LEAN SIX SIGMA

PROJECT
INCREASING MANUFACTURING
 PROBLEM STATEMENT
PROBLEM DIRECT IMPACT
The clients of Mohak Industries have
As per contractual obligation, Mohak has
raised their demand & unfortunately
been paying a penalty of INR 10 Lakhs
Mohak Industries has not been able
per month for not meeting the agreed
to meet the new increased demand
service level agreement criteria.
of 175 kg per day production.

REASON TARGET FOR OUTCOME

Fabrication production market has
Increasing production from 138kg per day
MOHAK grown rapidly due to demand and
more competitors with them.
of production to 175 kg per day of
production
INDUSTRY Production per day
PIONEER IN FABRICATION WORKS 180
INDIRECT IMPACT
Mohak Industries might loose 155 Regular Target

kg
premium clients and the
competitors of Mohak have 130
upscaled their production and are 1 2 3 4 5
meeting the target. week
 SIX SIGMA
A set of quality tools used to improve business processes by reducing defects and
errors and increasing efficiency

Assess the extent of the Improve the changes into

issue and quantify it with place that eliminate the
data root cause

MEASURE IMPROVE

DEFINE ANALYSIS CONTROL

Define the problem or Implementing the actual
Analyze the data to find
opportunity and establish changes and control the
the root cause of the
a clear project scope improved process
problem
 Voice Of Customer

Critical To Quality

Project Charter
AGENDA
OF DEFINE Communication Plan
PHASE RACI chart

SIPOC
 VOICE OF CUSTOMER

VOICE OF VOICE OF VOICE OF

CUSTOMER CEO FINANCIAL
MANAGER

CRITICAL TO QUALITY

Increasing production and satisfy the customer

 PROJECT CHARTER
PROJECT CHARTER
PROJECT TITLE Increasing manufacturing in Mohak Industry PROJECT START DATE 15-01-2024
PROJECT LEADER MOHAN KUMAR S (Black Belt) PROJECT END DATE 15-03-2024

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Mohak Industries has been pioneer in fabrication works. Off lately, the clients of Mohak Industries have raised their demand & unfortunately Mohak Industries has not been able to
meet the new increased demand of 175 kg per day production. Despite of several process improvement initiatives the situation hasn't improved. A six sigma project is required to revive
the condition as if this continues then Mohak Industries might loose premium clients and the competitors of Mohak have upscaled their production and are meeting the target. As per
contractual obligation, Mohak has been paying a penalty of INR 10 Lakhs per month for not meeting the agreed service level agreement criteria.

GOAL STATEMENT PROJECT SCOPE

In Scope : Fabrication unit
To improve production to 175 kg/day and to satisfy the customer demand on 15.03.2024
Out of Scope : Machining & Casting unit

RESOURCE REQUIRED FINANCIAL BENEFITS

Man power, Time, Money - 4 lakhs Penalty amount, Production, Customer satisfaction - 70 lakhs/yr

TEAM MILESTONES SCHEDULE

MILESTONES TIMELINE
TEAM SPONSOR : Mr. KOTESWARAN G
TEAM CHAMPION : Mr. SHASHI PRAKASH
Define : 29-01-2024
TEAM LEADER : Mr. MOHAN KUMAR S (Black Belt)
Measure : 11-02-2024
TEAM MEMBER-1 : Ms. SNEHAYAAZHINI S (Green Belt)
Analysis : 25-02-2024
TEAM MEMBER-2 : Mr. VIGNESH R (Green Belt)
Improve & Control : 13-03-2024
TEAM MEMBER-3 : Mr. PANDIYARAJAN G (Yellow Belt)
Completion work : 15-03-2024
COMMUNICATION PLAN
 RASIC CHART
RASIC Chart Project Team

(Champion - Master Black Belt)

(Team Member 3-Yellow Belt)

Responsible

(Team Member 1-Green Belt)

(Team Member 2-Green Belt)

The person who is assigned to do the work

Manufacturing Head
(Leader - Black Belt)
The person who makes the final decision and has the

