1 / 25

TECK SEE PLASTIC SDN. BHD

Prepared By. Checked By. Approved By. TSP ZAMRIE QA. TSP RH BOON S.O.M. TSP HM THAM GM. MOHD. ZAMRI. RH BOON. HM THAM. TECK SEE PLASTIC SDN. BHD. Project Number : 01 Project Name : To reduce LCD Chopin Rear Cover Painting Defect Green Belt Name : Mohd. Zamri

nerita
Download Presentation

TECK SEE PLASTIC SDN. BHD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prepared By Checked By Approved By TSP ZAMRIE QA TSP RH BOON S.O.M TSP HM THAM GM MOHD. ZAMRI RH BOON HM THAM TECK SEE PLASTIC SDN. BHD Project Number : 01 Project Name : To reduce LCD Chopin Rear Cover Painting Defect Green Belt Name : Mohd. Zamri Champion : Mr. HM Tham Department : QA

  2. PROJECT MISSION PROBLEM STATEMENT 1. Reject rate for Aug/Sept.2005 is 7.6 % 2. DPPM = 76,000 3. Many complaint from SDMA during LSR MISSON STATEMENT To reduce DPPM from 76000 to 19000 ( 75% improvement) 1. To reduce cost of poor quality & effects. 2. To minimize risk of NG parts skip to customer. 3.

  3. High Level Process Map - SIPOC Supplier Input Process Output Customer Incoming Material • Raw material. • Part of parts • Equipment • Sub store • Tooling -PP & C -SOP -Specification -Semi Finished Goods -Special requirement -Outgoing inspection -SDMA Production output Reject quantity Production efficiency Plant efficiency Part confirmation Spray painting Drying Production checker Printing Assembly Inspection Packing End DEFECT CATEGORY BREAKDOWN Others, 10, 2% Assembly, 6, 1% Moulding, 8, 1% Handling, 64, 12% Painting, 467 pcs = 84% Project Drill Down Tree PROJECT STATEMENT TSP Big - Y TSP Mega Project TSP Small - Y TSP Q100 Project Project Name : To reduce LCD Chopin Rear Cover Painting Defect Problem statement SECONDARY PROCESS DEFECT TREND 1800 20.00 17.43 18.00 1600 16.00 1400 14.00 1200 10.79 10.66 12.00 1000 10.00 7.95 DEFECT % 7.62 800 QUANTITY (PCS) 6.75 8.00 6.09 5.45 600 6.00 4.01 400 4.00 200 2.00 ( Data collection period : 15/8/05 until 9/9/05 ) ( Date source : QC dept ) 0 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prod. Qty Rej.qty Def.%

  4. Project Justification Expected Result : Expected COPQ Saving : RM 106,756.67 / Year @ USD 28,093/ Year (Baseline period Aug 05 until Sept 05) Data source PP&C & QC Dept COPQ Calculation : [ Baseline DPPM – Target DPPM / 1000000 ]x Yearly production quantity x [ (Average Repair cost per unit + Labour Manhour Cost) x No. of manpower] = [ 76000 – 19000 / 100000 ]x 1,200,000 x [(RM 2.6077 + RM 15) x 1) = RM 106,756.67 / Year • Strategic Importance: • Enhance customer satisfaction • Good image – Better business allocation • Profitable business • Maintain market competitiveness

  5. Project Team CHAMPION Mr. HM Tham Sr. Op. Manager Mr. RH Boon S-Green Belter Mentor Mohd. Zamri Mr. Alfizal SUPPLIER & CUSTOMER DATA ANALYSIS TECHNICAL PROCESS Mr. Kamarudin Ms. Azah Mr. Anand Mr. Cheng • Control of incoming • parts quality • Liase with customer & • supplier for any quality • issue. • Data collection • Analyze data using • statistical tool • Control of tooling, • ,machine & manpower • Analysis & improvement • on technical matter. • Process management • Secondary process • improvement Measure Baseline Performance BASELINE (PERIOD : SEP 2005) BASELINE COPQ : USD 3153.49 / Month RM 11667.90 / Month DPPM : 76000 Sigma Level : 2.93 TARGET TARGET COPQ : USD 788.38 / Month RM 2918 / Month DPPM : 19000 Sigma Level : 3.57 IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT COPQ Saving : USD 2365.11/Month RM 8749.90 / Month DPPM : 57000 Sigma Level : 0.64

