To reduce daily average of CPO oil loss in raw effluent from 0.

57
%/FFB to 0.48 %/FFB at Angsana Factory by December 2018
Angga Fernando | OE Executive & LSS Black Belt
PT. Ladangrumpun Suburabadi (Subsidiary of Simedarby Plantation)
 2

Company Profile

Project Location

Region : KSS
Area : SSI
Mill : Angsana Factory
Mill Code : ASF
Est. Year : 2004
Manager : 9th Manager
Capacity : 60 Tons/Hour
Product : CPO & Kernel

Minamas Plantation is a subsidiary company of Sime Darby Plantation

 3

INDEX OF CONTENT

SECTION 1 : Problem Statement & Baseline

SECTION 2 : Solution & Implementation
SECTION 3 : Results and Impact Analysis
SECTION 4 : Control & Monitoring
SECTION 5 : Clone Protocol
 4

SECTION 1 : Problem Statement & Root Cause Analysis

SUBSECTION TOPIC PAGE
1.1 Explaining project selection process which align
5-9
with Organization’s KPI and objectives
1.2 Following a complete methodology of PDCA/QCC
Methodology, Six Sigma, Lean/kaizen, Design Thinking, Agile,
10 – 16
Automation or Digital Technology, and any other
improvement/innovation methodology
1.3 Performing a root cause analysis to address the core
17 - 24
problem.
 5

Project Selection Background

REVENUE COST
Increase in
Productivity

Increase in Sales

Selling New
Products/Services

Conclusion :
This project will focus on increasing company revenue by increasing productivity and
reducing cost per palm product
 6

Project Selection Background

CT-Tree Mill Production 1
Identify, organize and prioritize the inputs that are critical to the customer

1
Component of Mill
Oil Loss

Oil Loss in EFB

2
≤ 0.5 %/FFB
Oil Loss in FC
≤ 0.5 %/FFB
Oil Loss in FE
≤ 0.5 %/FFB

3
Total Oil Loss
≤ 1.5 %/FFB
Conclusion :
ASF Management looks at the percentage of oil Losses which is can be controlled by the operating unit itself.
The management decided to see what will be potential project based on the inputs from customers (VOC)
 7

Project Selection Background

Key Performance Indicator 1
Measurable value that demonstrates how effectively that the team in ASF is achieving key business
objectives set by the company

Conclusion :
Reducing oil losses in all Minamas oil palm factories has been set in the KPI. This shows that the management is
serious in having the oil losses below the allowable standard set.
 8

Project Selection Background

Oil Loss Current Performance 1
Assessing the baseline on all current oil losses performance for all factories.

Boxplot of Total Oil Loss - All Mills

3.0

Angsana Factory
2.5
Current Status
1.52 %/FFB
%-Oil Loss / FFB

2.0

1 .5 1.52 Minamas Standard

1.44 1.45 1.46
≤ 1.50 %/FFB

1 .0

Ungkaya Factory Mustika Factory Gunung Aru Factory Angsana Factory

Conclusion :
3 of 4 factories in KSS Region are well below the oil losses percentage standards set by the company, except
Angsana Factory. That’s why we need to focus on oil loss improvement in Angsana Factory.
 9

Project Selection Background

Lean Six Sigma Policy 1
Minamas Plantation has a set of policy which are a statement of intent, and is implemented as a
procedure or protocol that is need to be adhered.

Conclusion :
This project is align with the company policy.
 10

Project Selection Background

Pareto Chart 5 38.4% Contribution to Total Oil Loss

Conclusion :
Oil loss in Raw Effluent has the highest
contribution to the total oil loss

Regression Analysis 8

Conclusion :
36.33% of the variation in Total Oil Loss can be
explained by the regression model
 11

Project Selection Background

SIPOC Diagram 5
Conclusion :
This project will focus on mill processing

Process Map 6

Focus Area

Conclusion :
There are 1 focus area in this project. These
are the potential areas to recover the oil
losses in the process
 12

Project Selection Background

Potential Hard Benefit 7 Cost-Benefit Analysis 8
Component Detail B/C Ratio 27.58
Baseline Oil Loss (%) 0.57% Payback Period (Month) 3.39
Target Oil Loss (%) 0.48% Return On Investment Capital 354%
Variance Oil Loss 0.09%
FFB Processed (MT) 222,707 Results
Additional CPO Production (MT) 200
CPO Prices (IDR/MT) 7,833,000
Additional Transport Cost (Rp/MT) 42,500 • B / C Ratio> 1, means project is feasible
CAPEX (Rp) 300,000,000 • Payback Period 3.39, the investment
Depreciation Period (Year) 15 will return after 3 months and 10 days
Depreciation Cost (Rp) 20,000,000 the project is running
Fixed Cost (Rp) 0 • Return On Investment Capital (ROIC)
Variable Cost (Rp) 10,000,000
354%, the project is very profitable for
Total Transport Cost (Rp) 8,518,557
Total CPO Sales (Rp)
the company.
1,570,020,253
Total benefit (Rp) 1,531,501,696
Based on the potential hard benefits and
Interest - 7.5 % 7.5%
cost-benefit analysis, this project will
Tax - 25% 25.0%
benefit the company. Align with 6 Winning
PBT (Profit Before Tax) 1,416,639,069
PAT (Profit After Tax) 1,062,479,301
Mindset :

