Project implementation start and end date:
13th Oct 2014 to 27th Nov 2014

Is it in continued operation now?: Yes

Innovation: Elaborate in detail as to how your project stands out for its uniqueness / innovation

• The purpose of any productivity improvement project is not only to increase the numbers produced in any particular cell / line but also to ensure that the current productivity project address the company’s current important business problem.
• In that case, there could be sometimes where the project selection is directly driven from the business need and this project is one among it.
• The innovation in the project explained in the case study is that the usage of various simulation ideas using spaghetti charts, “CUT” & “PASTE” brainstorming sessions with leadership team to the “Real” scale, Business vs space occupancy, Production density concepts etc.
• Entitled to deliver additional space for the business need, the methodology adopted is not only limited to the layout and flow but also to the application of ECRS in process & product engineering as well where the status quo was challenged (creation of mixed model cell, challenging low volume stranger products portfolio)
• Entitled to deliver additional space for the business need, the methodology adopted is not only limited to the layout and flow but also to the application of ECRS in process & product engineering as well where the status quo was challenged (creation of mixed model cell, challenging low volume stranger products portfolio)

Problem identification: Why was this problem selected? What methodology was adopted to identify the problem?

• WABCO INDIA LIMITED, Ambattur plant (which started its operations in 2006) is proposed to double the sales turnover in the upcoming four years with entry of new technology global products from WABCO.
  ?Totally with 50 machining cells & 78 assembly cells in an overall shop floor area of 10676 Sq.m, the floor is already filled up with new products till 2013H2 and hardly a free space available for new assemblies & machining lines since then.
• The Ambattur plant is a single roof factory where the entire production floor and the office areas including WABCO INDIA’s product development team, production engineering team and other central functions are having its operation.
• With a required additional area of 1800 Sq.m for new products, it was earlier decided to augment the free space either through shifting the entire factory to outskirts of Chennai leaving behind the Ambattur facility as R&D center or to move some of the key assembly and machining cells to our Jamshedpur facility compromising on the increased logistics cost of raw material & finished goods movement from the major supplier / customer base in the south.
• However, considering the business importance & the massive cost impact on new facility / shifting, a cross functional team is formed led by Lean Promotion office with a very strong entitlement to create the required space in the existing facility through layout transformation & space productivity

Data collection: What data was collected? What methodology was adopted to collect the data?

• Current space utilization (CAPACITY utilization)
  Total Built up area : 47451 Sq.m
  Shop floor area : 10676 Sq.m
  Current shop floor utilization (%) : 68.82%
  
• New products pipeline details & the corresponding space / draft layout plan required

  		New space required in Sq.m
  Sl No	Product	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
  1	Air tank	+134
  2	ABS		+499
  3	AMT		+198
  4	ADB		+112	+170	+200
  5	3.5” CS		+186
  6	Vac.Pump		+161
  7	Others			+170

• Details of monuments in the layout (Like Pillar, Structures, trusses, wash etc) & machine layout (with real time GEMBA validation & methodologies) for all the machines of the sub-scope
• For existing products, current flow, business demand for the upcoming years, current cell utilization (%), Size of the product in order to analyze the demand (vs) size distribution.

Analysis and development of solution: What analysis was done? What alternate solutions were identified? Why was this particular solution chosen?

• Based on the current space utilization and CAPACITY utilization the cells were categorized and locations of the cells were mapped.
• The first step is to arrange the cells accordingly to the demand of the product by shifting high runners and big products near to the raw material warehouse. By doing such optimization the layout of the cells were challenged and cell sizes are reduced by the application of ECRS.