  6. Measure Baseline Performance BASELINE COPQ : USD 3153.49 / Month RM 11667.90 / Month DPPM : 76000 Sigma Level : 2.93 BASELINE (PERIOD : SEP 2005) TARGET COPQ : USD 788.38 / Month RM 2918 / Month DPPM : 19000 Sigma Level : 3.57 TARGET IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT COPQ Saving : USD 2365.11/Month RM 8749.90 / Month DPPM : 57000 Sigma Level : 0.64

  7. Problem statement PAINTING DEFECT SAMPLE Dust Overspray Sanding mark Rough surface Miss spray Borderline

  8. START • Map Actual Process INPUT OUTPUT V A • Parts dusty & sanding mark Incoming material • Bare part flashing requires • to sanding NV A • After secondary process • parts quality • Overall molding part quality Bare part check NV A Sanding & treatment • Paint material quality • Spray painting equipment • Spray booth condition • Painting jig • Spray method V A • Good & NG part Spray painting NV A • Drying temperature • Drying time • Paint reliability V A Oven drying Rework Input check • Inspection method • Judgment criteria • Only good parts input to line • Segregate NG part to rework NV A V A • Incoming POP quality • Assembly method • Rubber foot assy • Button melting Assembly V A QC Inspection • Inspection method • Judgment criteria • Good & NG part N V A V A • Good part for delivery Packing • Packing material condition • Judgment criteria End

  9. Map Actual Process Injection Moulding Input check Bare part Spray Oven Drying Packing QC Inspection Button Melting Incoming Part After Spray

  10. Preliminary Process FMEA # Process Function (Step) Potential Failure Modes (process defects) Potential Failure Effects (KPOVs) SEV Potential Causes of Failure (KPIVs) OCC Current Process Controls DET RPN CustomerKey ProcessOutput Variable Dust Over spary Border line Sanding mark Rough surface Mis spray CustomerKey Process Output Variable CustomerPriorityRank # Customer Key Process Input Variable Rank % 1 Incoming quality Flashing (Hairline) Dust fiber 8 Mold wear 6 Trimming 10 480 2 Incoming quality Parting line high Dust fiber 8 Adjustment 4 QC inspection 6 192 CustomerPriorityRank # 8 8 8 8 8 8 Dust 8 Poor touch up method 480 22.14% 3 Spray Rough surface Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 5 QC inspection 5 200 Key ProcessInput Variable Association Table Rank % Rank Over spary 8 Masking NG 240 11.07% 4 Spray Miss spray Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 6 QC inspection 6 288 Spray method 10 10 10 10 10 10 480 22.14% 5 Spray Sanding mark Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 4 QC inspection 8 256 Border line 8 Jig design NG 240 11.07% NG cleaning after sanding 10 0 0 10 5 6 248 11.44% Sanding mark 8 Paint clog at jig 240 11.07% 6 Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 High static charge 5 Ionizer 5 200 Masking NG 0 10 10 0 0 10 240 11.07% Rough surface 8 Gun setting NG 240 11.07% 7 Spray Sanding mark Cosmetic reject 8 Sanding material grade 5 Standardize grade 7 280 Jig design NG 0 10 10 0 0 10 240 11.07% Mis spray 8 Poor paint filter 160 7.38% 8 Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Paint material 6 Paint filter 8 384 Paint clog at jig 10 0 10 0 0 10 240 11.07% Part Hairline flashing 160 7.38% 9 Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Spray gun 7 Service gun 9 504 Gun setting NG 10 0 10 0 10 0 240 11.07% 10 Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Method 4 QC inspection 10 320 Poor paint filter 10 0 10 0 0 0 160 7.38% 11 Spray Border line NG Cosmetic reject 8 Jig design 10 QC inspection 10 800 Hairline flashing 10 0 0 0 0 10 160 7.38% 12 Spray Border line NG Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 5 QC inspection 10 400 Bare part NG 10 0 0 10 0 0 160 7.38% Cause & Effect Diagram Function Deployment Matrix OVER SPRAY BORDERLINE DUST/FIBER Masking condition not fully cover Dust from paint due Improper masking due to Improper paint filtering poor jig design Jig design Paint tank not clean support base touch at parting line Hairline flashing Paint miss clogged at masking area Air hose & gun dirty Conveyor dirty Spray method Hanger dirty Spray booth dusty Spray method Drying oven dusty Dust not properly Clean after sanding HIGH PAINTING DEFECT Touch up without jig Parts have high static charges Excess paint at jig Poor sanding method Paint viscosity to thick pressure Poor touch up Poor masking during touch up No proper clean Gun setting NG Wrong sand paper grade 1000 Nozzle adjustment NG Bare part – poor incoming quality SANDING MARK ROUGH SURFACE MISS SPRAY KPIV & KPOV