Potential Hard Benefit

IDR 1.06 Billion/year Deliver Result
 13

Project Success Indicators

RESULT INNOVATION SUSTAINABILITY ENERGY

Reducing Oil Loss

Involved and
Reducing Defect Provide solutions Provide solutions
empowered all
Rate with new effective that align with the
employees to
Increasing Sigma machines, tools, principles of
contribute on LSS
Level or systems sustainability
deployment
Contributing to
profit
 14

Project Team Structure

Project Team 1 Support Team 2

Team Leader Team Member Team Member Champion

Angga Fernando Haris Prastowo Ipung Eko S Krishna Moorthy
Black Belt/OE Pjs. Sr. Assistant Process Assistant Region CEO

Team Member Team Member Team Member Area Reps. Engineering Reps Process Owner
Sari Andi S. Ngadimin Ahmad Oni P. I Putu Endra Khaizarudin A. Daniel B. Saragih
Process Asst. Special Project Kasie Asst. Area Controller Chief Engineer Mill Manager

Team Member Team Member Team Member Finance Reps. TQM Reps Blackbelt Reps
M Rusman S Gherry Gagarin Wahyu Wibowo Sujoto Rozahar Abdul K Mahani Mohd Y.
TQM-QA CEO Office Reps. Purchasing Reps. Acc. Manager Head, TQM IDN Certified BB
 15

Project Planning
Location & Workflow 1 Gantt Chart 2
Jul-18 Aug-18
Workflow

Location Angsana Factory Mencari Peluang Masalah

Membuat Project Charter
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Meeting Proyek
Verifikasi Data Awal
Membuat & Mengimplementasi Solusi
Verifikasi Hasil Implementasi

Time July – December 2018 Verifikasi Manfaat Keuangan

Penutupan Proyek

Sep-18 Oct-18
Workflow
Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Week 16
Mencari Peluang Masalah
Membuat Project Charter
Improvement Opportunity Project Charter Meeting Proyek
Verifikasi Data Awal
Membuat & Mengimplementasi Solusi
Verifikasi Hasil Implementasi
Verifikasi Manfaat Keuangan
Penutupan Proyek

Nov-18 Dec-18
Workflow
Project Initial Meeting Mencari Peluang Masalah
Week 17 Week 18 Week 19 Week 20 Week 21 Week 22 Week 23 Week 24

Membuat Project Charter

Meeting Proyek
Verifikasi Data Awal
Membuat & Mengimplementasi Solusi
Verifikasi Hasil Implementasi
Verifikasi Manfaat Keuangan
Root-cause Analysis Solution Analysis Penutupan Proyek

Jan-19 Feb-19
Workflow
Week 25 Week 26 Week 27 Week 28 Week 29 Week 30 Week 31 Week 32
Mencari Peluang Masalah
Membuat Project Charter
Summary Report for Oil Loss Total
Remarks = Before Improvement
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 1 .97
Meeting Proyek
P-Value <0.005

Verifikasi Data Awal

Mean 1 .621 5
StDev 0.1 997
Boxplot of Oil Loss Total (July to December 201 8) Variance
Skewness
0.0399
2.041 3
Kurtosis 1 0.6808
3.0 N 1 58

Verification Result Analysis

Minimum 1 .2500
1 st Quartile 1 .4900
Median 1 .6050
3rd Quartile 1 .7200
Maximum 2.91 00
95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Membuat & Mengimplementasi Solusi

2.5
%-Oil Loss Total / FFB

1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2.1 2.4 2.7

1 .5901 1 .6528
95% Confidence Interval for Median
1 .5700 1 .6379
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
0.1 799 0.2245

2.0
95% Confidence Intervals

Mean

Verifikasi Hasil Implementasi

1.62
Median

1 .5 1 .56 1 .58 1 .60 1 .62 1 .64 1 .66

Verifikasi Manfaat Keuangan

Penutupan Proyek

Project timeline is created to ensure that

Project Closure & Handover every process or activity is running
according to a predetermined time.
 16

Methodology
Data Collection Plan & Method 1
Data Sources Recorded By Frequency Audit/Monitor By Conclusion :
Final %Oil Loss in FE e-Lab By Lab. Supervisor Daily PSQM, GCAD
All data used in this
Oil Loss Daily Analysis Lab Daily Report By Lab. Supervisor Daily PSQM, GCAD
Rainfall Report Tableau By Unit Operations Daily CEO-Office
project is regularly
Harvesting Rounds Region Daily Report By Unit Operations Daily CEO-Office monitored and audited
Process Logsheet Daily Process Logsheet By Process Assistant Daily PSQM, GCAD
Maintenance Historical Maintenance Report By Maintenance Assistant Monthly PSQM, GCAD
Crop Quality Tableau & Grading Report By Grading Supervisor Daily PSQM, GCAD
Note :
Strelizing Historical Sterlizing Report By Process Assistant Daily PSQM, GCAD
For this project, All data used
Mill Backlog Grading Report By Grading Supervisor Daily PSQM, GCAD
starts from 02 January to 30
Density Experiments By Project Leader - -
June 2018
Retention Time Experiments By Project Leader - -

