Project Title To Reduce flange coupling dimensional variation in taper boring

and final grinding

Process / Product Machining Process

GB Name Balaji D Champion / Sponsor Name R.Sethuraman (CQ-SQ, AL)

GB Project No GB/Ennore/2011/A BB / MBB Name V. Rajagopal (LSS, CQ-TQM, AL)

Unit Chennai Machining unit Function / Dept. Quality dept

Supplier Code 3262
Start Date 01.08.2011 End Date 15.03.2012

Team Members Sukumar (General Manager, CFL Chennai), Rakkumuthu (Production Head, CFL, Chenna),
SenthilKumar (Quality, CFL, Chennai),
Project Selection Matrix

2
Project Selection Matrix

Problem Solving Methodology Selection Grid

3
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 4
 Project Charter
Project GB/Ennore/ Green Belt Balaji D Unit / Machining / Quality
Code 2011/A Function
Mentor / Sponsor AL CQE-R. Sethuraman / P. Dakshinamurthy Gemba Machining Unit
Project Definition
Project Title To reduce Flange Coupling dimensional variations

Problem Repeated issues (during March 2011 – Aug 2011) arising out of dimensional variations with Flange Coupling
Definition component at the customer end.
Scope Finishing Operation 1 and Operation 2 done in CNC in Machining unit

Goal Metric PPM From 2,303 PPM To 100 PPM Target 0 PPM
Statement (Entitlement)
Tangible Money 1. Reducing Rejections and there by Other 1. Customer satisfaction will be improved
Benefits Savings / ECU reducing loss from it Tangibles
2. Self morale will be improved
Customers Ashok Leyland

Linkage to Linked to the Objective of SQMI rating of 93%

Company
Objective
Time Lines Define 24/08/2 Measure 10/09/20 Analyze 30/09/2 Improve 31/10/201 Control 19/11/20
011 11 011 1 11
Support CFFPL - Sukumar (General Manager), Rakkumuthu (Production head), SenthilKumar (Quality), Balaji (General
Required Manager) AL CQE – R. Sethuraman
Approvals Mentor: R. Sethuraman Unit Head: D.Balaji AL Knowledge Academy: V. Rajagopal

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 5

 One Page Executive Summary

Reason for To reduce frequent customer complaint's, and to improve

selection at customer satisfaction levels
this juncture
Goal / To reduce Flange Coupling dimensional variations from 29,950 PPM to
Objective 100 PPM
Tangible Intangible
• Uninterrupted Customer line • Customer satisfaction will be
Benefits improved
• Loss & Rejections will be reduced • In house morale will be improved

Targets Actual
• PPM of less than 100 • Customer PPM: 0 as of Jan 2013
• 80% reduction of in process • 100% reduction in, in-process
Results rejections due to shaft OD oversize rejections due to Shaft OD o/s or
/ undersize u/s
• 80% reduction in overall in in-
process rejections.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Business Case

Period Threats (Negative Opportunities (Positive

aspects if we don’t take aspects if we take up
up this project now) this project now)
Short Term -Customer - Improvement in
(3 to 6 Months) dissatisfaction customer satisfaction
-Loss due to customer - Opportunities in new
rejections (cost of poor product development
quality)
Long Term - Regular orders will be - Improvements in in-
(3 to 5 Yrs) reduced house quality
- Loss of Credibility awareness
- Use of learning's from
this project to other
components
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 7
 Background Information
Data – Customer Rejections from April 2011 to August 2011

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Dimensional variations is the topmost reason for rejections
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 8
 Background Information
Data – Flange Coupling Customer Issues for the duration of April – Sep 2011

Defect Grouping Defect GRN PPM Remarks

Quantity Quantity
Shaft OD Variation 35 15,196 2,303 Dimensional variation, needs to be
controlled in the machining process
Improper Painting 67 15,196 4,409