• For low volume repeaters and stranger cells (huge size) which occupies more space, in phase I the cells were relocated away from raw material stores. Similarly by doing such optimization the layout has been challenged with the following strategies

• Strategy I - For cells with less than 25% capacity utilization, rationalize the product with existing runner products and eliminate the line hence releasing space.
• Strategy II – For cells with 25-40% capacity utilization it is proposed to combine the cell with other runner assembly cells to create a “Mixed-Model” cell with minimum / no set-up time.
• There were totally 9 projects that were identified under the above said strategies out of the entire assembly shop accounting for 250 Sq.m

• On the other hand, for machining layout, the current state layout has been captured & the same has been scaled down to the corresponding sizes for real time – simulation scenarios. And detailed spaghetti charts were prepared to understand & analyze the existing flow
• Aligning with the business need & the space occupation % in the overall layout, the unit for implementation of the layout has been chosen. For instance, the C&B1 unit with 3 product families, 7 MIW products in 131 variants that is manufactured across 20 machining cells occupying an overall 3200 Sq.m has been selected.
• An entitlement layout has been arrived along with the leadership and four cross functional workshops were conducted where the real time scenarios were simulated and the ideal layout scenarios has been chosen based on optimal KPIs (key performance indicators)

Implementation: How was the chosen solution tested/validated and implemented?

• To begin with, an overall entitlement out of the layout transformation has been set with KPI’S as follows.

• As discussed in the previous sections, various scenarios have been identified through the layout simulation workshops, and each of them was validated upon the impact they have in the KPI’s of the layout entitlement. In some cases of challenging the locations of very big machines such as honing, grinding, 5 axis horizontal machining centers, plasma nitriding a detailed criteria evaluation has been done once before the final location on the layout has been arrived.

• As the overall layout optimization in the machine shop involves comparatively higher man-days on shifting, the festival-off time of Nov’14 was chosen to implement the total layout optimization
• In the layout optimization, OLD MACHINES (on an average life of >30 years), with bulky ATC mechanism were made more space efficient by ECRS methodology in the process to eliminate the machine & offload the operations without affecting productivity (total 4 machines in the same case – accounts to 250 Sq.m)
• Big machines which were GANGWAY specific (HR3A – 4 machines, Honing – 2 machines – Width of the machines > 3 meters ) were challenged for improved space efficiency & production density by utilization of vertical space for accessories (Totally 5 similar kaizen ideas were implemented during the optimization process which have converted the “machines” as “Gangway-specific” & not the “gangways” as “Machine – Specific
• Totally 20 hours of layout optimization has happened over 2 weeks of time with total 48 machines repositioned according to the layout plan with 12 machines challenged for space efficiency & improved production density.
• After the total layout revamping, the entire exercise has been re-validated for the process capability of all the critical parameters & found the sustenance of it above 2
• In assembly, the selected projects were implemented as per the schedule with necessary customer / PPAP approvals.
• For project that involved the rationalization of the product portfolio, the Quality team was made to visit the field to validate the application of the proposed products

Benefits to organization:
Operational benefits: What benefits were accrued to the organization as a result of the implementation of the project?

• Generation of free space – 1260 Sq.m (12% of the shop floor area)
• Non-cyclical Headcount reduction – 3 operators / shift
• Reduction in average material travel distance by 28%
• Single piece flow has been ensured in all the cells that undergone layout transformation.
• Standardized the Gangways hence, Gangway specific machines rather than machine specific gangway.

Financial benefits: Describe the financial benefits on parameters such as cost saving, avoidance of CAPEX, etc. as relevant to this project.

• Generation of free space thereby potentially averted the need for the expansion of the plant resulting in savings 640 lacs one time.
• Released totally 4 old HMC’s resulting in CAPEX avoidance of 240 lacs for new machines.
• Ensured productivity improvement of 20% indirectly through layout optimization in two cells (HINO crankcase machining cell & WC crankcase machining cell) without any other investment.
• WIP inventory reduction of 18 lacs through inventory points reduction & ensuring single piece flow.
• Savings / annum on reduction of 3 operators / shift : 7.2 lacs p.a

Institutionalization and horizontal deployment, if any:

• The entire layout is standardized after the major revamping & the same is been owned now by LPO (Lean Promotion office).
• The cpk has been validated for critical Quality parameters after the layout transformation.
• Any changes in the layout hereinafter system is created in such a way that, a cross functional workshop is been conducted involving all the stakeholders will be planned to evaluate the various scenarios & to choose the ideal one.
• Now the horizontal deployment is on-going in crankshaft machining cells of C&B1 unit
• The entire project of space productivity in our site has not only involved the conventional way of creating the free space by some kaizens but also it featured a companywide approach to de-fragment the existing layout through identification of projects from every manufacturing units and deployment of the targets to them. While creation of the free space, the entire layout of the site is aligned to the designed ideal future state layout with improved flow thereby creating a layout transformation. In few cases both the existing process design & product design has been challenged and a committed cross functions involving R&D, Marketing & Field service were also involved.

Project implementation start and end date:
March 2012 to January 2013

Is it in continued operation now? Yes

Certificate of the division/business/unit/company head

• We certify that the productivity improvement project described here was implemented by the above team and is in continuous operation. We also certify that the claimed benefits accrued to our organization. We also agree that the contents of this case study can be published by the organizers.
• Cost saving from this project: 37 Lacs*.

PART-A MACHINING FIXTURES
Innovation:
Machining Fixtures

• We have conceived, designed, manufactured and implemented next generation machining fixtures. We call them chip-less and clamp-less fixtures. The fixture elements have been indigenously designed by us resulting in low cost & better reliability.

• 1)Provided unique 4 in 1 functional unit that is used to locate orient, rest & clamp the part. This has been indigenously designed and developed by us.

• 2)Spherical base plate to ensure no chip accumulation during processing

• 3)Obstruction to componentloading/unloading In fixture eliminated through clamp-less fixtures

• 4)Fixture parts life improvement through Special coating which is maintenance free

• 5)Lead time reduction through parts reduction & standardization

Problem identification:

Considering the short time for any product to market and increasing number of new projects owing to shorter product life cycle, it becomes very critical to shorten the time of production facility creation (fixtures, gauges, machines, tools etc.)

• Multi model facility creation is the need of the hour.
• Also effective utilization of the established production facilities is critical (minimizing losses & enhancing productivity)
• In Star family where the production volume is higher, we observed

• Low employee productivity
• Lead time high for fixture availability
• More part damages in handling

Close observation of the operator working, revealed following difficulties.

• The following data were collected for the identified machining cells pertaining to machining fixtures & gauges (Source: Star family)

• a)Part damage details due to handling
• b)Repairing time (MTTR)

• We used Advance 5-s technique & 7 QC tools to challenge our current practices and go for a next generation fixtures.

•  Sort Out –     Identify/eliminate the undesired factors.
•  Set Limit –     Identify/incorporate the basic requirements of fixtures.
•  Shine –             List out the best in its class ideas for enhancing the                               functionality of fixtures.

• Standardize -  Shine ideas generated to be 
• Sustain –  Improvement made to be made 

The next generation fixtures were tested& validated

• a)Verified in our alpha shop for the actual process parameters with 500 no components and all quality parameters were inspected.
• b) Validated in the actual production cell.
• c) Customer voice captured
• d) MFMEA for design standardization

a) Operational benefits:

b) Operational benefits:

We have gone for sub-system standardization. This has helped us reduce the number of distinct parts to be designed. Also integrated the standard catalogue parts into our design for improving the gauges R&R & cost reduction (eg, Misumi, THK etc). Able to maintain off the shelf standard parts so that the time to manufacturing is greatly reduced.

Problem identification

Design, procurement, manufacturing and implementation are the 4 main phases of facility creation for any project
We also observed that there was a high lead time to design critical gauges (2-6 weeks) and high lead time in manufacturing & making them available
(6-10 weeks)
Any new project requires 6M facilities. This project was selected based on our pareto for facility creation.

Pareto indicating the importance of gauges availability for any new project.

