Ave rage of P rod to FG

N umbe r of Data Poi nts F ai l i ng Te sts = 84

Te st 3: 6 poi nts Te st 5: 2 out of 3 Te st 6: 4 out of 5 Te st 7: 15 poi nts Te st 8: 8 poi nts

Te st 1: 1 poi nt Te st 2: 9 poi nts i n a row al l Te st 4: 14 poi nts poi nts poi nts i n a row wi thi n 1 in a row more than 1
more than 3 Stde v i n a row on same i ncre asi ng or al l i n a row al te rnati ng more than 2 Stde v more than 1 Stde v Stde v f rom C L Stde v f rom C L
Obse rvati on N o. f rom C L si de of C L de cre asi ng up and down f rom C L ( same si de ) f rom C L ( same si de ) ( e i the r si de ) ( e i the r si de )
1 x
2 x x
3 x x
4 x x x
5 x x x
6 x x x
7 x x x
8 x x x x
9 x x x x x
10 x x x x x
11 x x x x x
12 x x x x x
13 x x x x x
14 x x x x x
15 x x x x x

Number of Data Points

16 x x x x x
17 x x x x x
18 x x x x x
19 x x x x x
20 x x x x x
21 x x x x x
22 x x x x x
23 x x x x
24 x x x x x
25 x x x x
26 x x x x x

Failing Tests = 84 out of 90

27 x x x
28 x x x x x
31 x
33 x
34 x x
35 x x x
36 x x x
38 x x x
39 x x x
40 x
41 x x
42 x x x

or 93%!!!
43 x
44 x
46 x x
47 x x x
48 x x x
50 x x
51 x
52 x x x
53 x x
54 x x x x
55 x x x x
56 x x x x
57 x x x x x
58 x x x x x
59 x x x x x
60 x x x x x
61 x x x x x
62 x x x
63 x x x
64 x x x x
65 x x x x x
66 x x x x x
67 x x x x x
68 x
69 x x x x
70 x x x
71 x x x x
72 x x x x
73 x x
74 x x x x
75 x x x x
76 x x x x x
77 x x x
78 x
79 x x x
80 x x x x
81 x x x x
82 x x x
83 x x x
84 x x x x
85 x
86 x x x x
87 x
88 x x x
89 x
90 x x x x

50
 IMR Chart of Improved process June-August 2015

lo t, S ti ll 6 D a ta points beyond
g h P ro c e ss e s h a ve Improved a
Althou CL !!!!
WHY??? sting that are
a n d p r o p e r ty te
Q u a li ty Is su e s li ke steel defect
1. TSL on d c o ntro l o f T SPDL.
bey on (P la nning) that
r k e t a u c ti
rweight and ma ario….
Tests for Special Causes - Individuals: Total

s
Number of Data Points Failing Tests = 22

C a se o f u n de m a r k e t sc e n
2. er clearances a n
Test 3: 6 points
d Test 5: 2 out of 3 Test 6: 4 out of 5 Test 7: 15 points Test 8: 8 points
Test 1: 1 point

p e n d s o n c u st o m
Test 2: 9 points in a row all Test 4: 14 points points points in a row within 1 in a row more than 1

de
more than 3 Stdev in a row on same increasing or all in a row alternating more than 2 Stdev more than 1 Stdev Stdev from CL Stdev from CL
Observation No. from CL side of CL decreasing up and down from CL (same side) from CL (same side) (either side) (either side)
15 x
16
20
21
x
x
x
Number of Data Points x

Failing Tests = 22 out of 92

22 x
23 x
34 x
38 x
45
51
53 x
or 24%!!! x
x

54 x
55 x
56 x x
57 x x x
58 x x
59 x
60 x
61 x
70 x x
71 x
81 x x

51
 BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT

EA ST
TH E L
Average Dispatch Trend (in MT)

T
before and after Improvement
N O
POST-

ST B U T 6000.00
as h
Improve
ment

L A
5486.61
C
TH E
Pre- 4343.57
y
thl eased
5000.00

o n Improvem
M in c r
4000.00
ent
lo w
3000.00
I n f I NR !
In Mt

b y !!!!
2000.00
9 2
2 0 01
1000.00
1
0.00
Average (Oct-13 to Feb-14) Average (Mar-14 to Mar-15)

Data source: TISCO SAP ZSS Dump

52
Thank You