  11. Measure Process Capability • For Convergence Dimension : Cp = 0.53, Cpk = 0.14 (short term) • Convergence Adjustment Process is CAPABLE

  12. Determination of Vital Few X’s • Y (Painting defect) = f (x1,x2,x3, … x8) To determine the Vital Few X’s • The Potential Factors are : • Factor 1, x1 : Jig design NG • Factor 2, x2 : Spray gun condition • Factor 3, x3 : Incoming part flashing • Factor 4, x4 : Spray method • Factor 5, x5 : Paint filter NG • Factor 6, x6 : Dust from spray method • Factor 7, x7 : Miss spray from spray method • Factor 8, x8 : Sanding material grade

  13. Test of Theory 1 • Test of Theory 2 Theory : The Painting (over paint) defect is caused by X1 jig design Analysis Tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Over paint have a difference with jig design. Ha : Over paint is have no difference with jig design. overspray Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 401 500 0.802000 2 778 800 0.972500 Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.1705 95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.207221, -0.133779) Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -9.10 P-Value = 0.000 Miss spray Masking jig design borderline P-Value =0.00< 0.05 Fail to Reject Ho Conclusion : The over paint HAVE DIFFERENCE with jig design. Thus, the X1 is the Vital X. Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X2 spray gun condition Analysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Painting defect is independent on spray gun filter. H1 : Painting defect is not independent on spray gun filter. Chi-Square Test: NO FILTERS, FILTER Expected counts are printed below observed counts NO FILTE FILTER Total 1 800 1200 2000 815.63 1184.37 2 56 43 99 40.37 58.63 Total 856 1243 2099 Chi-Sq = 0.299 + 0.206 + 6.048 + 4.165 = 10.719DF = 1, P-Value = 0.001 Dust Spray gun P-Value =0.01 > 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Conclusion : The painting dust is NOT independent on spray gun condition. Thus, the X1 is the Vital X.

  14. Test of Theory 3 • Test of Theory 4 Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X4 from spray method Analysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Painting defect is independent on spray method H1 : Painting defect is not independent on spray method Expected counts are printed below observed counts SPRAY METHOD SPRAY METHOD NG OK Total OK 17 20 37 18.50 18.50 NG 3 0 3 1.50 1.50 Total 20 20 40 Chi-Sq = 0.122 + 0.122 +1.500 + 1.500 = 3.243 DF = 1, P-Value = 0.072 Dust Spray method P-Value =0.072>0.05 Reject Ho Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method. Thus, the X3 is NOT the vital X. Theory : The Painting defect (dust)is caused by X3 incoming part flashing Analysis Tool : 2 PROPROTION TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Painting defect have difference with part flashing. Ha : Painting defect have no difference with part flashing. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 378 500 0.756000 2 983 1000 0.983000 Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.227 95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.265489, -0.188511) Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -11.56 P-Value = 0.000 Dust Part hairline flashing P-Value =0.000 < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Conclusion : The painting defect HAVE DIFFERENCE with part flashing. Thus, the X3 is the Vital X.

  15. Test of Theory 5 • Test of Theory 6 Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X6 spray method Analysis tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Dust is independent on spray method. H1 : Dust is not independent on spray method. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 311 500 0.622000 2 658 1000 0.658000 Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.036 95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.0876802, 0.0156802) Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -1.37 P-Value = 0.172 Spray method Dust P-Value =0.172 >0.05 Reject Ho Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method.Thus, the X6 is NOT the vital X. Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X5 paint filter size Analysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Dust is independent on paint filter size . H1 : Dust is not independent on paint filter size. Chi-Square Test: FILTER SIZE 200 MICRON, 120 MICRON Expected counts are printed below observed counts OK NG Total 200 Mic 972 28 1000 937.50 62.50 100 Mic 903 97 1000 937.50 62.50 Total 1875 125 2000 Chi-Sq = 1.270 + 19.044 + 1.270 + 19.044 = 40.627 DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000 Filter mesh size Dust P-Value =0.000<0.05 Fail to reject Ho Conclusion : The painting defect is NOT INDEPENDENT on part flashing. Thus, the X3 is the Vital X.