The following data were collected for the identified machining cells pertaining to machining fixtures & gauges (Source: Star family)
a) Types of gauges, their lead time to availability
b) Stratification of lead time data

Analysis and development of solution

The following data were collected for the identified machining cells pertaining to machining fixtures & gauges (Source: Star family)

• We used root cause analysis for more lead time in gauges availability through brainstorming.
• We did a cost impact analysis item wise for critical gauges.
• Also did the repetitive designs in critical gauges.

Sub-system level standardization has been extended to all gauges of Camshaft, Frame, Panel checkers etc. MFMEA was conducted to ascertain the performance of these gauges. 2 gauges were manufactured to test and ascertain the same. Also designed with an eye to use readily available parts
eg. LM guide for front sliding motion.(from MISUMI)

a) Parts commonised for the transmission part gauges:.

• 50%Productivity of our designers enhanced from 100 designs/man/year to 150 designs/man year
• Overall gauge handing over time reduced to 10 weeks.
  Design lead time reduced from 6 weeks to 4 weeks for critical gauges

Financial benefits:

Cost saving owing to standardization - 20%
This is by using standard parts with simplified designs.
Designs are patented.
Cost certificate attached in total in pg.5: - Total saving 37 Lacs for one model of fixtures and gauges.

Institutionalization and horizontal deployment, if any

Please elaborate on how the changes have been embedded in the system and horizontally deployed as applicable.

This is for the total case study (Part A & Part B)

We have deployed 17 nos. of next generation fixtures across star models.
Our design shine points have been communicated to all & are being ensured that the new machining fixtures are complying with the same.
Gauges & fixtures standard parts created & are being used for all projects after implementation.
Design manuals & guidelines updated. Suppliers are supplying gauges & fixtures as per these guidelines.

Project implementation start and end date:
Jun-14 to Oct-14
Is it in continued operation now? Yes

innovation: Elaborate in detail as to how your project stands out for its uniqueness / innovation

Following are the important, noticeable, unique & innovative points of our project:/

1)Cycle time reduction in the existing processes without investment

2)New wood pecking cycle designed & implemented.

3)Utilization of the idle machines by doing modification in fixture, tools, PLC program.

4)Combination of the tool & operation clubbing.

5)All the activity has been carried out In-house & lesser time.

6)89% capacity up through this project within 3 months with minimum investment.

Problem identification: Why was this problem selected? What methodology was adopted to identify the problem?

We have selected this project due to following issues & causes:-

1)Increasing trend in the customer requirement – capacity was short against the increasing requirement.

2)It was not possible to fulfill the requirement by doing extra working also – OT cost is also high & it cannot be solution for long term.

3)Very less time to increase the capacity to fulfill customer requirement – lead time required for new line addition is more.

4)High investment required for new line addition.

5)Additional manpower requirement for new line.

6)Additional space requirement for new line

Our company’s market share is 70% with the higher level of satisfaction of the customers on account of QCDDM for which almost every year we have received an award. We are always giving the priority to the fulfillment of customer requirement.

1)Wastage of non-cutting time.

2)Idle machinery.

3)Operations are in series.

4)Process designed with the lower cutting speed.

5)Delays due to errors in program.

We have used various problem solving tools & techniques for the problem identification as well as for root cause analysis:-

1)Brainstorming

2)Data collection & compilation.

3)Pareto diagram.

4)GEMBA / Situation Analysis.

5)Cause & effect diagram.

6)5W1H

7)Why-Why Analysis.

8)PDCA.

9)Run chart.

10)Process capability study.

11)Radar diagram.

There was scope for:-

1)Improvement in the above mentioned causes in line with the CT reduction / Capacity increase.

2)It can be done with minimum investment.

3)It can be done faster OR in line with the customer requirement.

4)It will have the better as well long term benefits to the organization.

Data collection: What data was collected? What methodology was adopted to collect the data?

In our project of capacity improvement we have collected, compiled & analyzed following data:-

1)Objective trend.

2)Machine wise, operation wise CT / time study.

3)Process capability study.

4)Technical data for the respective processes & its parameters.

