rework minimization

Rework Minimization

Presented by:Chinky GhilothiaSaptarshi BagchiSubhodip Basu

Objective

To minimize the waste of reworking on the manufactured product in ABC Apparel Manufacturing unit primarily by instilling in them the concept of “Right First Time” quality

Background

• Demand for higher value at lower price• To survive, apparel manufacturers need to

improve their operations through-1. Producing right first time quality and2. Waste reduction1% defective for an organization is

100% defective for the customer who buys that defective product.

Source : Cost of Quality: Characteristics of the Organizations with Low, Medium and High COQ, A presentation by Dr. Rajesh Bheda at 16th World Conference on Total Quality

68%27%

2% 4%

Internal failure cost

Appraisal cost

Prevention cost

External failure cost

Methodology followed

1. Review of the existing quality system in the company2. Identification of defects in the various departments by collecting data from

old records3. Analysis of data collected in order to identify majorly occurring defects4. Categorization of defects5. Development of a model Quality Inspection System6. Implementation of check sheets to capture defects in different departments7. Training on concepts of quality, importance of maintaining correct data,

usage of the collected data to analyze and solve quality issues through the tools of quality

8. Introduction of Inline Inspection on Sewing floor through a pilot run in one line

9. Training on the Sewing floor to QC’s, supervisors and checkers on filling in the format and on making Cause & Effect Diagrams

10.Analysis of defects occurring in the check sheets implemented in various departments and devising suggestions to improve upon them

11.Spreading of Inline inspection to other lines12.Tracking of improvements and comparing them with previous situation in

different departments 13.Visual communication of performance

OK

Review of existing Quality System

OK

Not OK

OK

Not OK

Not OK

OK

End-line checking

Thread cutting

Washing/ D.C.

Finishing Initial Inspection

Spotting

Touching

Mending

Not OK

OK

Not OK

Not OK

Stitching

OK

OK

Not OK

Not OK

Fabric store

Fabric checking

Laying & maker making

Cutting

Visual inspection

Bundling

Ticketing

Cut component check

Cutting Audit

Pressing

Alter

Re-pressing

Measurement check

Buyer’s AQL inspection

Not OK

OKPacking

Final checkingAlter

Alter

Shipping

Identification of Defects

The reports of quality inspections in various departments were studied for the period of July - December 2007.

Cutting Department

76%

21%3%

Percentage of lots

PASSFAILHOLD

Sewing Department

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

5.06

3.363.12

2.70 2.63

2.00

1.571.30 1.19 1.13 1.11 1.02 0.94

0.680.49 0.36 0.34 0.23 0.19 0.10 0.09

OPEN SEAMS JOINT OUT UNEVEN MARGIN

BALANCING OUT UNEVEN NECK/PLACKET/W.BAND PUCKERING

EXPOSED RAW STITCH ROPING FULLNESS

WRONG LABEL ATTACH/LABEL MISSING UNEVEN GATHER FABRIC DEFECTS

BROKEN STITCH LOOSE TENSION SHADE VARIATION

WRONG PANEL ATTACH ZIPPER PLACEMENT HOOK /LACE/ BUTTON PLACEMENT

DROP STITCH EMBROIDERY DEFECTS SKIP STITCH

Defect categories wise D.H.U.

Categorisation of Defects

Sewing DefectsThese defects are usually caused by errors arising from dysfunctioning of sewing machines.

Seaming DefectsThese defects are usually caused by errors arising from the interaction of the operator and machine in the handling of garment.

Placement DefectsThese defects are usually caused by errors arising in marking and cutting as well as sewing operations in the sewing room or a combination of these

Sewing Department

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

20.73

14.00

3.37

1.020.10

Defect categories wise D.H.U.

SEAMING DEFECTSSEWING DEFECTSPLACEMENT DEFECTSFABRIC DEFECTSEMBROIDERY DEFECTS

Defect Categories

D.H

.U.