The tools used in this project are as follows:

• CT Tree • Graphical Summary • Brainstroming • Brainstorming • Control Chart

• Key Performance • Baseline and • Ishikawa Diagaram • Pay-Off Matrix • Project Closure
Indicator Benchmarking • C & E Matrix • PUGH Matrix Benefit
• Problem Statement • Process Capability • FMEA • Implementation
• Project Charter • Regression Analysis • Root cause • 2 Sample T-Test
• Project Timeline verification • Boxplot
 17

Problem Analysis
Graphical Summary 1 Findings Conclusion :
• P-Value < 0.05, means the data is a
Summary Report for Raw Effluent Oil Loss - Angsana Factory P-value = < 0.05 non-normal distribution.
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 0.92 Median = 0.570 • The median value of 0.57 can be used
P-Value 0.01 9
Mean 0.581 1 0 as a baseline
StDev 0.1 3370
Variance
Skewness
0.01 788
0.8791 2
• For immediate targets, Q1 = 0.48 is
Kurtosis 2.1 61 20 Immediate Target used
N 1 27
Q1 = 0.480
Minimum
1 st Quartile
Median
0.28000
0.48000
0.57000
• 95% CI for Median 0.54 - 0.59, meaning
3rd Quartile
Maximum
0.66000
1 .1 7000
that if there is no improvement
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1 .05 0.55762 0.60458 95% CI for Median predicted in the future will be in that
95% Confidence Interval for Median
0.54000 0.59000 0.5400 – 0.59000 range.
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
0.1 1 904 0.1 5252

95% Confidence Intervals Process Capability 2

Mean

Median

0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60

Conclusion : Findings
• Sigma level for the current process is -
0.55, shows that the current process is Sigma Level
unable to achieve the targeted results. σ = - 0.55
Therefore, improvements are needed
to reach the target. Std. Deviation
• With the capability process in the 0.13370
current process, the expected
defective or total oil loss above the %-Out of Spec
standard is 70.97% DPMO = 70.97
 18

Problem Analysis
I-MR Control Chart 3
I-MR Chart of Raw Effluent
Conclusion : Findings 1

• 1 red point on the Individual Value

1 .2

1 red-point UCL=0.942

Individual Value
indicates an uncontrolled process or 0.9

special causes. In this case, due to 23 May 18 0.6

_
X=0.581

rainfall that is so high that is 27 - 122 0.3

LCL=0.220
mm in 1 day. Individual Mean 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 1 05 118
Observation
• 2 red points on the Moving Range 0.581
1

indicate an uncontrolled moving range 0.60

1

which is also caused by sudden shifted 2 Red-points

Moving Range
0.45 UCL=0.4437

data which is due to heavy rainfall. Moving range 0.30

__
0.1 5 MR=0.1358

0.00 LCL=0
1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 1 05 118

Stability Testing : Run Chart 4 Observation

Findings
P-Value Clustering
0.294

P-Value Mixtures Conclusion :

0.706 • All P-values> 0.05, indicate
that there are no clustering,
P-Value Trends mixtures, trends, or
0.179 oscillations
• It can be concluded that the
P-Value Oscillation data is truly random and
0.821 stable
 19

Problem Analysis
Measurement System Analysis 5

Findings Conclusion :
Between 10% and 30% - the measurement
Total Gage R&R system can be accepted depending on the
23.23 % application, the cost of the measuring
device, the cost of repairs, or other factors.
The R&R Gage research results show that
variations due to the measurement
system are not significant.

Boxplot : Target Setting 6

Internal Benchmarking Findings Boxplot of Raw Effluent Oil Loss
%-Oil Loss/FFB in RE 1 .2

0,60 Median
0.57 1 .0

0.57
0,55 Minamas Standard
%-Oill Loss / FFB
1st Quartile 0.8

0.48
0,50
0.6 0.57

0,48 0,48 0,49 3rd Quartile

0,45 0,47 0.66
0.4

0,40 Number of data

0.2
SMF GAF RTF MGF ASF 127
 20

Problem Analysis
Ishikawa/Fishbone Diagram 7 Potential Root Cause
Conclusion :
Method = 3 Root Cause
Material = 5 Root Cause
Machine = 9 Root Cause
Mother Nature = 3 Root Cause

Based on the brainstorming process

on all potential root causes and
grouped by the Ishikawa / Fishbone
Diagram method, 20 root causes
were obtained which could
potentially be the main causes of
the problem.
Oil Loss Impact Frequency
No Root cause Total

