42 | P a g e

Q C STORY PROJECT

“ELIMINATION OF DRIVER &

CO-DRIVER SEAT HOLES

OFFSET IN UV MODELS”

SIX SIGMA METHODOLOGY

43 | P a g e

1st STEP

44 | P a g e

DEFINE Learning to Be Applied In

Define Phase-

1. CTQ/ CTP mapping

2. Team charter

3. Background of the problem

4. SIPOC

5. TDC/FDC/PFD or Value Stream Mapping

6. Process walk through and its

observations

7. Value analysis

8. Quick-Win feasibility study table

9. Quick-Win implementation plan 10. Results of Quick-Win

Team Charter

45 | P a g e

Critical to Quality and Critical to Process Chart

46 | P a g e

BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM

Remark

1. Voice of customer and voice of business to be prioritized to those which are related to project

objective

2. Use VOB or VOC or both depending on the project objectives

47 | P a g e

Big circles indicates Bad Parts.

Team has observed Driver & co-driver seat holes off-set issue in all UV model bodies. Owing to this our internal customer making voice and plant MOP is getting affected and body shop Re-work

cost increasing drastically.

Understanding the problem

48 | P a g e

Understanding the problem

49 | P a g e

Understanding the problem

Fixture Locating Pins

Front Floor Assembly Fixture

50 | P a g e

Understanding the problem

Worn out Locating Pin More Hole to Pin Clearance

Understanding the problem

51 | P a g e

PARETO DIAGRAM

From Pareto It is Clear That Driver & Co-driver seat hole offset, Rh cowl side dent & Rh side roof dent Contributes to 80% of The Problems.

52 | P a g e

CAUSE – EFFECT MATRIX

53 | P a g e

CAUSE – EFFECT MATRIX

Scale: 0=None, 1=Low, 3=Moderate, 9=Strong

54 | P a g e

CAUSE – EFFECT MATRIX

COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation

Causes scoring 90 is selected for further analysis

55 | P a g e

Process Name - Elimination of driver & Co-driver seat

holes offset in UV models

Starting point - Receipt of Loose components from suppliers

End point - Assembly of driver & co driver seats in uv trim line.

Top down Chart for PROCESS

SIPOC DIAGRAM

56 | P a g e

VALUE ANALYSIS

THROUGH PROCESS WALK

57 | P a g e

RESULTS AFTER QUICK WINS

Quick Wins Implementation Plan

58 | P a g e

MEASURE

59 | P a g e

Measurement System Analysis

We all know that any measurement is only as good as the

measurement system. Hence it is necessary to perform a

Measurement System Analysis.

Front floor assembly Hole to Hole center distance is

measured by Vernier dial gauge by operator after spot

welding.

There are, in all, three operators (one per shift) who are

working at this stage. We need to find out the

Measurement System Variation (%R&R) to acquire:

• Fixture Locating Pin to pin variation (for vernier Dial

Gauge)

• Appraiser Variation (for 3 different operators)

Measurement System Analysis at

Front floor Assembly & Front floor

re-spotting.

60 | P a g e

10 Front floor assemblies were chosen randomly from the

line for analysis. Each Front floor is marked with

identification

All the three appraisers were asked to check Hole to Hole

center distance with vernier dial gauge in real time

conditions three times for each component separately.

The results were recorded.

MEASURE Y=f(x)

Our team decided to find whether Assembly problem was due to

Driver & Co-driver seat problem At supplier end or Hole offset

problem Due to fixture locating pins at Body shop for this our

team studied 8 Best of Best seats in which there was smooth

Assembly of Driver & Co-driver seats and 8 Worst of worst Seats

in which there is an assembly problem.

MEASURE Y=f(X)

Y = Driver & Co-driver seat holes offset.

(Response is attribute)

X = x1.Seat problem (Suppliers End)

X2. Fixture problem (Body shop)

61 | P a g e

Six Sigma Tool Identified

“Paired Comparison”

MEASURE LIST OF SSV’S

MEASURE LIST OF SSV’S

Initially our team decided to pin point the cause, whether root

cause is from Seat assembly or from Fixture.