Total pieces inspected- 30030

Defects encountered-11778

D.H.U.- 39.22

Where,

Sewing defects- 4204

Seaming defects- 6224

Placement defects-1012

Fabric defects-307

Embroidery defects-31

Stages of Development

Identification of various options at the check points to

capture defects

Identification of various options at the check points to

capture defects

Inline inspection

Defect Frequency based Rating System

Inline p chart

End line inspection

Check

sheets

Graphical Display of End line defects

Histogram

Pareto chart

Root Caus

e Analysis

5 Whys

Drill down

Cause & Effect Analysis

Stage 1

Selection of various tools to be used in the model

Inline Defect freque

ncy based Rating System

Check sheets

Pareto Charts

Cause and

Effect Diagra

ms

Stage 2

Reasons for selecting the tools

Defect Frequency based Rating System over Inline p- chart

• Easy to decipher• No calculations required• Applicable to short order

quantities• Instantaneous analysis and

action possible

Check sheets for capturing of end line defects

• Detailed data recording• Indicative of the

performance

Pareto charts over Histograms

• Majorly occurring defects can be easily identified

• Graphical display of defects

Cause & Effect Diagrams over 5 Whys and Drill down

• It provides a structured way to help you think through all possible causes of a problem.

• This helps to carry out a thorough analysis of a situation

Development of Model

Inline Inspection

through Defect

Frequency Rating System

Defect capturing at the End Line

through check sheets

Pareto Analysis of

defects

Cause & Effect

Analysis of highest

occurring Defects

Formats introduced in

various depts.•Cutting Audit Format•Cutting Pattern Check Format•Sewing In-line Inspection Format•Sewing End-line Inspection Format•Sewing End-line Pareto Chart Format•Sewing Cause & Effect Analysis Format• Finishing Initial Inspection Format

Inline control system

Sample size Defective pieces State

7 greater than or

equal to 4

Alert

7 3 Q1

7 2 Q2

7 1 Q3

Style Tracking Ticket

After op. 1 1 2 3 4

After op. 2 1 2 3 4

After op. 3 1 2 3 4

After op. 4 1 2 3 4

Styles studied –Style 1

FRONT BACK

Sewing DataDATE Thre

ad Tension

Slip stitch

Broken stitch

Roping

Puckering

Pinching

Uneven Top Stitch

Uneven Raw Margin

Exposed Raw stitch

Label Attachment

Measurement out

Others

Total Checked Pieces

Total Defective Pieces

Total defects

D.H.U.

Percentage Defective

1-Mar

4 56 56 56 60 107 100

3-Mar

6 10 4 8 42 22 28 67 52

4-Mar

13 9 11 77 22 33 43 29

5-Mar

2 2 4 42 5 8 19 12

6-Mar

2 9 8 78 12 19 24 15

7-Mar

1 6 9 6 67 16 22 33 24

8-Mar

10 7 8 75 17 25 33 23

10-Mar

1 1 5 4 3 70 10 14 20 14

11-Mar

4 3 1 3 2 3 15 139 23 31 22 17

12-Mar

9 4 2 3 5 97 17 23 24 18

13-Mar

2 3 4 5 55 11 14 25 20

14-Mar

5 2 1 3 3 4 116 12 18 16 10

15-Mar

2 1 2 5 1 2 3 7 203 18 23 11 9

17-Mar

5 1 3 3 9 151 14 21 14 9

18-Mar

11 1 11 139 17 23 17 12

19-Mar

20 2 3 12 207 29 37 18 14

20-Mar

4 2 12 135 14 18 13 10

21-Mar

4 2 1 3 87 8 10 11 9

24-Mar

2 3 3 2 70 8 10 14 11

25-Mar

3 2 2 2 1 94 8 10 11 9

TOTAL

1 35 2 72 14 27 30 5 2 55 70 134 2000

339 447 22 17

Cause & Effect diagram for major occurring

defects

and their implemented solutions

Measurement out of tolerance

MEASUREMENT OUT OF

TOLERANCE

MACHINEMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

How to measure is

not clear

Incompatible thread used

Puckering due to machine

Improper sweep shape after panel attachment

Wrong size label attached

Allowance not followed

Notches not proper

Puckering (handling)

Wrong type of fusing used

COMMUNICATION

Wrong pattern

Carelessness of operator

Solutions Provided

Cause Solution

Notches improper at pleats Cutting Department was informed about the cause and the reason identified was misalignment of plies during cutting. This being a major defect causing activity was asked to be checked 100% in the audit before sending the bundles to sewing. A template was provided against which the pieces were checked and in case of any deviation, white pencil was used to mark pleat positions. The template introduced is as given below.

