Download - 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
Trend chart showing reduction in defect
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.
Trend chart showing reduction in defect
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
Suggestions implemented to
reduce no. of stains
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
Suggestions implemented to
reduce no. of stains
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
Suggestions implemented to
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
Visual communication of performance
Sewing trend chart
Line wise performance display chart
Visual communication of performance
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