Mr. Shashi Prakash

Ms. Snehayaazhini
Mr. Mohan Kumar
Approve

Mr. Pandiyarajan
Mr. Kotteswaran
ultimate ownership

HR Manager
Mr. Vignesh
(Sponsor)
The person who provides necessary help and
Support support to the owner
The person who must be informed that a decision or
Informed action has been taken
The person who must be consulted before a final
Consulted decision is taken
Activities
Define
VOC/ CTQ chart A R S S
Project Charter A S R C I
SIPOC R S
Communication Plan I S S R I I
Tollgate review A A R
Measure
Data collection plan A S R
MSA R I
Collect data A S R C I
Analyze
Identification of potential C S R I
Hypothesis test C R S
Tollgate review A R
Improve
Generate solution A R S
Prioritize the solution A R S
Test solution R S
Before and after analysis A S R I
Control Phase
Control chart R S
Cost benefit analysis A C R S I I
Tollgate review A R S
 SIPOC / COPIS

SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Anand Enterprises Manpower Procuring raw Product Drishti Artworks

materials
Lal Chand Works Machines Customer Tata Sons &
Incoming inspection Satisfaction Fabricators
JJ Packers Equipements
Injection Moulding Financial Profit Vishal Fabrications
Land
Final inspection Company growth
Transportation
Packing

Dispatch
 Cause & Effect diagram

Data collection plan

Measurement System
AGENDA OF Analysis (MSA)

MEASURE Normality Test

PHASE Randomness Test

Sigma Level Calculation

 CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM
MOTHER NATURE MACHINE MAN

Operator
Machine type
Supervisor
Total change
over time Client
Vendor

PRODUCTION
RATE
Types of part Heating time
manufactured Cooling time
QC testing
delay Rework Down time
count
Moulding
Types of pressure
material used Shift

MEASUREMENT MATERIAL METHOD

 DATA COLLECTION PLAN
Measurement No. of No. of
Sl.No. Data Name Definition of name Category of data
type (X/Y) Samples Groups
1 Production Production per day in kg Y Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA

Operator who handle shifts

2 Operator X Discrete - Nominal - Qualitative 70 4
in group

3 Shift Type of shifts in group X Discrete - Binary - Qualitative 70 2

Type of Injection machine in

4 Machine Type X Discrete - Binary - Qualitative 70 2
group
Various model of part
5 Part Manufactured Type X Discrete - Nominal - Qualitative 70 5
manufactured in group

6 Heating Time Heating process time in min X Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA

7 Injection Moulding Pressure Pressure of moulding in bar X Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA

8 Cooling Time Cooling process time in min X Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA

Overall time taken for

9 Total Changeover Time X Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA
changeover in min

10 Total Down Time Process of down time in min X Continous - Variable - Quantitative 70 NA

No. of parts reworked in

11 Rework Counts X Discrete - Quantitative 70 NA
count

12 Client Customer in group X Discrete - Nominal - Qualitative 70 3

Supervisor handles shift in

13 Supervisor X Discrete - Binary - Qualitative 70 2
group
Type of material used in
14 Material used X Discrete - Nominal - Qualitative 70 4
group
Vendors for buying raw
15 Vendor for raw materials X Discrete - Nominal - Qualitative 70 3
materials in group
Whether QC tested the
16 QC Testing Delay X Discrete - Binary - Qualitative 70 2
samples (Y/N)
 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

MSA :
The data is collected directly from a reliable source ( Online server/CRM) ,
and no people were involved.
Therefore, we need not to conduct Measurement System Analysis (MSA)
NORMALITY TEST

CONCLUSION OF TEST :

P-Value for the production

kg / day is 0.293.

Hence P-Value is > 0.05, Y

data of Production kg / day is
“NORMAL”
RANDOMNESS TEST

CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Randomness test is calculated

by run chart.

P-Value for clustering is 0.886

P-Value for Mixtures is 0.114
P-Value for Oscillation is 0.316

Hence all P-Values are < 0.05,

Y data is random and stable.
SUMMARY REPORT FOR CTQ

CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Summary report is calculated

with the confidence level of
95% and found that mean of
production is 138.39 kg/day
SIGMA LEVEL CALCULATION

CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Process Capability report

calculated for Y data to identify
sigma level calculation

Sigma Level
Calculation = (Cpk x 3) + 1.5
= (-1.48 x 3) + 1.5
= -4.44 + 1.5
= -2.94
 Identification of
potential Xs data