1 Proses skimming di Recovery Tank tidak maksimal

9
9
5
5
5
5 131 Cause & Effect Matrix 8
2 Proses skimming di Sludge Pit tidak maksimal 9 5 5 131
3 Air hujan masuk ke Sludge Pit 5 5 5 125
4 Waktu retensi di Recovery Tank tidak tercapai 5 9 5 115
5 Kapasitas Recovery Tank tidak mencukupi 5 9 5 115
Before Analysis Conclusion :
6 Waktu retensi di Sludge Pit tidak tercapai 5 9 5 115 20 Root Cause All root causes that have been
7 Kapasitas Sludge Pit tidak mencukupi 5 9 5 115
8 Adanya tambahan air diluar proses pengolahan 5 5 5 95 obtained and grouped in Ishikawa /
9
10
Komposisi brondolan dan TBS saat perebusan tidak sesuai
Viskositas sludge di Sludge Centrifuge terlalu tinggi
5
5
5
5
1
1
75
75
Fishbone Diagrams are analyzed using
11 Nozzle Sludge Centrifuge telah aus 5 5 1 75 After Analysis the Cause & Effect Matrix by
12 Proses perebusan terlalu lama 5 1 1 55
13 Tekanan steam perebusan terlalu tinggi 5 1 1 55 11 Root Cause considering the effect on oil loss, the
14 Restan TBS terlalu tinggi 5 1 1 55 impact given, and the frequency of
15 TBS Overripe terlalu tinggi 5 1 1 55
16 Brondolan busuk terlalu tinggi 5 1 1 55 occurrence. Based on this analysis,
17
18
Pelukaan TBS karena proses double handling
Temperature umpan Sludge Centrifuge terlalu rendah
5
5
1
1
1
1
55
55 Reduction obtained 11 root causes with the
19 Adanya kebocoran pada Sludge Centrifuge 5 1 1 55
45% highest matrix value
20 Air untuk pencucian umum masuk ke Sludge Pit 5 1 1 55
 21

Problem Analysis
Failure Mode Effect Analysis 9

Occurrence

Detection
Severity
Current
Potential Effect(s) of Potential Cause(s)/ Findings

RPN
Process Function Potential Failure Mode Process
Failure Mechanism(s) of Failure
Controls

Waktu retensi di Recovery Tank tidak Minyak tidak terbentuk

Recovery Tank 9 Kapasitas terlalu kecil 9 Tidak Ada 9 729
tercapai sempurna, oil loss tinggi
Kapasitas Recovery Tank tidak
Waktu retensi tidak Before Analysis
Recovery Tank tercukupi, minyak tidak 9 Kapasitas terlalu kecil 9 Tidak Ada 9 729
mencukupi
terbentuk
11 Root Cause
Waktu retensi di Sludge Pit tidak Minyak tidak terbentuk
Sludge Pit 9 Kapasitas terlalu kecil 9 Tidak Ada 9 729
tercapai sempurna, oil loss tinggi
Waktu retensi tidak
Sludge Pit Kapasitas Sludge Pit tidak mencukupi tercukupi, minyak tidak 9 Kapasitas terlalu kecil 9 Tidak Ada 9 729
terbentuk
Adanya tambahan air diluar proses Debit flowmeter menjadi Adanya salah rute instalasi
Additional Water 5 5 Tidak Ada 5 125
pengolahan tinggi pipa air
Debit flowmeter menjadi Adanya salah rute instalasi
Additional Water Air hujan masuk ke Sludge Pit 5 5 Tidak Ada 5 125
tinggi pipa air
Minyak menjadi tidak Terjadi turbulance atau
After Analysis
Proses skimming di Recovery Tank tidak Supervisi oleh
Recovery Tank
maksimal
terkutip maksimal, oil loss 9 Operator malas adjust 9
Assistant
1 81 6 Root Cause
tinggi skimmer level
Minyak menjadi tidak Terjadi turbulance atau
Proses skimming di Sludge Pit tidak Supervisi oleh
Sludge Pit terkutip maksimal, oil loss 9 Minyak tidak terbentuk 9 1 81
maksimal Assistant
tinggi sempurna
Pemisahan minyak menjadi
Preventive maintenance yg Scheduled Preventive
Sludge Centrifuge Nozzle Sludge Centrifuge telah aus tidak maksimal dan lolos ke 9 5 1 45
buruk Maintenance
heavy phase
Minyak menjadi susah Supervisi oleh
Viskositas sludge di Sludge Centrifuge
Sludge Centrifuge dipisahkan dan lolos ke 5 Suhu umpan terlalu rendah 1 Assistant pada 1 5
terlalu tinggi
heavy-phase operasional boiler Reduction
Komposisi brondolan dan TBS saat Oil loss di water condensate Operator tidak mengatur Supervisi oleh
Sterilization
perebusan tidak sesuai tinggi
5
komposisi dengan benar
1
Assistant
1 5 45%

Conclusion :
All root causes that have been obtained in the Cause & Effect Matrix analysis process are then analyzed using FMEA (Failure Mode
Effect Analysis) to get the main root of the most significant problem affecting the oil loss in the raw effluent. Based on this analysis,
obtained 6 root causes with the highest RPN (Risk Prior Number) value.
 22

Problem Analysis
Root Cause Verification 10

Gemba With a processing capacity of 60 tph and

Mathematical a condensate ratio of 12-15%, the
Calculation condensate water flowing into the
recovery tank is 7.2 - 9.0 tph divided into
2 tank units. Recovery tank capacity is 30
tons and the maximum level is 80% or 24
tons.