5)Inspection data (diameter, depth, positions, angle, surface finish etc.)

Usage of the e of the tools & techniques for data collections:-

1)Data check sheet – used to collect the inspection data of the respective parameters.

2)Run chart – used to understand the actual variation of the respective parameters.

3)Time line chart – used to the time required for the respective activity in the respective process & its impact on the CT.

4)Process flow diagram – used to understand the sequence, relevance of each operation with each other.

5)Job orientation study – used to identify the orientation of the job in case of the actual machining operations – for operation reshuffling & clubbing.

• Brainstorming session was conducted to identify the various possible causes affecting the CT.
• Machine wise, operation wise CT study has been done to identify the bottle neck machine as well as the bottleneck operation.
• Operation wise, parameter wise, actual machining area / cutting area, non-cutting area, actual machine program has been studied to identify the various losses in the respective process / operations.
• Standard technical data has been studied to check the existing process level & scope for the corrections / improvements in the process parameters.
• Job orientation & operation feasibility review was conducted to check the possibility of doing the same operation on other machines (idle / underutilization mc).
• Operation wise, activity wise time study is done to understand the most time consuming operation / activity.
• Process flow diagram has been studied to know the sequence of the operations its importance & the impacts
• WHY-WHY analysis to identify the actual root cause of the problems.

Various data was studied, changes have been done in the respective parameters / program / operation location, sequence etc. & accordingly trials have been conducted.
Every step has been verified on account of the Quality inspection, safety, CT etc.
Based on the inspection results decided to produce the trial lot & verified up to the flow stand under the IP tag.
Based on the final carburetor assembly results of flow stand & after data compilation – standardization is done & change point approval has been taken as per ‘Production Condition Change Application’ procedure.

implementation process /activity – we have learned a lot of improvement in the concerned peoples:-

1)Leadership.

2)Team work.

3)Problem solving approach.

4)Technical ability.

5)Improvement approach.

6)Computer skill, etc.

Please list at least 4 important operational benefits on the parameters related to productivity, quality, etc. as relevant to this project.
Following are the direct benefits from the project:-

Please elaborate on how the changes have been embedded in the system and horizontally deployed as applicable.
Horizontal deployment in all 3 plants of Keihinfie Pvt. Ltd. On PB as well as CV machining lines.

Contestants may give any other relevant information that can prove helpful to make it a winning entry.

• Some of the countermeasure (changes in the process parameters like speed, wood pecking cycle) also implemented on all the machining areas – Tool life also increased.
• Our project is has been appreciated in the Keihinfie Quality Circle competition & Winner of the year.
• We have implemented the actions after thorough analysis, trials & by following the standards of change point implementation procedure.
• All the activities done very fast – as our target was to improve the capacity in line rather before customer requirement increase.

Project implementation start and end date:

Is it in continued operation now? Yes

Innovation: Elaborate in detail as to how your project stands out for its uniqueness / innovation

A] Consistent achievement of greater than 30% cost saved for 2 product types

1.Without any investments in infrastructure.

2.Without any direct material cost reduction.

B] Both product types have already registered higher sales

1.Product type 1 sale increased by 60% in volume

2.Product type 2 sale increased by 60% in volume

C] Additional capacity created leading to sales growth

1.Both Product type sale increased to 45 k per month.

D] Process Innovations

1.Standardization for the process of Holistic cost reduction that can be replicated across SKF Globally

2.Development of innovative process steps for improving performance of machines

3.Process innovations like kinetic energy transformation DOE for grinding

4.Process innovations like kinetic energy transformation honing process parameters.

5.Sequential analysis for vibration scrap reduction

6.Simulation DOE

E] Sustainability

1.Reduction in energy loss in grinding and honing by utilizing innovation idea of kinetic energy transformations

2.Setup chart validated and incorporated in PLC and parameters lock to reduce man machine intervention.

3.Training to all concerned employees completed across channels

Problem identification: Why was this problem selected?
What methodology was adopted to identify the problem?