Analyzing Hypothesis
Test
AGENDA OF
ANALYZE Summary of

PHASE P-Value

Result of Hypothesis
Test
 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL Xs
Hypothesis Graphical
Sl.No. Potential Xs Definition of name No. of Groups Category of data Test Name
Test Tool
Operator who handle shifts Discrete - Nominal -
1 Operator 4 Bartlett Test ANOVA Interval Plot
in group Qualitative
Discrete - Binary -
2 Shift Type of shifts in group 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot
Qualitative
Type of Injection machine in Discrete - Binary -
3 Machine Type 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot
group Qualitative
Part Manufactured Various model of part Discrete - Nominal -
4 5 Bartlett Test ANOVA Interval Plot
Type manufactured in group Qualitative
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
5 Heating Time Heating process time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot
Quantitative tabulation
Injection
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
6 Moulding Pressure of moulding in bar NA Correlation Scatter Plot
Quantitative tabulation
Pressure
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
7 Cooling Time Cooling process time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot
Quantitative tabulation
Total Changeover Overall time taken for Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
8 NA Correlation Scatter Plot
Time changeover in min Quantitative tabulation
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
9 Total Down Time Process of down time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot
Quantitative tabulation
No. of parts reworked in Chi square Cross
10 Rework Counts NA Discrete - Quantitative Correlation Scatter Plot
count tabulation
Discrete - Nominal -
11 Client Customer in group 3 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot
Qualitative
Supervisor handles shift in Discrete - Binary -
12 Supervisor 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot
group Qualitative
Type of material used in Discrete - Nominal -
13 Material used 4 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot
group Qualitative
Vendor for raw Vendors for buying raw Discrete - Nominal -
14 3 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot
materials materials in group Qualitative
Whether QC tested the Discrete - Binary -
15 QC Testing Delay 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot
samples (Y/N) Qualitative
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
Null hypothesis - All variances are equal
Alternative hypothesis - At least one variance is
different
Significance level α = 0.05

Tests :
Multiple Comparisons
P-Value - 0.930
Levene’s Test
P-Value - 0.978

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals

for Standard Deviations :
Operator N StDev CI
Ahmed 17 6.87057 4.68044, 11.8225)
Ganesh 17 6.72145 (4.89623, 10.8162)
Pankaj 18 6.53154 (4.19954, 11.7952)
Vineet 18 7.46387 (5.42716, 11.9188)
Individual confidence level = 98.75%
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
μ₁: population mean of Production & Shift = Morning
µ₂: population mean of Production when Shift = Night
Difference: μ₁ - µ₂
Equal variances are not assumed for this analysis.

Descriptive Statistics: Production

Shift N Mean StDev SE Mean

Morning 35 140.41 6.81 1.2
Night 35 136.38 7.06 1.2

Test :
Null hypothesis H₀: μ₁ - µ₂ = 0
Alternative hypothesis H₁: μ₁ - µ₂ ≠ 0

T-Value DF P-Value
2.44 67 0.018
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
μ₁: population mean of Production (kg) when Machine
Type = HexAlpha German
µ₂: population mean of Production (kg) when Machine
Type = Trident Japan
Difference: μ₁ - µ₂
Equal variances are not assumed for this analysis.

Descriptive Statistics: Production

Machine Type N Mean StDev SE Mean

HexAlpha_German 35 140.55 6.64 1.1
Trident_Japan 35 136.24 7.14 1.2

Test :
Null hypothesis H₀: μ₁ - µ₂ = 0
Alternative hypothesis H₁: μ₁ - µ₂ ≠ 0
T-Value DF P-Value
2.62 67 0.011
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
Null hypothesis - All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis - Not all means are equal
Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Analysis of Variance :
Source DF Adj SS F-Value P-Value
Part Type 4 65.32 0.30 0.874
Error 65 3491.60
Total 69 3556.92

Means :
Part
Type N Mean StDev 95% CI
SKU0045 14 139.45 8.05 (135.54, 143.37)
SKU0048 14 139.48 5.17 (135.57, 143.39)
SKU0082 7 136.50 7.36 (130.97, 142.03)
SKU0099 21 137.89 8.42 (134.70, 141.08)
SKU0135 14 137.95 6.55 (134.04, 141.86)
Pooled StDev = 7.32919
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :

Production (kg)
Heating Time 0.862

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value

70 0.862 (0.786, 0.912) 0.000
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :
Production (kg)
Injection Moulding Pressure -0.848

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value

70 -0.848 (-0.903, -0.766) 0.000
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :

Production(kg)
Cooling Time 0.063

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value
70 0.063 (-0.175, 0.293) 0.605
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :
Production (kg)
Change Over Time 0.196

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value
70 0.196 (-0.041, 0.412) 0.104
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :
Production (kg)
Total Downtime 0.159

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value
70 0.159 (-0.079, 0.380) 0.188
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Correlations :
Production (kg)
Rework Counts -0.068