  16. Test of Theory 8 • Test of Theory 7 Theory : The Painting defect (miss spray) is caused by X7 spray method Analysis tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Miss spray is independent on spray method. H1 : Miss spray is not independent on spray method. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 997 1200 0.830833 2 1943 2400 0.809583 Estimate for p(1) - p(2): 0.02125 95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.00514461, 0.0476446) Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 1.58 P-Value = 0.115 Miss spray Spray method P-Value =0.115 >0.05 Reject Ho Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method. Thus, the X7 is NOT the vital X. Test of Theory 8 Theory :The Painting defect (sanding mark & r.surface) is caused by X8 sanding grade Analysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST P-Value > 0.05 Reject Ho P-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho Ho : Test reject is independent on sanding material grade. H1 : Test reject is not independent on sanding material grade. Chi-Square Test: SAND PAPER GRADE G 1000, G 1200 Expected counts are printed below observed counts G 1000 G 1200 Total OK 750 1008 1758 771.26 986.74 NG 84 59 143 62.74 80.26 Total 834 1067 1901 Chi-Sq = 0.586 + 0.458 + 7.207 + 5.633 = 13.885 DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000 Sanding mark P-Value =0.00 >0.05 Fail reject Ho Conclusion : Test reject is Not independent on sanding material grade. Thus, the X8 is the vital X.

  17. Vital Few X’s • Y (Painting defects) = f (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x7) The Vital Few Xs are: Vital Factor 1, x1 : Jig design Vital Factor 2, x2 : Spray gun condition Vital Factor 3, x3 : Part flashing Vital Factor 5, x5 : Paint material Vital Factor 8, x8 : Sanding material grade

  18. Improvement #1 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Over spray): Before After Ventilation hole area not cover causing the paint mist Stick to part surface Modify jig design – cover the ventilation hole area to prevent paint mist from sticking to part surface • Improvement #2 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Over paint): Before After The part holder area touching the parting line area & causing to paint residue to stick at part. Modify the jig–Redesign of part holder area not to touch parting line area to eliminate painting defect.

  19. Masking jig cover shorter Paint mist Part The paint filling borderline • Improvement #3 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Borderline) Before After Masking jig cover longer Paint mist The extended paint jig cover prevent the paint from Filling the borderline Part Failure rate : 1.9% Failure rate : 0.7% The jig design NG–Parting line not fully cover causing the paint able to penetrate causing to borderline NG. Modify the jig–Redesign of parting line area coverage to ensure paint can’t penetrate during spray process. • Improvement #4 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X2 Spray Gun Type Before After The spray gun type have no filter to prevent the dust from sprayed to the part surface. Change spray gun that have filter to ensure paint application is fully filtered before spraying to the part.

  20. Improvement #5 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X5 paint filter size Before After Failure rate : 1.9% Failure rate : 0.7% Paint material contain rough particle that turn into spray dust & filter mesh 120mic can’t properly filter Change filter mesh to smaller type ( 200mic) to ensure rough particle in the paint is properly filtered • Improvement #6 By Using Non-DOE Improvementof Factor, X3 part flashing Before After Part have hairline flashing that will turn fiber after attack by thinner in the paint during spray process. Repair the mold & ensure the part running is free from any hairline flashing

  21. Improvement #7 By Using Non-DOE Improvement of Factor, X5 sand paper grade Before After Failure rate : 1.02% Failure rate : 0.03% Part have many sanding mark & rough surface when using sand paper grade 1000 Sanding mark & rough surface reduce after using sand paper grade 1500

  22. Control Plan • Summary of Improve Phase • Summary of Improvement • UPDATE FMEA

  23. Result of Control COMPARISON BETWEEN BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENT Items Before After Improvement : Improve from 76,000 dppm to 17000 dppm % 7.60 1.70 DPPM 76000 17000 The project carried out is on the right Track. Conclusion :

  24. PROJECT ACHIEVEMENT 6 σ Activity Duration D M A I C • PROJECT ACHIEVEMENT STATUS TARGET :DPPM 19000 ACTUAL : 170000

More Related