Improper sweep shape after panel attachment

Bottom trimming was done to make the sweep uniform.

Puckering at waistband

PUCKERING AT WAISTBAND

MACHINEMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

Different composition of bobbin and needle thread

High S.P.I. causing structural jamming

Wrong presser foot which holds the top ply whereas bottom ply is fed at a faster pace

High pressure from presser foot

Tension too tight

Carelessness

Unskilled operator

Top ply is pushed and bottom ply is held back

Plies in the seam not being aligned properly

Improper pre-setting of waistband through thumb pressing

Solutions Provided

Causes Solution

Improper pre- setting of waistband after thumb pressing

Pressing was done by steam iron with a spray of starch over it. This made the handling of the waistband easier while stitching and thus reduced puckering at the waistband.

Roping

ROPING

MACHINEMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

Garment component cut in bias

Unskilled operator

Improper handling

Folder not set in the machine

Solutions Provided

Causes Solution

Improper folder setting on machine

The folder guide was adjusted by shifting it 1/16th inch inside.

Waistband extension uneven

WAISTBAND EXTENSION

UNEVEN

MACHINEMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

Zipper not attached properly which led to mismatch in left and right front of the garment.

Margin not followed while attaching

waistband

Waistband edge not finished properly

Unskilled operatorWaistband edge point shape not proper

Solutions Provided

Causes Solution

Margin not followed while attaching waistband and waistband edge not finished properly

The operator was instructed to be careful while feeding and following the margins strictly.

Trend chart showing reduction in defect

levels as a result

1-Mar 2-Mar 3-Mar 4-Mar0

20

40

60

D.H.U. levels in Measurement Out

6-M

ar

7-M

ar

8-M

ar

9-M

ar

10-M

ar

11-M

ar

12-M

ar

13-M

ar

14-M

ar

15-M

ar

16-M

ar

17-M

ar

18-M

ar

19-M

ar0

5

10

15D.H.U. levels in Roping


levels as a result

1-M

ar

3-M

ar

5-M

ar

7-M

ar

9-M

ar

11-M

ar

13-M

ar

15-M

ar

17-M

ar

19-M

ar

21-M

ar

23-M

ar

25-M

ar0

5

10

15

D.H.U. levels in Label Attachment

3-M

ar

4-M

ar

5-M

ar

6-M

ar

7-M

ar

8-M

ar

9-M

ar

10-M

ar

11-M

ar

12-M

ar0

102030

D.H.U. levels in Uneven Top Stitch

1-M

ar

2-M

ar

3-M

ar

4-M

ar

5-M

ar

6-M

ar

7-M

ar

8-M

ar

9-M

ar

10-M

ar

11-M

ar

12-M

ar

13-M

ar

14-M

ar

15-M

ar

16-M

ar

17-M

ar

18-M

ar

19-M

ar

20-M

ar

21-M

ar

22-M

ar

23-M

ar

24-M

ar

25-M

ar0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Overall D.H.U. and percent defective trend of style 1

D.H.U. Percentage defective

Performance of Style 1 on the Sewing floor

Style 2 Ellen

FRONT

BACK

Cause & Effect diagram for major occurring

defects

and their implemented solutions

Improper fly shape

IMPROPER FLY SHAPE

INSTRUCTIONMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

Slippery fabric

Unskilled operator

Top stitch is being inhibited by zipper lock underneath

Template not given

Solutions Provided

Causes Solution

Top stitch is being inhibited by zipper lock underneath

A template was provided to the operator and the stitch was shifted a little below, altering the fly shape within tolerance level

Fusing shining marks

FUSING SHINING MARKS

MACHINEMAN

MATERIALMETHOD

Poor quality fusing

Wrong fusing issued by Accessories Deptt.

Inappropriate pressure setting

Fusing machine wheel shining marks

Inappropriate temperature setting

Solutions Provided

Causes Solution

Poor quality fusing used Fusing was changed.


levels as a result

3-M

ar

4-M

ar

5-M

ar

6-M

ar

7-M

ar

8-M

ar

9-M

ar

10-M

ar

11-M

ar

12-M

ar

13-M

ar

14-M

ar

15-M

ar

16-M

ar

17-M

ar

18-M

ar

19-M

ar0

10

20

D.H.U. levels in Puckering

3-Mar 4-Mar 5-Mar 6-Mar0

10

20

30

40

D.H.U. levels in Uneven fly shape

Performance of Style 2 on the Sewing floor

3-M

ar

4-M

ar

5-M

ar

6-M

ar

7-M

ar

8-M

ar

9-M

ar

10-M

ar

11-M

ar

12-M

ar

13-M

ar

14-M

ar

15-M

ar

16-M

ar

17-M

ar

18-M

ar

19-M

ar0

102030405060708090

100

D.H.U. Percentage Defective

Defects analysis in Finishing dept.