Forging 11 15,196 723 Segregation of components with

excess material and control at Forging

Concessional 297 15,196 19,544 Assign person to upload inspection

Acceptance reports regularly
Excess Concentricity 6 15,196 394 Dimensional variation, needs to be
controlled in the machining process
Others (Handling etc) 35 15,196 2,303 Handling, Packing issues.
Inference / Conclusion from the Data
Dimensional variations is the topmost cause for rejections, while improper painting,
handling are more of discipline related issues
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 9
 Project Tracker
Phase Activity Jul’11 Aug’11 Sep’11 Oct’11 Nov’11 Dec’11 Jan ‘ 12 Feb ‘12 Mar ‘12 Apr ‘12 May ‘12

Charter P
Define
preparation A
P
Process Map
A
P
Measure MSA
A
Attribute P
P-chart A
Scatter, Box P
plots A
Analyze Customer P
onsite Visit A
Hypothesis P
tests A
Hypothesis P
Tests A
Improve
Process P
Capability -
New A
P
Control Plans
A
Control
P
A Define
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 10
 Project Reviews with AL

Date Location Discussion Members Remarks

With Participated

20/12/11 CFL, CQ-SQ Vertical Balaji, Rakkumuthu, Review up to Measure

Ambattur Head & BB Premkarthik, Sukumar Phase (refer attached
MOM)

24/02/12 CFL, CQ-SQ Vertical Balaji, Rakkumuthu Review up to Improve

Ambattur Head & BB Phase

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Visits undertaken to supplier Gemba for the project support was provided
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 11
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 12
 Flow Chart
Data

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Process Flow Chart – Detailed - Sample
Brief Description. Incoming source Process flow Output
Operation No.
of variation. Diagram Characteristics
10 CNC I st Operation Forging , Forging Mismatch DIAMETER - 39.80 / 40.20
Unfilling,Lap,Fitting,O/S,U/S DIAMETER - 15.90 / 16.10
M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, CHAMFER - 2 × 45°
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture 10 LENGTH - 40.50 / 41.00
Insert,Drill LENGTH - 110.20 / 110.80

20 CNC II nd Operation Size U/S,O/S,Insert DIAMETER - 117.30 / 117.70

M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, DIAMETER - 52.30 / 52.70
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture 20 LENGTH - 14.80 / 15.20
Insert CHAMFER - 1.5 × 45°
CHAMFER - 1.5 × 45°
DISTANCE - 25.80 / 26.20
DISTANCE - 108.20 / 108.80
30 Heat Treatement Material,Furnace Temperature HARDNESS
Quenching Media ,
Tempering Temperature ,
Time 30

40 Ø 13.5 Drilling Size U/S,O/S ,Drill Bit CENTER OFFSET

M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, OD OVALITY
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture DIAMETER - 13.30 / 13.70
40 DEPTH - 29.00 / 30.00

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Process Flow Chart – Detailed (Contd…)
Brief Description. Incoming source Process flow Output
Operation No.
of variation. Diagram Characteristics
50 CNC Finishing Size U/S,O/S ,Insert RUNOUT,FACEOUT
I st Operation M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, OD-49.936/49.975,
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture 50 DEPTH,THREAD,CHAMFER
U Drill,Thread Insert ID,LENGTH,RADIUS

60 CNC Finishing Size U/S,O/S ,Insert OD-49.90/50.10,TOTAL LENGTH

II nd Operation M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, TAPER FINISH,DEPTH,ANGLE
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture 60 LENGTH,RUNOUT,FACEOUT
CHAMFER,RADIUS

70 Induction Hardening Material,Induction Coil HARDNESS-550 HV Min

Quenching Ring,Anvil
Indenter 70

80 Cylindrical Grinding Size U/S,O/S ,Grinding Wheel OD-34.936/34.975

M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, CONCENTRICITY-0.1
Coolant,R.P.M,Taper Mandrel 80 DEPTH
Dresser