Thus, the retention time in the recovery

Location : tank is around 5.33 - 6.67 hours
Recovery Tank (standard 6-7 hours)
Gemba Based on gemba, it was found that the
Mathematical oil was not too formed in the last box.
Calculation Estimated retention time calculation
with raw effluent ratio of 52.00%,
processing capacity of 60 tph, and sludge
pit capacity of 69.80 tons, then:

69.80 𝑡𝑜𝑛
Retention Time = = 2.24 Hr
52% 𝑥 60 𝑡𝑝ℎ

Standard for sludge pit = 6-7 hours,

Location : Size = 8 x 4 x 3 meter retention time is not reached
Sludge Pit
 23

Problem Analysis
Root Cause Verification 10

Gemba Based on gemba at all stations, 1 water

pipe was obtained that flowed into the
sludge pit trench. This pipe comes from
the vaccum dryer outlet. The addition of
water discharge will increase the
flowmeter's discharge and affect the oil
loss in the raw effluent.

Location :
All Station
Gemba Based on gemba and regression analysis,
Statistic Tools there is a correlation between rainfall
and oil loss in raw effluent, but the
correlation is not too significant.

R-sq = 2.91
Correlation = 0.17
Location :
Sludge Pit
 24

Problem Analysis
Root Cause Summary Process Flow 11

By using the tools in Lean Six Sigma, we

Brainstorming can reduce 85% root causes and focus
on 15% significant root causes

Fishbone
20 Root Cause
Main Root Cause Final Summary 12
C & E Matrix Potential Cause(s)/ Current
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s)
11 Root Cause Mode of Failure
Mechanism(s) of Process
Failure Controls
Waktu retensi di Minyak tidak
FMEA Sludge Pit tidak terbentuk sempurna, Kapasitas terlalu kecil Tidak Ada
6 Root Cause tercapai oil loss tinggi
Waktu retensi tidak
Kapasitas Sludge Pit
tercukupi, minyak Kapasitas terlalu kecil Tidak Ada
tidak mencukupi
Root Cause tidak terbentuk
Adanya tambahan air
Verification Debit flowmeter Adanya salah rute
diluar proses Tidak Ada
menjadi tinggi instalasi pipa air
pengolahan

3 After the verification process, the main focus of improvement is on 3

Root Cause significant root causes
 25

SECTION 2 : Solution & Implementation

SUBSECTION TOPIC PAGE
2.1 Performing brainstorming & Gemba to find all solution 26
2.2 Following a complete methodology of PDCA/QCC
Methodology, Six Sigma, Lean/kaizen, Design Thinking, Agile,
Automation or Digital Technology, and any other 26 - 27
improvement/innovation methodology to prioritize
significant solutions
2.3 Implementation of prioritized solutions 28 - 29
 26

Solution
Brainstorming & Gemba 1 Pay-Off Matrix 2
Potential Potential Idea High
Improvement Ideas IDEA003
Failure Mode Cause(s) Code
Mengubah sistem pengolahan IDEA001
di Recovery Tank dari single IDEA004

Benefit
stage (paralel) menjadi double
stage (seri) untuk menambah IDEA001
retensi di Recovery Tank dan
meminimalkan oil loss yang
masuk ke Sludge Pit
IDEA005 IDEA002
Waktu retensi di Menaikan level Sludge Tank
Kapasitas terlalu
Sludge Pit tidak hinggal maksimal sehingga
kecil ID002
tercapai minyak yg terbentuk masuk ke Low
sistem overflow
Menambah unit Sludge
Easy Effort Hard
Separator untuk mengolah
water condensate, heavy phase
ID003 Considering between Effort and Benefit, it was
sludge centrifuge, dan EFB oil
sehingga oil yg masuk ke Sludge
decided that the idea to be implemented:
Pit menjadi minim
Kapasitas Sludge Menambah kapasitas Sludge Pit
Kapasitas terlalu
Pit tidak
kecil
dengan membuat 1 unit ID004 IDEA001 IDEA005 IDEA003 IDEA004
mencukupi tambahan
Mengubah aliran outlet air ex- Low
Adanya tambahan
Adanya salah rute vaccuum dryer dari ke parit
Jewel Hanging
High Hanging
air diluar proses ID005
pengolahan
instalasi pipa air menjadi ke hot water tank untuk
Fruit Fruit
direcycle

Conclusion : While IDEA002 is not implemented because it

Based on brainstorming and gemba, there were 5 requires a high Effort and the possibility of low
potential improvement ideas to be implemented yield
 27

Solution
PUGH Matrix 3

Criteria Baseline IDEA003 IDEA004

Feasibility 4 1 1
For the High Hanging Fruit solution,
Cost 5 -1 1 because it will require a lot of effort and
Long Term Benefit 3 1 1 cost, then we prioritize 1 idea using
Maintainability 3 -1 1 PUGH Matrix. The results is IDEA004.
Avability of Resources 2 -1 -1
Sum of All Positives 7 15
Sum of All Negatives -10 -2
Sum of All Neutrals 0 0
Total -3 13 Implementation Due Date 4

Potential Potential Idea Implementation

Improvement Ideas Rank
Failure Mode Cause(s) Code Due Date
Mengubah sistem pengolahan di Recovery Tank dari
Waktu retensi di
Kapasitas terlalu single stage (paralel) menjadi double stage (seri) untuk
Sludge Pit tidak IDEA001 Jewel 31-12-19
kecil menambah retensi di Recovery Tank dan meminimalkan
tercapai
oil loss yang masuk ke Sludge Pit
Adanya tambahan Low
Adanya salah rute Mengubah aliran outlet air ex-vaccuum dryer dari ke
air diluar proses IDEA005 Hanging 31-12-19
instalasi pipa air parit menjadi ke hot water tank untuk direcycle
pengolahan Fruit
Kapasitas Sludge High
Kapasitas terlalu Menambah kapasitas Sludge Pit dengan membuat 1 unit
Pit tidak IDEA004 Hanging 31-12-19
kecil tambahan
mencukupi Fruit
 28

Solution
Implementation Final Solution 5

By changing the process from

single stage (parallel) to
double stage (series), thus the
condensate goes through 2
skimming processes.