0

50

100

150

200

250 239

206

132

106

4 3 3

SOIL/ DUST/ RUST OIL SPOT STICKER MARKS INK/CHALK MARK

SWEAT MARKS TOBACCO MARK VEGETABLE MARKS

Analysis of stains

Suggestions implemented to

reduce no. of stains

Oil spots• Application of a scrap paper under the

presser feet of sewing machines after the day’s work so that the machines which are leaking oil can be tracked• Proper oiling level to be maintained in order

to prevent leakage of extra oil• Operator to take responsibility of cleaning

the machine after lubrication• Immediate reporting of oil leakage



Ink/ chalk marks• Usage of good quality markers, the marks

of which are easily washable• Avoid using pencils for marking• Usage of chalks on white and light colored

fabrics



Soil and dust• Usage of plastic bags for storing and

transportation of pieces• Cleaning of checking tables and machines

before the start of day’s work• Avoid keeping garments on the floor, using

trolleys for storage• Creating a polyethene sheet partition between

sewing and finishing departments so that fabric dust doesn’t come over to the finishing unit and settle down on the washed fabric


reduce no. of uncut & loose thread

• Thread cutting operation to be carried out after washing in order to counteract unraveling of threads after washing• Use of thread sucking machine to prevent

any loose threads to reach the checkpoint

Week wise summary of occurrence of

defects in Finishing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

Uncut Thread

D.H

.U.

WEEKS

D.H

.U.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00 Hard Stains

WEEKS

D.H

.U.

Week wise summary of occurrence of

defects in Finishing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00Insecure Stitch

WEEKS

D.H

.U.

WEEKS

D.H

.U.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00 Stitching

WEEKS

D.H

.U.

Visual communication of performance

Cutting Display chart

Cause & Effect Diagram in Cutting


Sewing trend chart

Line wise performance display chart


Cause & Effect Diagram in Sewing

Visual display of styles on the shop floor

Department wise results

Sewing, Finishing and Cutting department

Sewing Department

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

D.H.U. Percentage defective

Finishing DepartmentF

abri

c F

ault

Shade

Vari

ati

on

Sti

tchin

g

Uncu

t/ L

oose

thre

ad

Inse

cure

sti

tch

Hard

Sta

ins

Em

bro

ider

y/B

eads/

Pri

nti

ng

Wro

ng/M

issi

ng L

abel

Cut

& H

ole

Men

din

g

Touch

ing

Oth

ers

02468

101214161820

February March April 1- 15

Cutting Department01/0

2/0

804/0

2/0

807/0

2/0

810/0

2/0

813/0

2/0

816/0

2/0

819/0

2/0

822/0

2/0

825/0

2/0

828/0

2/0

802/0

3/0

805/0

3/0

808/0

3/0

811/0

3/0

814/0

3/0

817/0

3/0

820/0

3/0

823/0

3/0

826/0

3/0

829/0

3/0

801/0

4/0

804/0

4/0

807/0

4/0

810/0

4/0

813/0

4/0

8

05

1015202530354045

Reduction in Labor cost in Sewing

Dept.

December January February March April0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Trend chart showing Monthly Rework Cost

(Labor cost) in Sewing

Monthly Rework Cost

Quality Management Information System

developed

SEWING DEPARTMENT

CUTTING DEPARTMENT

Conclusion

•Cutting lot failure rate reduced to zero percent generally.• Sewing D.H.U. reduced to approximately 14% and

percent defective to approximately 10% in the mid April from approximately 40% before commencing the project.• In finishing, stitching D.H.U. came down to

approximately 8% from 16% as earlier, hard stains D.H.U. reduced to approximately 8% from 16% as against earlier scenario and uncut thread D.H.U. came down to approximately 10% from 22% as earlier.

THANK YOU

rework minimization

Documents