Pairwise Pearson Correlations :

N Correlation 95% CI for ρ P-Value
70 -0.068 (-0.299, 0.169) 0.574
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Method :
Null hypothesis - All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis - Not all means are equal
Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Analysis of Variance :
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Client 2 20.62 10.31 0.20 0.823
Error 67 3536.30 52.78
Total 69 3556.92

Means :
Client N Mean StDev 95% CI
Drishti Artworks 23 138.90 6.67 (135.87, 141.92)
Tata Sons 24 138.64 8.04 (135.68, 141.60)
Vishal Fabric 23 137.63 6.97 (134.61, 140.66)
Pooled StDev = 7.26502
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :

Method :
μ₁: population mean of Production (kg) when
Supervisor = Ajit Kumar
µ₂: population mean of Production (kg) when
Supervisor = Vikram Singh
Difference: μ₁ - µ₂
Equal variances are not assumed for this analysis.

Descriptive Statistics: Production (kg)

Supervisor N Mean StDev SE Mean
Ajit Kumar 35 137.02 7.13 1.2
Vikram Singh 35 139.77 7.06 1.2

Test :
Null hypothesis H₀: μ₁ - µ₂ = 0
Alternative hypothesis H₁: μ₁ - µ₂ ≠ 0
T-Value DF P-Value
-1.62 67 0.110
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
Null hypothesis All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis Not all means are equal
Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Analysis of Variance :
Source DF Adj SS F-Value P-Value
Material Used 3 459.5 3.26 0.027
Error 66 3097.4
Total 69 3556.9

Means :
Material N Mean StDev 95% CI
Trans I - 002 18 142.55 5.32 (139.33, 145.78)
Trans I - 010 18 136.81 7.08 (133.58, 140.03)
VMX0820 17 138.12 6.80 (134.80, 141.43)
XMAT66 17 135.95 8.00 (132.63, 139.27)
Pooled StDev = 6.85060
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
Null hypothesis All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis Not all means are equal
Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Analysis of Variance :
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Vendor 2 57.91 28.95 0.55 0.577
Error 67 3499.01 52.22
Total 69 3556.92

Means :
Vendor N Mean StDev 95% CI
Anand Enterprise 23 137.36 7.71 (134.35, 140.37)
JJ Packers 24 139.56 7.67 (136.62, 142.50)
Lal Chand Works 23 138.21 6.17 (135.20, 141.22)
Pooled StDev = 7.226620
ANALYZING HYPOTHESIS TEST
CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Method :
μ₁: population mean of Production (kg) when QC
Testing Delay = No
µ₂: population mean of Production (kg) when QC
Testing Delay = Yes
Difference: μ₁ - µ₂
Equal variances are not assumed for this analysis.

Descriptive Statistics: Production (kg)

QC Testing N Mean StDev SE Mean
No 50 138.19 6.89 0.97
Yes 20 138.91 8.03 1.8

Test :
Null hypothesis H₀: μ₁ - µ₂ = 0
Alternative hypothesis H₁: μ₁ - µ₂ ≠ 0
T-Value DF P-Value
-0.35 30 0.725
 SUMMARY OF P-VALUE
No. of Hypothesis Graphical
Sl.No. Potential Xs Definition of name Category of data Test Name P-Value Result
Groups Test Tool
Operator who handle shifts in Discrete - Nominal -
1 Operator 4 Bartlett Test ANOVA Interval Plot 0.978 Insignificant
group Qualitative
Discrete - Binary -
2 Shift Type of shifts in group 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.018 Significant
Qualitative
Type of Injection machine in Discrete - Binary -
3 Machine Type 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.011 Significant
group Qualitative
Various model of part Discrete - Nominal -
4 Part Manufactured Type 5 Bartlett Test ANOVA Interval Plot 0.874 Insignificant
manufactured in group Qualitative
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
5 Heating Time Heating process time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot 0.000 Significant
Quantitative tabulation
Injection Moulding Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
6 Pressure of moulding in bar NA Correlation Scatter Plot 0.000 Significant
Pressure Quantitative tabulation
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
7 Cooling Time Cooling process time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot 0.605 Insignificant
Quantitative tabulation
Overall time taken for Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
8 Total Changeover Time NA Correlation Scatter Plot 0.104 Insignificant
changeover in min Quantitative tabulation
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
9 Total Down Time Process of down time in min NA Correlation Scatter Plot 0.188 Insignificant
Quantitative tabulation
No. of parts reworked in Chi square Cross
10 Rework Counts NA Discrete - Quantitative Correlation Scatter Plot 0.574 Insignificant
count tabulation
Discrete - Nominal -
11 Client Customer in group 3 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot 0.823 Insignificant
Qualitative
Supervisor handles shift in Discrete - Binary -
12 Supervisor 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.110 Insignificant
group Qualitative
Type of material used in Discrete - Nominal -
13 Material used 4 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot 0.027 Significant
group Qualitative
Vendors for buying raw Discrete - Nominal -
14 Vendor for raw materials 3 Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot 0.577 Insignificant
materials in group Qualitative
Whether QC tested the Discrete - Binary -
15 QC Testing Delay 2 F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.725 Insignificant
samples (Y/N) Qualitative
 RESULT OF HYPOTHESIS TEST