There is no additional non-

process water flowing into the
Sludge Pit

The water of ex-vacuum dryer flows The water of ex-vacuum dryer

into the Sludge Pit recycle to Hot Water Tank
 29

Solution
Implementation Final Solution 5

There is 1 new sludge pit unit,

so the process becomes a
double stage. Retention time
increased at 1st stage 6.71
hour and 2nd stage 2.24
hours.

Size 8 x 4 x 3 Meter Size 13 x 9 x 3 Meter

69.80 𝑡𝑜𝑛 209.38 𝑡𝑜𝑛
Retention Time = = 2.24 Hr Retention Time = = 6.71 Hr
52% 𝑥 60 𝑡𝑝ℎ 52% 𝑥 60 𝑡𝑝ℎ

Implementation Timeline
Improvement Ideas Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18
Mengubah sistem pengolahan di Recovery Tank dari single stage
(paralel) menjadi double stage (seri) untuk menambah retensi di
Recovery Tank dan meminimalkan oil loss yang masuk ke Sludge Pit
Mengubah aliran outlet air ex-vaccuum dryer dari ke parit menjadi ke hot
water tank untuk direcycle
Menambah kapasitas Sludge Pit dengan membuat 1 unit tambahan
 30

SECTION 3 : Results and Impact Analysis

SUBSECTION TOPIC PAGE
3.1 Following a complete methodology of PDCA/QCC
Methodology, Six Sigma, Lean/kaizen, Design Thinking, Agile,
31 - 32
Automation or Digital Technology, and any other
improvement/innovation methodology to analyze the results
3.2 Impact for Internal & External 33 - 37
3.3 Cost Benefit Analysis 36
 31

Project Achievement
Oil Loss Before vs After Improvement 1

To test the difference in oil loss results before improvement and after
improvement, 2-Sample T-Test is used :
Objective Method Hypothesis Findings Kesimpulan
Perbandingan 2 Sample T-Test H0 : Oil loss sebelum perbaikan = - Dari analisis 2 Sample T-Test, P-Value Penurunan oil
antara oil loss setelah perbaikan <0.05 loss telah
sebelum dan Ha : Oil loss setelah perbaikan ≠ - Reject Null Hypothesis (H0) mencapai target
setelah sebelum perbaikan - Significant penurunan oil loss setelah
improvement improvement

Boxplot of Raw Effluent (Before) vs Raw Effluent (After) Conclusion :

1 .2 Based on the boxplot
chart besides the
1 .0 difference between oil
loss before
0.8 improvement and after
improvement, where
Data

0.6 oil loss after

0.57
improvement in raw
0.48
0.4
effluent decreased by
0.09% and included
0.2
significant differences
Raw Effluent (Before) Raw Effluent (After)
 32

Project Achievement
Process Capability Before vs After Imp. 2
Result
Before After
Defect Rate 70.97% 42.92%
Sigma Level -0.55 0.18
Std. Deviation 0.13 0.09

I-MR Control Chart 3

Conclusion :
• Based on the I-MR Chart, the P-value <0.05. This shows that
there is a shift between before improvement and after
improvement.
• There are 1 red-points on the Individual Value and 3 red-
points on the Moving Range. This shows that there is
uncontrolled data. The rest process tends to be stable.
 33

Impact of Project Success for External

Organizations and Customers

Closure Achievement 1 Closure Potential Benefit 2

Component Detail
0,57 Baseline Oil Loss (%) 0.57%
Target Oil Loss (%) 0.48%
Variance Oil Loss 0.09%
FFB Processed (MT) 189,766
Additional CPO Production (MT) 171
CPO Prices (IDR/MT) 6,800,000
Additional Transport Cost (Rp/MT) 42,500
CAPEX (Rp) 300,000,000
Depreciation Period (Year) 15

0,48 0,48 Component Detail

Depreciation Cost (Rp) 20,000,000
Fixed Cost (Rp) 0
Variable Cost (Rp) 10,000,000
Total Transport Cost (Rp) 7,258,554
Total CPO Sales (Rp) 1,161,368,687
Total benefit (Rp) 1,124,110,132
Interest - 7.5 % 7.5%
Baseline Immediate Closure Tax - 25% 25.0%

Target Achievement PBT (Profit Before Tax) 1,039,801,873

PAT (Profit After Tax) 779,851,404
Cost Benefit Analysis
Conclusion : B/C Ratio 20.93
• This project has reached the specified immediate target Payback Period (Month) 4.62
of 0.48% / FFB Return On Investment Capital 260%
 34

