page 1 i&cim project – improve uptime in the production department project: improve uptime in...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department Project: Improve Uptime in the production department
Date Opened: March 4, 200xI&CIM Contact: Jim AltierProject Sponsor: Plant Manager
Customer: All Assembly Areas (Internal & External)Project status: Closed
Problem Definition
Terminal make area in Plant, Department• 25 % of all downtime related to Burrs• 8,000,000 parts scrapped 200x calendar year• $100,000 additional tooling cost associated with Burrs
Project Scope
Characterize Current State/ID failure modes
Increase uptime by reducing un-scheduled die maintenance.• Un-scheduled maintenance due to poor quality tool detailssupplied by outside vendors• Inspection criteria to be redefined
Implement improvements
Control and Maintain
•Tool & Die Makers indicated that current details were being received with surface and cutting edge imperfections due to wafer manufacturing process and shipping issues.• Samples of current vendors tool details sent to an independent lab for functional and dimensional analysis.• Numerous parts defective due to not meeting print specifications and other functional defects.• Current inspection criteria shuts the press down prematurelyfor defects that are within the specification limits. • Current inspection criteria limits the life of the tool detail byreplacing it before it has reached it full lifespan.• Manufacturing not following the Preventative Maintenanceschedule as written.
•Wafer study showed that life could be extended exponentially by changing the practices and procedures of the tool & die makers andthe inspectors as well as using good quality tool details. •Tool & Die makers to change practice regarding tooldetail changes. Specifically, only replacing or flipping thedetail in question, as opposed to changing or flippingall 4 details in the die when one fails.•Source wafer (tool details) to Vendor C• Inspectors to be re-trained regarding proper implementationof the current print specification regarding burrs and burrtolerances.• Eliminate the procedure of shutting the die down to repairburrs that are not out of specification in an effort to avoid the potential production of defective parts. • Preventative Maintenance schedule to be revised to to match criteria established during the wafer study.
• Inspection reports to be sent in tact with the tool detailsindicating the measurement of the details.• Wafer usage to be measured against pieces produced on an on going basis to verify pieces per wafer half.• Manufacturing and Quality General Supervisors to meetwith Inspectors in order to alleviate concerns regardingscrapping of defective parts that may be produced.• Preventative Maintenance Schedule to be maintained by the Die Maintenance Scheduler beginning first quarter of 200x. This will avoid over production of the die beyond theregular PM schedule.
Page 2
DE
FIN
ED
EF
INE
Six Sigma Project Team:
Black-Belt Candidate: Jim Altier
Green Belt Candidates:
Project Sponsor:
Project Champion:
Master Black-Belt:
Problem Statement and Background
Plant, Department supplies the male blade parts to Plant Assembly Area. These 5 part numbers are used in 39 part
numbers which supply 7 different Customer product lines. Annual requirements are 1,212,041,754 parts.
Currently department, is experiencing approximately 70% downtime, scrap cost of $80,000 (200x) and $100,000 in
additional tool cost. This encompasses 5 part numbers, 12 tools across 14 press’s. Of the 70% downtime, it has been
determined that burrs on the parts and poor wafer quality from the vendor is responsible for the 25% of the downtime.
It is imperative that Plant increase uptime , reduce scrap and additional tooling usage significantly to stay competitive.
Previous Kaizen Workshops have identified various root causes and possible solutions.
The following areas are being addressed first through a Six Sigma, DMAIC project.
First and foremost the wafer quality and dimensional tolerancing (through a separate project) will be defined and
resolved systematically to improve uptime and lower scrap & tool usage.
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
Page 3
BEC Area Press Profile
Stock Prob0.2%
Set Up2.9%
Misc2.5%
Tool Revisions/De-bug0.3%
Vision5.1%
Pipefitter1.4%
Mach Repair3.6%
PPAP1.0%
Press Rev/Re-Build/Safety/Vamco
0.7%
Stock Chgs11.9%
Interference4.0%
Insp3.5%
Preventive Maintenance1.5%
Run27.6%
Tool Room27.3%
Elec1.5%
Engr/Tech2.5%
Idle/Ineff iciency/Manning2.5%
Plant Kaizen WorkshopFacilitated by the TeamJanuary 22 – 24, 200xProblem Definitions• Unscheduled Die Maintenance• Zero Tolerance of Burrs on parts• Inspection Criteria
Stock Jams
Too much coolant pulls slugs & causes
jams Question the amountof stock to be runbefore shutdown
Stock changes, too many
Vamco feed out of adj.