1.Business Threat of 20 MINR

2.Selling Price of Bearing type 1 was 99.34 INR ,Standard cost of bearing was 100.88 INR, Actual Manufacturing cost was 148.8 INR, Competition was capturing market share for this type due to cost and capacity threat to the tune 1,00,000 brgs per year 10 MINR per year .

3.Selling Price of Bearing type 2 was 98.55 INR ,Standard cost of bearing was105.09 INR, Actual Manufacturing cost was 124.8 INR, Competition was capturing market share for this type due to cost and capacity threat to the tune 1,00,000 brgs per year 10 MINR per year .

4.Low productivity leading to Non Profitable business & Loss to channel financial parameters

1.Roadmap for productivity improvement & cost reduction started with Structured approach of Standard Cost Break up from Cost controller .

1.From Data collection and sensitive analysis 6 critical components were identified for further improvement An Integrated project management system with structured approach involving all channel management was used to ensuring timely completion of project activities

• Analytical Technique of Sequential analysis for improving quality of bearings developed and deployed involving operators
• This is very effective tool which builds a strong cause and effect relationship and contribution of each signification cause to effect via regression

5.Technique of optimizing honing parameters based on kinetic energy transformation and RSM (DOE)

Implementation: How was the chosen solution tested/validated and implemented?

A} FIRST CRITICAL X ….OVERHEAD COST REDUCTION:

Detail analysis was done categorically to understand Overhead cost parameters and which are important as seen in Pareto .

As Per Pareto first priority was to analyse and reduce wages cost ,Wages was analysed in terms of no of fix workmen and flexi workmen and their actual reporting channel ,Allocation of workmen was done on basis of their actual working channel .Possibility of Reduction of manpower was seen as per value addition and recommendation was given.

Second Priority was Cost of Depreciation. Assets on Channel having written down value were verified for their availability on channel and were keened machine wise item wise and removed from asset register or reallocated to appropriate

A} FINAL OVERHEAD COST REDUCTION After Analysis and action of overhead key parameter results show reduction in overhead cost

b)Financial benefits:

Institutionalization and horizontal deployment, if any:

Please elaborate on how the changes have been embedded in the system and horizontally deployed as applicable.
Umbrella Project Launched Across Channels of DGBB Pune on Different channels as per Customer Threat and Business Volume

Project implementation start and end date:
Aug 2012 to Jan, 2013

Is it in continued operation now? Yes

Certificate of the division/business/unit/company head

• We certify that the productivity improvement project described here was implemented by the above team and is in continuous operation. We also certify that the claimed benefits accrued to our organization. We also agree that the contents of this case study can be published by the organizers.

Innovation / Uniqueness:

• Every business is for making profit. Loss in profit loss or sales loss is not acceptable in any company at any circumstances. Our project has addressed the same objective.
• As chassis shop is governing the entire plants output, if the required capacity could not have achieved, we could have lost vehicle sales (including exports) to the tune of 10 to 12 K per month, resulting direct loss of profit to company.

• We studied this project TPM way with micro level and deeply working to identify small small possible contributing elements of cycle time reduction.
• Systematic analysis is done through management tools e.g. tree diagram, possibility matrix, ECRS & time motion micro study. We struggled for saving even 0.1 sec / spot & achieved through RW software by interfacing with machine manufacturer & learning on internet. 0.1 sec/spot reductions resulted into 15.4 sec. saving on 14 Robots.
• We believe in team working, our team has complemented the challenging project successfully. Our satisfied team consists of cell members, group leaders, managers & divisional head.
• Our teams working at ‘Gemba’ demonstrated the true implementation of Japanese concept of small improvements (Kaizen) gives big results in this project.