Impact of Project Success for External

Organizations and Customers

Closure Achievement 3
Component Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19
Baseline Oil Loss (%) 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57% 0.57%
Actual Oil Loss (%) 0.47% 0.51% 0.49% 0.50% 0.47% 0.46% 0.51%
Variance Oil Loss 0.10% 0.06% 0.08% 0.07% 0.10% 0.11% 0.06%
FFB Processed (MT) 16,222 10,170 9,949 9,531 10,262 14,804 14,462
Additional CPO Production (MT) 16 7 8 7 11 17 8
CPO Prices (IDR/MT) 6,736,000 6,992,000 6,997,000 6,966,000 6,585,000 6,796,000 6,269,000
Additional Transport Cost (Rp/MT) 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500 42,500
CAPEX (Rp) 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000 300,000,000
Depreciation Period (Year) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Depreciation Cost (Rp) 1,666,667 1,666,667 1,666,667 1,666,667 1,666,667 1,666,667 1,666,667
Fixed Cost (Rp) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Variable Cost (Rp) 833,333 833,333 833,333 833,333 833,333 833,333 833,333
Total Transport Cost (Rp) 700,038 280,013 333,827 302,933 455,328 717,836 346,141
Total CPO Sales (Rp) 110,951,875 46,067,074 54,959,631 49,652,461 70,549,063 114,786,269 51,057,813
Total benefit (Rp) 107,751,837 43,287,060 52,125,802 46,849,525 67,593,731 111,568,428 48,211,666
Interest - 7.5 % 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%
Tax - 25% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%
PBT (Profit Before Tax) 99,670,449 40,040,530 48,216,367 43,335,811 62,524,201 103,200,796 44,595,791
PAT (Profit After Tax) 74,752,837 30,030,398 36,162,275 32,501,858 46,893,151 77,400,597 33,446,843
Cummulative PAT (Profit After Tax) 74,752,837 104,783,235 140,945,510 173,447,368 220,340,519 297,741,116 331,187,959

Cummulative PAT - IDR Million

297,7 331,2
173,4 220,3
104,8 140,9
74,8

Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19

 35

Impact of Project Success for External

Organizations and Customers

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) 4

CAPEX Conclusion :
To carry out this project
IDR 300,000,000 requires a capital cost of IDR
300,000,000 for the
construction of a new sludge pit
Depreciation and will be depreciated for 15
years with a depreciation cost of
15 Years IDR 20,000,000 / Year

Cost/Year
IDR 20 Million/Year

Variable Cost 5
A Fixed Cost
Unit Price Sub-Total Total Cost/Year
Conclusion : No Others Qty UOM Remarks
(IDR) (IDR) (IDR/Year)
An annual cost of IDR 1 Mill Administration 0 0
10,000,000 is required 2 Mill Labour Overhead 0 0
for desilting the sludge Sub-Total Cost 0 0
pit
B Variable Cost
Unit Price Sub-Total Total Cost/Year
No Others Qty UOM Remarks
(IDR) (IDR) (IDR/Year)
1 Mill Maintenance (SI) 1 Times 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Biaya pencucian sludge pit
Sub-Total Cost 10,000,000 10,000,000
Total Cost OPEX 10,000,000 10,000,000
 36

Impact of Project Success for External

Organizations and Customers

Cost Benefit Analysis 6

Component Detail
Baseline Oil Loss (%) 0.57% Conclusion
Actual Oil Loss (%) 0.48%
Variance Oil Loss 0.09%
• B / C Ratio> 1, means the project feasible
FFB Processed (MT) 189,766
• Payback Period 4.62, means the investment will return
Additional CPO Production (MT) 171
after 4 months and 16 days the project is running
CPO Prices (IDR/MT) 6,800,000
• Return On Investment Capital (ROIC) is 260% , means the
Additional Transport Cost (Rp/MT) 42,500
project is very profitable for the company.
CAPEX (Rp) 300,000,000
Depreciation Period (Year) 15
Depreciation Cost (Rp) 20,000,000 Potential Harvested Conclusion
Fixed Cost (Rp) 0 Benefits Benefits
Variable Cost (Rp) 10,000,000
1.06 0.78 Satisfactory
Total Transport Cost (Rp) 7,258,554
Total CPO Sales (Rp) 1,161,368,687 Note :
1. Currency in IDR-Billion
Total benefit (Rp) 1,124,110,132
2. The potential benefit target wasn’t achieved due to lack
Interest - 7.5 % 7.5% of processed FFB and very low CPO prices
Tax - 25% 25.0%
PBT (Profit Before Tax) 1,039,801,873
PAT (Profit After Tax) 779,851,404
Cost Benefit Analysis
B/C Ratio 20.93
Payback Period (Month) 4.62
Return On Investment Capital 260%
Impact of Project Success for External
Organizations and Customers

People Prosperity
Participation of all employees in solving Reducing the potential of food waste in
problems the palm oil processing

Training for all employees to understand

Reducing product loss during the process
the Lean Six Sigma concept
Development of trained practitioners in Increase the achievement of OER (Oil
the Lean Six Sigma Extraction Rate) for the Company
Creation of a safe and healthy work area Reducing the potential profit loss for the
for all employees Company

Zero Accident Increase profits for the company

Always try to maintain LTI (Lost Time

Improve employee welfare
Injuries) on target

Planet
Comply with all environmental Reducing the potential of methane gas Provides organic nutrition / fertilizer by
regulations (DLHD, KLHK, RSPO, ISPO) caused by oil in POME using POME