Operatornot feeding stock
properlyChamfer too smallsupposed to be
.32
Tolerancing Inspectors scared to pass
questionable parts
0 tolerance to difficult
InconsistentinspectorsNearing max
tolerance so we shutdown before we
are out of spec.
Measurement system error
Not sharpeningenough on the
punches.Poor heattreating.
Large nick on the punch.Quality of
Punches
Operators changingsettings
Running too hot
Low coolant
Too much coolantpulls slugs & causes jams
Broken IDCArm
Worn backupblocks
Stripper inserts aremis-aligned
OROR
BURRS
280
SERIES
MALE
BLADES
OROR
OROR
OROR
OROR
Quality of the Wafer
Poor surfacefinish
Not grinding in a cross hatching
pattern
Too many wafersstacked.
Cutting too manyat once.
Poor Inspection(incoming)Sampling
Poor grind job(too much too fast)
Small nick on the wafer (incoming)
Poor heat treatingburning the part
Poor supplierquality
Too few passeswith the EDM
OROR
OROR
Wafer Life
Carbide backup blocksare stronger, better
wafer support but theycrash instead of wear
Steel backup blockswear & dwell out,
wafer support is lostnot as good as carbide Stock jams
deteriorate the life of a wafer
Poor handlingwhich leaves
nicks or deformation
Tool Crash
Location in the diemay not be reliable
OROR
Areas ofConcentration
SIX SIGMASIX SIGMA personnel and the TOOL & DIE MAKERS created a Fault Tree Analysis to determine potential causes of the problemsdefined by the Kazien Workshop.
34 potential X’s were identified4 important paths are 2 SIX SIGMASIX SIGMA projects1. Quality of the Wafer2. Wafer Life3. Tolerancing4. Inspection Criteria
DE
FIN
ED
EF
INE
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
Page 4
Good Quality Wafer Sharp, Clean Cutting Edges
Poor Quality WaferDamaged & Jagged
Cutting Edges
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
ME
AS
UR
EM
EA
SU
RE
All Photosprovided by
an independent Metrology lab.
Page 5
Data Collection Summary:Pieces per Wafer Range
385,633 – 470,500Average
3.2 to 4 hours of run time between wafer changes
Press xxx27 events
Average:470,500pieces between events
Press xxx32 events
Average: 385,633 pieces between events
(An event is: an incidentthat requires a tool & die maker to open the die and
either flip or change wafers.)
Vendor A(current vendor)
Vendor “A”
Vendor B (recommended)
Vendor “B”
Vendor C(recommended)
Vendor “C”
Vendor D(in house)
Vendor “D”
Study began June 3Study began June 3The next step in data
collection.
An experimentto quantify wafer
(processing)quality in regards
to production.
The plan is to compare4 different vendors
head to head.
The goal is toThe goal is todetermine if waferdetermine if waferquality increasesquality increases
uptime, reduces scrap uptime, reduces scrap and lowers overalland lowers overall
tooling cost.tooling cost.
Currently a majority of wafers and punches
do not meet the printspecifications of
+/-.0001+/-.0001
Completed April 200x
0.00150.00100.0005-0.0000-0.0005-0.0010-0.0015
USLLSL
Process Capability Analysis for Difference
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
PPM Total
PPM > USL
PPM < LSL
Ppk
PPL
PPU
Pp
Cpm
Cpk
CPL
CPU
Cp
StDev (Overall)
StDev (Within)
Sample N
Mean
LSL
Target
USL
777788.28
395562.57
382225.70
723460.79
369903.61
353557.18
527343.75
274305.56
253038.19
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
*
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.0003543
0.0002825
2304
0.0000062
-0.0001000
*
0.0001000
Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability
Potential (Within) Capability
Process Data
Within
Overall
* A majority of tool details do not meet the print specifications* A majority of tool details do not meet the print specifications
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
ME
AS
UR
E /
AN
AL
YZ
EM
EA
SU
RE
/ A
NA
LY
ZE
Page 6
Vendor “B”1. Use only “Crucible
CPM-M4” (no substitutes), we buy 1” x 4” x 24” bars (ordered lengthwise grain)
2. Wire cut .160 thick, 4” x 6” plates
3. Drill start hole & tapped hole pattern
4. Heat treat to specification (Cryogenic Freeze for Stabilization)
5. Grind to .1255 thickness6. Stack 6 high & wire cut
with 5 passes7. Finish grind outsides;
grinding wire cut forms into location.