Hypothesis Graphical
Sl.No. Potential Xs Category of data Test Name P-Value Result
Test Tool
Discrete - Binary -
2 Shift F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.018 Significant
Qualitative
Discrete - Binary -
3 Machine Type F Test 2 Sample T Box Plot 0.011 Significant
Qualitative
Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
5 Heating Time Correlation Scatter Plot 0.000 Significant
Quantitative tabulation
Injection Moulding Continous - Variable - Chi square Cross
6 Correlation Scatter Plot 0.000 Significant
Pressure Quantitative tabulation
Discrete - Nominal -
13 Material used Bartlett Test ANOVA Box Plot 0.027 Significant
Qualitative
 Statistical Test
Interpretation

Risk Priority

Potential Solutions
AGENDA OF
IMPROVE Weekly Improvement
PHASE Before & After
comparison

Sigma Level Comparison

 STATISTICAL TEST INTERPRETATION

SHIFT : MACHINE TYPE :

Morning shift mean is higher compared to HexAlpha German machine mean is higher
Night shift compared to Trident Japan
 STATISTICAL TEST INTERPRETATION

HEATING TIME : MOULDING PRESSURE :

Production increases when Heating time Production decreases when Injection
increases resembles positive correlation Moulding pressure increases resembles
negative correlation
STATISTICAL TEST INTERPRETATION

MATERIAL USED :
Trans I – 002 material has highest mean and XMAT66 material
has lowest mean when compared to other materials
 RISK PRIORITY

RISK PRIORITY
Risk Priority
Severity Occurance Detection
Sl.No. Risk Area Cause Number (RPN)
(S) (O) (D)
SxOxD
Production average is low in
1 Shift 8 7 7 392
night shift
Production average is low in
2 Machine Type 9 6 7 378
Trident Japan machine
Production is low when
3 Heating Time 7 8 5 280
heating time is low
Production is low when
4 Moulding Pressure 6 8 8 384
Moulding Pressure is high
XMAT66 material has lowest
5 Material Type 7 6 7 294
average of production
 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

PROBLEM:
2. Production average is low in Night Shift

1 WHY? No proper register maintained in night shift

2 WHY? Multi-tasking done by operator in night shift

3 WHY? Lack of skilled operator availability in night shift

4 WHY? Lack of operators in night shift

 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

PROBLEM:
3. Production average is low in Trident Japan machine

1 WHY? Trident Japan machine has no proper POKA YOKE

2 WHY? No separate fixture done for Trident Japan machine

3 WHY? Machine has inbuilt different loading position

4 WHY? Initial design

 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

PROBLEM:
5. Production is low when heating time is low

1 WHY? Fluctuation in heating time

2 WHY? Lack of temperature controller

3 WHY? Initial practice

 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

PROBLEM:
6. Production is low when Injection Moulding Pressure is high

1 WHY? Fluctuation in moulding pressure

2 WHY? Pressure controller with indicator not provided

3 WHY? Initial practice

 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

PROBLEM:
13. XMAT66 material has lowest average of production

1 WHY? XMAT66 material requires high moulding pressure

2 WHY? Different composition of material used

3 WHY? Initial practice

 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Hire both operators & supervisors

Separate fixture and POKA YOKE
1 and give promotion & incentives 4
to be introduced for Trident Japan
for night shift handlers

Machine capability to be test Arrange competition between

2 for both shifts and report to the operators to increase the 5
top management monthly knowledge on production

Composition to be change for Pressure and Temperature

3 XMAT66 material type controlling setup to be introduced 6
 WEEKLY IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVED WEEK 1 :
 WEEKLY IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVED WEEK 2 :
 WEEKLY IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVED WEEK 3 :
 WEEKLY IMPROVEMENT
COMPARISON OF ALL 3 WEEKS :

CONCLUSION OF TEST :
Average of production kg/day is
increased from 138.4kg to
178.8kg in week 3 as shown.