90 Key Way Broaching M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed, KEY WAY WIDTH,DEPTH

Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture
Broaching Tool,Sim 90

100 4 Hole Drilling Size U/S,O/S ,Drill Bit CENTER OFFSET

and Tapping M/c,Gauge,Speed,Feed,Tool, THREAD,PCD,DEPTH
Coolant,R.P.M,Fixture 90

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Fish Bone Diagram
FLANGE COUPLING OD VARIATION

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Multiple factors could lead to dimensional variations with Flange Coupling
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 FMEA - Before
Data Process
Function
Potential
Failure
Potential
Effect(s) of
S
E
C
L
Potential
Cause(s) /
O
C
Current
Process
Current
Process
D R.
E P.
Mode Failure V A Mechanism(s) C Controls Controls T N.
Requirements of Failure Prevention Detection
Extra material to be 5 Process problem at 3 Receiving 2 30
Outer Dia 122 Over
removed in next Supplier end Inspection Report
Size
operation

Outer Dia 122 Under

Unclear 5 Process problem at 3 Receiving 2 30
Size
Supplier end Inspection Report
10.RECEIVING INSPECTION
5 3 2 30
Extra material to be Process problem at Receiving
Length 110 over size
removed in next Supplier end Inspection Report
operation

Length 110 under size Unclear 5 Process problem at 3 Receiving 2 30

Supplier end Inspection Report
Assembly Fitment 6 2 Tool life fixed & Line 3 36
Outer diameter Insert Worn out
Problem at customer Insert changed Inspection Report
Ø35.32/35.37 Over Size
end

Assembly Fitment 6 wrong Offset given 2 Trained setter Line 3 36

Outer diameter
Ø35.32/35.37 Under Problem at customer Inspection Report
20. CNC FINISHING 1st Size end
OPERATION Outer diameter Assembly Fitment 6 4 Tool life fixed & Line 2 48
Insert Worn out
Ø49.936/49.975 Over Problem at customer Insert changed Inspection Report
Size end

Assembly Fitment 6 wrong Offset given 3 Trained setter Line 3 54

Outer diameter
Ø49.936/49.975 Under Problem at customer Inspection Report
Size end
Assembly Fitment 5 3 Tool life fixed & Line 3 45
Taper Bore Taper Tool worn Out
Problem at customer Insert changed Inspection Report
19.85/19.90 Under size
end

Assembly Fitment 5 wrong Offset given 3 Trained setter Line 3 45

Taper Bore Problem at customer Inspection Report
30.CNC FINISHING 2nd 19.85/19.90 Over size end
OPERATION

Assembly Fitment 6 Improper loading 4 Trained operator Line 3 72

Run out 0.1 variation Problem at customer Inspection Report
end

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Before Improvement - Set up
Data
Category Data
Number of Appraisers 3

Number of Parts 10

Number of Trails per Appraiser 3

Equipment under MSA study MICROMETER (.01 accuracy)

Tolerance 0.039

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Results –
Before Improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Total Gage R&R (52.32%) is > 30%, so measurement system is not accceptable. Micrometer with
wrong accuracy used, and No of distinct categories is 2.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 MSA Results –
Before Improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Training to be given to Operators, and due to high repeatability score, equipment could be an issue
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 MSA Results –
Before Improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Micrometer with least count .01 were regularly used, hence there is a need to change
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Actions taken to Improve MSA

No Actions taken

Digital Micrometer with improved least count

1
used

Training on usage of Digital Micrometer given to

2
all operators

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Micrometer with least count .01 were regularly used, hence there is a need to change

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA After Improvement - Set up
Data
Category Data

Number of Appraisers 3

Number of Parts 10

Number of Trails per Appraiser 3

Equipment under MSA study Digital Micrometer 25-50 mm

Tolerance 0.039

Least Count 0.001

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Results –
After Improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Digital Micrometer with 0.001 accuracy used.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 MSA Results –
After Improvement – Round 1