BIG Y Xi Specification Manufacture

1 Seat Holes Center distance 176 ± 0.15 Supplier End

2 Fixture locating pins Center distance 175 ± 0.1 Body shop End

Driver & Co-driver

seat holes offset

Firstly our team decided to investigate whether the problem is with

Seat assembly which is manufactured at suppliers end or with fixture

which is at our Body shop.

S.NO. SEAT NO HOLE CENTRE DIST FIXTURE PIN CENTRE DIST STATUS

1 176.133 175.945 BAD

2 176.101 175.845 BAD

3 175.892 175.877 BAD

4 175.886 175.835 BAD

5 175.874 175.888 BAD

6 175.878 176.145 BAD

7 176.151 175.755 BAD

8 175.859 175.841 BAD

9 175.841 175.845 GOOD

10 175.861 175.745 GOOD

11 175.911 176.095 GOOD

12 175.913 176.114 GOOD

13 176.116 176.101 GOOD

14 176.105 176.131 GOOD

15 176.157 176.151 GOOD

16 175.841 175.905 GOOD

62 | P a g e

SSV= Seat Holes Centre Distance

63 | P a g e

64 | P a g e

Test Results for Xbar Chart of FIXTURE PIN CENTRE DIST TEST 1. One point more than 3.00 standard deviations from center line.

Test Failed at points: 3, 6

* WARNING * If graph is updated with new data, the results above may no Longer be

correct.

65 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

It is clear from the paired comparison that the cause of problem is Fixture

locating pins Center distance and not the Seat Holes Center distance. Let

us now continue our backward process walk.

CONCLUSION

The next S.S.V is Front floor assembly & Front floor re-spotting

stage. During backward process walk, our team was clear that

3 to 17 stages can’t be a cause of the problem as,

Y = F(X)

MEASURENENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

66 | P a g e

We all know that any measurement is only as good as the

measurement system. Hence it is necessary to perform a

Measurement System Analysis

Front floor assembly Hole to Hole center distance is measured

by Vernier dial gauge by operator after spot welding.

There are, in all, three operators (one per shift) who are working

at this stage. We need to find out the Measurement System

Variation (%R&R)

To acquire:

• Fixture Locating Pin to pin variation (for vernier Dial

Gauge)

• Appraiser Variation (for 3 different operators)

10 Front floor assemblies were chosen randomly from the line

for analysis. Each Front floor is marked with identification serial

number.

Both the appraisers were asked to check Hole to Hole center

distance with vernier dial gauge in real time conditions three

times for each component separately. The results were

recorded.

67 | P a g e

Measurement System Analysis-Result (Contd.,)

Total Gauge R& R 0.61%

Repeatability 0.61%

Reproducibility 0 %

68 | P a g e

Front Floor Assembly

SHIFT A

Hour 3 Hour 4 Hour 6Hour 2Hour 1 Hour 5

Hour 7

SHIFT B

Part to Part Variation 99.39 %

Total Variation 100 %

Number of Distinct Categories 17

CONCLUSIONS FR0M THE GRAPH

a). More than 50% of points are out of control in X-bar chart which

shows almost all operators are similar.

b). All points in R chart are in control.

c). within part variability is minimal and between parts variability is

maximum.

“Thus we conclude our measurement system at Front floor Assembly is

adequate for inspection”

ANALYZE

Tree diagram - Multi Vary Analysis

69 | P a g e

From Multi-Vari Chart It is Clear Part to Part Variation is Highest

70 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

From Multi Vary Analysis it is clear that Part to Part

Variation is largest in Front floor assembly.

The next step will be to study the process

parameters.

IMPROVE

PILOT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

71 | P a g e

Scope of Pilot: To implement the selected solutions at Front Floor Assembly

Optimization

Parameters

Before

Parameters

Optimized

Pilot Run Results

72 | P a g e

SIX SIGMA DIAGRAM

CONTROL

Full Scale Implementation Plan

73 | P a g e

Data & Result after full scale implementation

74 | P a g e

GB Target was Rejection rate less than 2 % and we have achieved the target of 2% till Jun’14

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM

Project Benefit: Initial estimate /COPQ: Rs 3.12 Lakhs /annum

75 | P a g e

76 | P a g e