Cpk value for the improved

week is 0.25
 BEFORE AND AFTER ANALYSIS

OLD DATA ‘Y’ IMPROVED DATA ‘Y’

CONCLUSION OF TEST :
The graph shows the difference between the Probability plot of Old data and Improved data by Anderson Darling Test
 BEFORE AND AFTER ANALYSIS

BOX PLOT INDIVIDUAL VALUE PLOT

CONCLUSION OF TEST :
The P-Value of Old Y and Improved Y is 0.000.
Since the P-Value is lesser than 0.05, it shows significant difference between them
 SIGMA LEVEL COMPARISON

3
SIGMA LEVEL COMPARISON SIGMA LEVEL COMPARISON
2.19
1.5 After After Improved
DETAIL Old Y
Week1 Week 2 Y
0 -0.3 -0.33
Old Y After Week1 After Week 2 Improved Y Cpk -1.48 -0.60 -0.61 0.23
-1.5
Cpk*3 -4.44 -1.8 -1.83 0.69
-3 -2.94
Sigma Level
-2.94 -0.3 -0.33 2.19
{(Cpk*3)+1.5}
-4.5

CONCLUSION OF TEST :
The graph shows that Sigma Level is drastically improved from -2.94 to 2.19
 Control Plan

Weekly Control Chart

Control Chart
AGENDA OF Comparison

CONTROL SWOT Analysis

PHASE Project Benefits

Cost Benefit Analysis

 CONTROL PLAN

Sl.No. ACTIONS CONTROL METHOD RESPONSIBILTY FREQUENCY

Separate fixture and POKA YOKE to be introduced for
1 Tool Maintanance Maintanace Head 3 months once
Trident Japan and tool maintanance to be done
Machine capability to be test for both shifts and report to
2 Original Equipement Efficiency Production Head Daily
top management monthly
Composition to be change for XMAT66 material type and
3 SOP Quality Head Weekly
prepare SOP for incoming inspection of changed material
Hire both operators & supervisors and give promotion &
4 Recruitment HR Head Monthly
incentives for night shift handlers
Arrange competition between the operators to increase the
5 Competetion HR Head Monthly
knowledge on production
Pressure and Temperature controlling setup to be
6 Indicator Production / Quality Weekly
introduced and to be report in review meeting
No. of Suggestions and Kaizens to be improve and
7 Incentives HR Head Monthly
incentives to be given based on good suggestion
Monthly Review Meeting to be conducted every week by
8 MRM Site Head Monthly
the top management
 WEEKLY CONTROL CHART

CONTROL CHART FOR WEEK 1 CONTROL CHART FOR WEEK 2

WEEKLY CONTROL CHART
CONTROL CHART FOR IMPROVED ‘Y’
 CONTROL CHART COMPARISON

OLD DATA ‘Y’ IMPROVED DATA ‘Y’

CONTROL CHART COMPARISON
CONTROL CHART COMPARISON
CONTROL CHART COMPARISON
CONTROL CHART COMPARISON
CONTROL CHART COMPARISON
 SWOT Analysis

S W
STRENGTHS : WEAKNESS :
➢ Resources will be trained ➢ Temporary improvement
➢ Scope of improvement

SWOT
OPPORTUNITIES : THREATS :
➢ Can increase more projects ➢ Customer demand may
from customers increase
➢ Company revenue may
increase
O T
 Project Benefits

TANGIBLE
BENEFITS
Production Safety
Delivery Morale

INTANGIBLE
BENEFITS
Personality Interpersonal
Development Communication Leadership Relationship
 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION - Satisfied

BRAND REPUTATION - Enhanced

PENALTY AMOUNT (fixed) - 30 Lakhs

PRODUCTION COST (Variable) - 72 Lakhs / yr

138kg to 178kg per day (Average cost for 1kg is 600rs)
Per day = 40 x 600 = 24000rs/day
Monthly = 24000 x 25(working day) = 6 lakhs/month
 VOTE OF THANKS
Our sincere thanks to

➢ OUR TEAM MEMBERS

➢ MENTOR

➢ SPONSER

➢ CHAMPION

➢ MANUFACTURING HEAD

➢ QUALITY HEAD

➢ MAINTENANCE HEAD

➢ SITE HEAD