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Total Gage R&R (1.8%) is < 10%, so measurement system is ACCEPTABLE.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Results –
After Improvement – Round 1

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Repeatability and Reproducibility is less than 10% - Measurement system is acceptable

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Results –
After Improvement – Round 2

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Total Gage R&R (9.7%) is < 10%, so measurement system is ACCEPTABLE.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 MSA Results –
After Improvement – Round 2

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Repeatability and Reproducibility is less than 10% - Measurement system is acceptable

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 I-MR Chart – Shaft OD Variations
Supplier End

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

From the control chart, we can infer that the process is not stable, scope for
improvement
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 29
 Project Base Line - Raw Data

Total rejection related

Month Received to ID Oversize / Under
size
11-Mar 3,000 56
11-Apr 2,803 4
11-May 2,405 5
11-Jun 2,114 5
11-Jul 2,579 7
Inference / Conclusion from the Data
Shaft OD variation is a consistent issue at the customer end
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 30
 Project Base Line - Attribute P-Chart

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Baseline PPM is 2303, May quantities were high as the process controls were
revisited based on customer feedback
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 31
 Project Base Line (Continuous
data) – Initial Process Capability

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Current Cpk - 1.30, there is scope for improvement
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 32
 Data Collection Plan

Type of Is the
Data Who will Method of
KPIV / Data Sample Measurement
Process Source Collect the Collecting
KPOV (Variable / Size System
and Location Data? data
Discrete) Capable?

OD Finishing Machining Line

Micrometer
(49.936 - 1st Variable Unit - CNC 50 Inspector - Yes
25-50 mm
49.975) operation Line Selvam

Machining
OD Micrometer
Cylindrical Unit - CNC Padmana Yes
(34.936 - Variable 50 25-50 mm
Grinding Line bha
34.975)

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 33

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 34
 Pareto Analysis
Customer Rejections Data from April – Sep 2011

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Shaft OD Variation contributes to about 8% of the total rejections, since improper
painting, damages, dents were more of discipline issues, they were not considered
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

In Process rejections cannot be attributed solely due to operator /machine
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

In Process rejections cannot be attributed solely due to operator /machine
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Consistent rejections across all the operators from the Spec 49.955. The problem is not solely with
the operator.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Both machines appears to have contributed to rejections across shifts, and data falls on eiither side
of Spec 49.955.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Across shifts, both oversize and undersize appears to exist

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

From the graph, it appears that we cannot narrow down the cause to any shift/operator/machine
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Offset issue seems to be primary reason for OD variation, and it appears to happen across
shifts/machines.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 In Process Rejections (OD) Analysis

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

From the graph, it appears that we cannot narrow down the cause to shift/operator/machine
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Hypothesis test - ANOVA
To chk Impact of Machine, Operator, Shifts

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Cannot narrow down the cause to shift/operator/machine, since P-Value > 0.05, Accept Ho, there is
no significant impact of Shift, Machine, Operator
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Raw Data - One way Anova
Data
Running Sequence
of Components Average Shaft OD
75-80 49.954
80-85 49.955
85-90 49.975
75-80 49.955
80-85 49.955
85-90 49.981
75-80 49.954
80-85 49.956
85-90 49.978

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Individual Value Plot
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

There is significant shift in the average value between 80-85 component readings
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Box Plot
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

There is significant change in the average value between 80-85 component readings.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Hypothesis Test - One way Anova

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Since P-Value < 0.05, Accept Ha, Atleast one of the sample is different
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Brainstorming - Outcome

 Inability
Data to identify Insert worn out, leads to oversized
components;
 Inability to set the right offset after tool change, leads to
undersized components;
 Currently no mechanism to keep track of the number of
components that are processed for that operation;
 Currently no instruction to the operator, as to when to change
the insert for 1st operation. Onus is on the operator to keep track
and also monitor the dimension of the components and then
change the insert accordingly.