Maintain POME content in accordance

with applicable regulations
SECTION 4 : Control & Monitoring
SUBSECTION TOPIC PAGE
4.1 Communication System 39
4.2 Following a complete methodology of PDCA/QCC
Methodology, Six Sigma, Lean/kaizen, Design Thinking, Agile,
40 - 42
Automation or Digital Technology, and any other
improvement/innovation methodology to control the results
Efforts to Maintain Sustainable
Results
INTERNAL
Angsana Factory

1. Quarterly LSS Management

Transformation
Review 1. Monthly Technical Review
2. Tollgate Project Review (by Committee Meeting

Office
phases) 2. Tollgate Project Review (by
3. Monthly Operation Coordination Phase)
Meeting 3. Monthly TO Project Meeting
4. Quarterly LSS Project Meeting

1. Daily Monitoring by Tableau

Operational
1. Monthly Operational Meeting

Excellence
Upstream

2. Annual Upstream Operation System

Meeting 2. Tollgate Project Review (by
3. Daily Monitoring by Tableau phases)
System 3. Quarterly LSS Project Meeting

EXTERNAL
To ensure that this project is well developed and on track, these are the communication channels and routines
used to sought any advice and update our project progress to stakeholders. Adapting to the current technology, we
have also included Outlook, WhatsApp, and SharePoint as means of advice and information sharing.
Efforts to Maintain Sustainable
Results

Sample Point 6

Sample Point Sample Point

Sample Point
Sample Point

Sample Point
Sample Point

Conclusion :
• The addition of sample points aims to
determine the value of oil loss in each
process location Sample Point
Efforts to Maintain Sustainable
Results

Monitoring System 6

Analyst will key-in the oil loss result to E-Lab Daily report on WA, thus we can take an
systems everyday action immediately if oil loss increasing

Region Office will download the data from Oil loss is one of the focuses in the monthly
Tableau and translate to control chart meeting discussion
Efforts to Maintain Sustainable
Results

Control Chart 6
I-MR Chart of Raw Effluent Conclusion :
0.7
1
UCL=0.7303 • To monitor the process, we use
control charts with Standard
Individual Value

0.6
+1SL=0.5659
_
0.5 X=0.4838 Deviation 1 and 3
0.4 -1SL=0.4016

0.3
LCL=0.2372
1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 1 29 1 45
Observation

0.4
1
1
1
Email Blast 5
0.3 UCL=0.3029
Moving Range

0.2
+1SL=0.1627
__
0.1 MR=0.0927

-1SL=0.0226
0.0 LCL=0
1 17 33 49 65 81 97 113 1 29 1 45
Observation

Conclusion :
• If there is an above standard oil loss, one of the
admins in the Region Office will send an email blast
to the factory team as a reminder and ask to be
followed-up
SECTION 5 : Conclusion & Clone Protocol
SUBSECTION TOPIC PAGE
5.1 Result Summary 44
5.2 Potential Replication Project 45
5.3 Opportunity For Improvement 46
 44

Project Success Indicators

Before Target Gap Result %-Improve Remarks

Oil Loss (%/FFB) 0.57 0.50 0.07 0.48 15.79

IDR 779.8 Million/Year
Defect Rate (%) 70.97 50.00 20.97 42.92 40.00
Monetary Hard Benefit
Sigma Level (σ) - 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.18 61.86

Before After

Mechanism Lack of capacity, not effective Provide a effective mechanism to reduce oil loss

Before After

Sludge Processing High oil loss in FE, increase methane Low oil loss in FE, reduce methane

Before After

White Belt Zero LSS Practitioners (White Belt) 5 LSS Practitioners (White Belt)
Green Belt Zero LSS Practitioners (Green Belt) 2 LSS Practitioners (Green Belt)

Black Belt Zero LSS Practitioners (Black Belt) 3 LSS Practitioners (Black Belt)
Potential for Replication Project

Region KTB
Sukamandang Factory
Pemantang Factory
Sekunyir Factory
Lembiru Factory
Bukit Ajong Factory
Region RSS
Teluk Bakau Factory
Mandah Factory
Ladang Panjang Factory Metode yang diterapkan dalam project ini dapat juga digunakan untuk
Sungai Pinang Factory penyelesaian masalah-masalah yang mungkin terjadi di pabrik lain

Rantau Panjang Factory Region KSP Region RUA

Region KSS Rantau Factory Teluk Siak Factory
Mustika Factory Bebunga Factory Manggala Factory
Gunung Aru Factory Betung Factory Blang Simpo Factory
Ungkaya Factory Pondok Labu Factory Alur Dumai Factory
 46

Opportunity For Next Improvement

Oil Loss in Cyclone Fibre 6

Conclusion :
1. For the achievement of oil loss in cyclone
fiber is still too high. The average
achievement is 0.58% / FFB, while the
target of the company is ≤ 0.50% / FFB.
2. This will be the main focus of further
improvement

Standard ≤ 0.50 %/FFB

Boxplot of Cyclone Fibre

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.58
0.6

%-Oil Loss / FFB

0.5

0.4

Sigma Level Mean & Std. Deviation 0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
Defect Rate
THANK YOU