8. Reload a singles into wire & cut 4 axis shape & 4 holes finished
9. Cut 45 degree chamfers on 4 holes in milling machine with carbide C’sinks
10. Grind extra thickness stock off back
11. Grind Relief slot
Vendor “A”1. 4-6 plates that are
ground approximately .020 + oversize
2. Weld or bolt together3. Wire the inside of
wafer to size, outside to approximately .0005 oversize
4. Grind outside to size5. Grind
approximately .001 oversize on thickness
6. Glass bead inside of shape to knock off burr & clean up inside of shape
7. Grind to size which sharpens the wafer & leaves a .0005 burr
Vendor “C”Plates are ground individually1. Plates are ground to
size on the thickness and +.004 on the outside dimensions
2. Plates are stacked in a fixture and wired to size using 5 passes to achieve the finest surface finish and the sharpest cutting edges. Because thickness was ground to size prior to wire cut, no measurable burr remains
3. The outside dimensions are then ground to locate the wire(d) opening(s)
Vendor “D”
1. Use CPM-M4 hardened to 61-63 RC and ground flat to .0001 flatness
2. Blank sizes are 3” x 6” x .130 thick
3. Stack 4 blanks at a time in a holder
4. Use a hole burner for start holes
5. Wire cut using 4 passes
6. Inspect using the View 1220
7. Grind to thickness using Okamoto wet grinder
8. Tap on EDM taper9. Grind slots and mark
parts
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
AN
AL
YZ
EA
NA
LY
ZE
Page 7
Vendor “A” is a 5x improvement in comparison to where we were before the study began. The only difference in these wafers compared to previous wafers is that they were measured and picked according to dimensionality. This practice was used for all 4 vendors. Statistically, the only dimension that shows a strong correlation to life was dimension 12, which is the overall outside length of the wafer.
Vendor “B”. These wafers showed a 3x improvement over our current piece count per wafer half. Dimensionally these parts were the second best, however, numerous parts did not meet the required harness level per Rockwell standards. These wafers were actually run through the study twice due to a lubrication problem with the die. The parts showed extreme wear and were prematurely fatigued due to lack of lubrication. Therefore, Vendor “B” has more data points in comparison to the other vendors.
Vendor “C”. The study on these wafers was stopped prematurely. The parts had such good wear characteristics that the parts were pulled to move on to another vendor. These wafers averaged a 12x improvement over our current piece count. This vendor exhibited the best dimensional characteristics.
Vendor “D”. This is last vendor to run in the die. These parts averaged a 7x improvement. This set of wafers were put in after the die received a complete PM due to cycling. Of all the vendors these wafers consistently were out of specification in regards to the +/- .0001 tolerance. This indicates that hardness and the PM cycle are factors.
Metallurgical studies indicate differences in the heat treating is an important factor in the life of the wafer. Vendor “B” produced parts that were dimensionally superior to vendors “A & D” and equal to Vendor “C”, however, due to lack of hardness and proper heat treating, these parts wore more rapidly than the others. Vendor “D” ranked 4 th dimensionally, however, ranked 2nd in pieces per wafer half. This indicates that dimensionality is not the number 1 factor in life. Vendor “C” produced the best overall parts, dimensionally, hardness and heat-treating. Consequently, the results indicate that a combination of all factors is needed to extend the life of the wafer. Additional metallurgical testing is being done to provide more information in regards to the tool steel structure. This will aid in the processing of the wafers both internally and externally.