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Output of Brain storming with team members in CFL, Ambattur Plant, Chennai
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Attribute P-Chart – Interim Monitoring
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

During the interim period, awareness on LSS project was created to all operators,
executives & management staff was created, hence a decreasing trend was visible
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 51
 Improvements DONE
Data

Modified the CNC program to automatically STOP

the machine after processing 80 numbers in the 1st
operation.

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Modify the CNC program and then repeat the tests to confirm process capability and study in
process rejections
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Hypothesis Tests - One-Sample T Test

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

The mean of the sample data (after improvement) remains close to the expected mean 49.955
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Hypothesis Tests - One-Sample T Test

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Since P-Value > 0.05, there is no significant difference between the Shaft OD actuals and Target
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Hypothesis Tests - Two-Sample T Test for
Data before and after improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Since P-Value < 0.05, Accept Ha, there is significant difference between Before Vs After
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Process Capability –
OD Variations - After Improvement

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Cpk > 1.67, finishing 1st operation process is capable
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 FMEA - After Improvement
Data
Process Potential Potential S C Potential O Current Current D R. Recommended Responsibility Action Results
Function Failure Effect(s) of E L Cause(s) / C Process Process E P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.
Mode Failure V A Mechanism(s) C Controls Controls T N. Completion Date Taken e c e P.
Requirements of Failure Prevention Detection v c t N.

Assembly Fitment 6 Improper loading 4 Trained operator Line 3 72 Taper Mandrel used
30.CNC FINISHING 2nd
Run out 0.1 variation Problem at customer Inspection Report to check down the P.Rakku muthu 12/15/2012 6 3 2 36
OPERATION
end Run Out Variation
using Dial Gauge

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

RPN number reduced after intervention
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Control Charts – Before Vs After
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Shaft OD size variation reduced drastically

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Improvements

Problem Description Before After

ID
Face
Flange Coupling butting
locking
locating
locking
bush
excess bush

concentricity

Root Cause Implementation Details Trend

1. Face butting locking bush used 1. Replaced the existing locking
in grinding operation, caused bush with ID locating locking
variations in the run out. bush with taper.
2. We were able to achieve the
2. Measuring the run out with the required repeatability with this
current locking bush didn’t give change.
repeatability.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 59

 Improvements

Problem Description Before After ID

Face
locating
butting
Flange Coupling locking locking
bush
bush
excess
concentricity

Root Cause Implementation Details Trend

3. During final inspection after
key way operation, run out is
100% checked and readings
noted and sent to AL.
4. Implementation date:
17/12/2011

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 60

 Improvements Home

Problem Description Before After

Flange Coupling
Painting Issue

Root Cause Implementation Details Rejections Trend

PAINTING DONE WITH

MANUAL PAINTING THE HELP OF FIXTURE
DONE WITHOUT (KEY WAY LOCATION)
FIXTURE
Implementation Date:
10/08/2011

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Improvements Home

Problem Description Before After

Components handled in
open bins

Flange Coupling
Damage Issue

Root Cause Implementation Details Rejections Trend

Introduced plastic bins with
partition exclusively for
Flange Coupling.
Internal movement of Also introduced wooden
components in open bins boxes for dispatch to AL

Implementation Date:
15/09/2011
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 63
 Control Chart – Before Vs After – In-
House
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Before the project, PPM was 6830, In the interim period PPM reduced to 5,710, while
after project completion in March 2012 PPM reduced to 1080
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Control Chart – Before Vs After –
Customer End
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Before Project, Customer PPM was 2120 and In the interim period PPM decreased to
1516, while after project completion in March 2012, PPM reduced to Zero.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Sustenance of Cp, Cpk
April 2012
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Sustenance of Cp, Cpk
June 2012
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Sustenance of Cp, Cpk
Aug 2012
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Sustenance of Cp, Cpk
Sep 2012
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Sustenance of Cp, Cpk
Nov 2012
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Monitoring of Critical Characteristic

Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Monitoring of Critical Characteristic

Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Process is controlled well within the limits.

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 System (ERP) to maintain
Gauge/Instrument Calibration data
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Automated System to indicate gauge calibration alerts and maintain data

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 System (ERP) to maintain
Gauge/Instrument Calibration data
Data

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Automated System to indicate gauge calibration alerts and maintain calibration data

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Mistake Proofing at CNC Machine Level

Data

Insert Life 80 Nos. /

Corner fixed in cnc
program.

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

The count of 80 nos mentioned in the CNC Program for Full Finishing First Operation
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Mistake Proofing at CNC Machine Level –
ALARM MESSAGE
Data

After completion of
the insert life, CNC
m/c will raise an
alarm

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

ALARM MESSAGE instructing the operator to change the Insert Corner
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Mistake Proofing at CNC Machine Level –
ALARM MESSAGE
Data

Work Instructions in
local language for the
operator

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Work Instruction in local language for the operator
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Work Instructions at CNC Machine Level –
Full Finishing First Operation
Data

‘Q’ ALERT DISPLAYED

ON CNC M/C FOR
CHECKING THE DIA
49.936 / 49.975MM BY
SNAP GAUGE

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Visual Control – Quality Alert displayed to check the diameter with Snap Gauge
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
 Control Plan
`
Data
PROTO TYPE PRE-LAUNCH PRODUCTION CONTROL PLAN

Key Contact/Phone : M.Sukumar 9444904212 / DATE (REV) : 24/11/2011

CONTROL PLAN NUMBER : 002 DATE (ORIG) : 22.09.2007
A. Senthil kumar - 9444757321
Core Team : M.SUKUMAR / P.RAKKUMUTHU / CUSTOMER ENGINEERING APPROVAL / DATE ( IF REQ'D)
PART NUMBER / LATEST CHANGE LEVEL :
P.PERUMAL / S.RAJIV GANDHI / S.PREM
F 1437211 / HC
KARTHICK/B.PREMKUMAR
SUPPLIER / PLANT APPROVAL DATE CUSTOMER QUALITY APPROVAL / DATE ( IF REQ'D)
PART NAME :
FLANGE COUPLING
SUPPLIER NAME : OTHER APPROVAL / DATE ( IF REQ'D) OTHER APPROVAL / DATE ( IF REQ'D)
CHENNAI FORGE PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,
CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART / OPERATION NAME & MACHINE, DEVICE, JIG,
PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF FIXTURE, TOOLS FOR PRODUCT / PROCESS SPL SAMPLE REACTION PLAN
EVALUATION CONTROL
NO. OPEARATION MANAUFACTURE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION AND
CHAR MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE SIZE FREQ METHOD
TOLERANCE

INFORM TO SUPPLIER & TAKE IMMEDIATE

OUTER DIA 70 VERNIER 5% EVERY LOT IIR
ACTION FOR REPLACEMENT
FORGING DONE AT INHOUSE
AS PER INCOMING
10 WITH 70 mm ROD /MATERIAL DIE & TOOL USED
INSPECTION PLAN
CK-45

INFORM TO SUPPLIER & TAKE IMMEDIATE

MATERIAL CK-45 VERIFYING MILL TC 5% EVERY LOT
ACTION FOR REPLACEMENT

IR

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

 Control Plan
Data
PART / OPERATION NAME & MACHINE, DEVICE, JIG,
CHARACTERISTICS
PRODUCT / PROCESS SPL
METHODS
SAMPLE
PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF FIXTURE, TOOLS FOR EVALUATION CONTROL REACTION PLAN
NO. OPEARATION MANAUFACTURE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION AND
CHAR MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE SIZE FREQ METHOD
TOLERANCE