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
AN
AL
YZ
EA
NA
LY
ZE
Page 8
2249390
1471809
4970651
2803670
400000
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
Series1
Series1 400000 2249390 1471809 4970651 2803670
Previous Average
Vendor "A"
Vendor "B"
Vendor "C"
Vendor "D"
Pieces Per Wafer Half (Average)
ImprovementImprovementOver Over
Previous Previous AverageAverage
3.6 X3.6 X
5.6 X5.6 X
7.0 X7.0 X
12.4 X12.4 X
Vendor to Vendor Comparison for number of pieces produced between wafer halves
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
Old Process
New Process
IMP
RO
VE
IMP
RO
VE
N/AN/A
Page 9
Old Process Financial New Process
Vendor “A” Factors Vendor “C” Vendor “D” Vendor “A” Vendor “B”
400,000 Pieces per Wafer Half 4,970,651 2,803,670 2,249,390 1,471,809
$75.00 Cost per Wafer $133.00 * $60.22 $75.00 $110.00
.0001875 Wafer Cost per Piece produced .000026757 .000021478 .0000333 .0007442
911,653,988 2003 BEC blade volume 911,653,988 911,653,988 911,653,988 911,653,988
$170,935.12 Wafer cost for 2003 volume $24,393.18 $19,581.40 $30,396.71 $68,135.16
N/A Savings $146,541.94 $151,353.71 $140,538.42 $102,799.96
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department
IMP
RO
VE
IMP
RO
VE
Tooling SavingsTooling Savings
• Vendor “C” has been awarded the blankets for wafer details per the results of this study. (* wafers for the study were $110.00,
once blanket was awarded average cost is now $133.00) • Vendor “D” will begin wafer production first quarter of 2003 and will assume responsibility of supplying wafer details.• Vendor “A” had lost the blanket for the wafer details prior to the completion of the study due to quality issues with Distributors.• Vendor “B” was not on the approved supplier list, provided experimental parts for the study.
During the course of the wafer study (June 3 to October 31) the project saved $6010.00. This was capable by changing the process andDuring the course of the wafer study (June 3 to October 31) the project saved $6010.00. This was capable by changing the process andonly flipping and or changing the wafers that were worn out or broken. This method used only 40 details, where asonly flipping and or changing the wafers that were worn out or broken. This method used only 40 details, where asthe previous method would have used 96 details. This $6010.00 has been added on the financial tracker.the previous method would have used 96 details. This $6010.00 has been added on the financial tracker.
Page 10
CO
NT
RO
LC
ON
TR
OL
• 3/15/02: Cutting Edge Requirement for Cutting Wafers / Dies and Cutting Punches Letter (Distributors)
Effective immediately, cutting wafer/die and cutting punch edges must be free of any manufacturing burr. Cutting edges must be sharp, not to exceed a measurable 0.005mm(.0002”) burr height, with an optional 0.025mm (.001”)radius allowed on the cutting edge for burr removal. All non-conforming cutting wafers/dies and cutting punches will be routed through the discrepancy process and returned to the supplier for replacement or rework. The majority of suppliers are currently aware of and complying with the above standard. However, recently, manufacturing has identified product that does not meet the above requirement. To allow for any process changes or additional inspection process, we will begin enforcing this requirement March 25th, 2002. All cutting wafers/dies and cutting punches received after March 25 th, 2002 must conform to this requirement.
• 7/17/02: Spare Tooling Requirements ( Distributors & Engineering)
Die Spare Tooling Requirements
The following requirements apply to Die Spare Tooling only and are to be used as standards unless otherwise specified on the print. Deviations from requirements in this document will not be accepted without prior authorization via Deviation Request. Plating repairs or weld repairs of any kind will not be accepted without prior authorization via Deviation Request. Amendments, additions or omissions to this document must be authorized by the representative below.
• 11/4/02: Letter to Distributors regarding tool details being sourced to (Vendor “C”)
•( Supervisor)
Effective Monday November 4th 200x, all of the Wafers, (8xxxx, 8xxxxx0, 8xxxxx, 8xxxxx and 8xxxxx), must be purchased from Vendor C only.If you have any questions, please call me.
• 11/8/02: Verified & Reviewed the proper inspection criteria with Department. (Quality)
Going forward inspectors will only shut the press down when a terminal has a defect beyond the limits of the specification. Past practice was to shut down and fix a defect that was close to be out of specification.
• 11/21/02: Reviewed results of wafer study and improvement plan with Die Makers. (Six Sigma Project Leader)
The new practice will be to only flip or change the wafer (any die detail) that is responsible for the defect at that given time. No longer will the wafers be flipped or changed 4 at a time unless required due to the quality of the part.
• First Quarter 200x: Die Maintenance Scheduler to assume the role of handling Die Maintenance and Preventative Maintenance Scheduling. ( Supervisor)
This will remove the responsibility from the manufacturing supervisor and allow for a consistent adherence to the schedule. Results of the study also indicated that various tool details do not last the full PM cycle, therefore, changes will be communicated to tool engineering for review and implementation.
I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department I&CIM Project – Improve Uptime in the production department