OUTER DIAMETER 43

LENGTH 118

OUTER DIAMETER 120

20 FORGING INSPECTION VERNIER 5% EVERY LOT QUARANTINE ADJUST & RECHECK
OUTER DIAMETER 37

OUTER DIAMETER 98

OUTER DIAMETER 53
FIR
OUTER DIAMETER 43

LENGTH 118

OUTER DIAMETER 120

30 RECEIVING INSPECTION VERNIER 5% EVERY LOT QUARANTINE ADJUST & RECHECK
OUTER DIAMETER 37

OUTER DIAMETER 98

OUTER DIAMETER 53
RIR
OUTER DIAMETER 39.80 / 40.20 VERNIER
BEVEL PROTRACTOR &
CHAMFER 2 × 45°
CNC 1ST OPERATION WNMG 080412 FACING & VERNIER
40 5 NOS PER HOUR LIR QUARANTINE ADJUST & RECHECK
( ROUGH MACHINING - I ) TURNING TOOL
LENGTH 40.50 / 41.00 VERNIER

TOTAL LENGTH 110.20 / 110.80 VERNIER

OUTER DIAMETER 117.30 / 117.70 VERNIER

OUTER DIAMETER 52.30 / 52.70 VERNIER

LENGTH 14.80 / 15.20 VERNIER

TOTAL LENGTH 108.10 / 108.80 VERNIER

LENGTH 25.80 / 26.20 VERNIER

CNC 2 ND OPERATION WNMG 080412 FACING &
50 5 NOS PER HOUR LIR QUARANTINE ADJUST & RECHECK
( ROUGH MACHINING - II ) TURNING TOOL
DRILL DIAMETER Ø13.30/13.70 VERNIER

LENGTH 52.30/53.00 VERNIER

BEVEL PROTRACTOR &
CHAMFER 1.5 × 45°
VERNIER
RUN OUT 0.50 WRT A HEIGHT VERNIER
BEVEL PROTRACTOR &
CHAMFER 1.5 × 45°
VERNIER

60 CASE HARDENING PIT TYPE FURNANCE HARDNESS 227/277 BHN BRENELL HARDNESS TESTER 5 Nos Per LoT RIR & SIR QUARANTINE ADJUST & RECHECK

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Voice of Customer – AL Ennore

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 81

Quality Audit Plan by Customer (AL)

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 82

 Cost Benefit – CFPPL

Cost Savings (In house + Customer) Rejections per

month - INR 18,458 /-

Annual Projected Savings – INR 221,496 /-

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Annual Savings of INR 2.2 Lakhs for the Supplier as Vetted by the Supplier, due to LSS
project undertaken by Supplier to reduce OD variations
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 83
 Cost Benefit – CFPPL

Inference / Conclusion from the Data

Annual Savings of INR 2.2 Lakhs for the Supplier as Vetted by the Supplier, due to LSS
project undertaken by Supplier to reduce OD variations
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control 84
 Tools Used
Tools Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Charter
Gantt Chart
Pareto Analysis
Process Mapping
Fish bone diagram
Attribute P-Chart
Process Capability
Box Plot
Individual Value plot
Multi-Vari analysis
Hypothesis Testing
Analysis of Variance
IMR Control charts
Control Plan
Horizontal Deployment
Voice of Customer

85
 Lessons Learnt

• Critical analysis of difficult issues thru LSS approach

gives more insights;
• Advantages of data collection and maintenance, and its
positive impact on the process;
• Analysis of existing data, and its positive impact on the
process;
• Use of current data to make future improvements and
for sustenance;
• Horizontal deployment of control in CNC program for
Semi finished flange coupling and other similar
components (Hub Fan to SFL) at CFL Supplier end to
meet customer requirements.
 Acknowledgements

• Many thanks to the AL CQE Mr. R. Sethuraman &

others and Mr. V. Rajagopal of LSS, AL Ennore for the
project support & guidance of LSS approach and tools
onsite;

• Thanks to CFPPL QA and Production team for the

execution of project to meet organization deliverables;

• Many thanks to Mr. Hemant of Institute of Quality &

Reliability for LSS training.
88