Problem identification:

Bajaj Auto’s 3Wheelers passengers are having dominant presence in both Domestic as well as Export market. In last 3-4 years, Bajaj was facing stiff competition from other manufacturers to retain its market leadership. Also, customer expectations are increasing w.r.t. mileage, durability & comfort. While supplying good reliable products to our customers, our aim is to reduce on the operating costs and enhance the required capacities with minimal capital investments. With this lean approach Bajaj Auto is industry leader & distinctly ahead in terms of its EBITDA margins.
To take on the competition, Bajaj Auto decided to upgrade the entire range of its 3 Wheelers and launched new series of models under the Facelift category. In new model chassis, the no. of spots increased from 186 to 217 nos., increasing the robotic welding line cycle time from 42 to 52.6 sec. Due to this, the capacity dropped from 50 K to 40 K per month.
As chassis shop is governing the entire plants output, if the required capacity could not have achieved, we could have lost vehicle sales (including exports) to the tune of 10 to 12 K per month, resulting direct loss of profit to company.
Loss in profit is not at all acceptable; hence this project is selected to resolve on top most priority.
To restore the cycle time, it was necessary to add minimum 2 Robots to accommodate the additional 31 spots and these 2 robots need to be added before the dash board welding stage. Though spotting time would have been addressed by adding 2 robots, it was calling for major change in the line layout which would have affected the entire cell layout with shifting of minimum 6 robots and modification of the chassis handling system & it would require 15 days shutdown. Cost involved was Rs.126 Lacs. Considering the time & cost involved, this option is beyond consideration.
So we have taken challenge of cycle time reduction through TPM way deeply working.
With deep analysis of cycle time (both Weld & Non weld time) and implementing innovative Kaizens, the cycle time was restored to 42 sec in first phase and further reduced to 40 sec to meet the increased demand.

Elemental micro time study on Robotic line – chassis welding cell was conducted & accurate data has been collected for each Robot & transfer equipment. This data has been used to arrive at time for each operation, to prioritize, analyze and take necessary action to improve the capacity of Robotic welding line.
We have scanned Robotic line for time & motion study. Through which we have collected the data of time /spot, no of spots per Robot, Robot speed, Robot home position distance from chassis, line layout, Robot air cutting time & welding time, process parameters for optimization. All this collected & taken for analysis & corrective measures.

Cell Layout

Robotic Line cycle time data has been analyzed through detailed elemental time study sheet and ECRS.
Captured hidden losses - Motion loss, waiting time, delay were addressed through idea matrix management tool. Different ideas generated with the help of this idea matrix. Idea applicability matrix tool is used to identify the scope of each idea at different places. Why why analysis has been conducted to find the root cause to arrive a solutation. Ishikawa & tree diagram tool was used to identify the different contributing factors for cycle time improvement.

We studied all the cycle time (both Weld time & Non weld time i.e. handling time) for the entire line.
We analysed the time required per spot and found that Robot takes total 7 steps to perform 1 spot and the time required is 2 Sec / spot.
To reduce the time per spot, we adopted the “Spotware” software, due to which the time per spot can be reduced from 2 sec to 1.90 sec per spot. This reduction of 0.10 Sec per spot means total saving of @ 16 Sec for the total 217 spots in new model.
The Robots interface control panels & welding gun were modified to adopt the software and with saving of total 15.7 sec, 8 no. of spots were accommodated in the existing robots itself.
Another 5 spots were accommodated by detail study of each robots utilization & re-grouping of the spots and only one robot was added for balance spots.
With this, we avoided the shifting of robots and the cycle time was restored by adding only 1 robot without any major change in the cell layout and handling system.
Kaizen – Use ‘Spotware software’ to reduce time / spot

• Cycle time restored and reduced from 52.6 sec to 40 sec.
• Production per hour increased from 68 to 89 Nos.
• Capacity Restoration to 50 K per month with New models and avoided sales loss.
• Further cycle time reduction for Capacity enhancement to more than 52 K per month to cater the increased market demand.

• Capacity Restoration to 50 K per month with New models with Investment Cost saving of Rs. 56 Lacs …. No loss of production
• Avoided addition of 2 Robots (Investment of Rs. 70 Lacs)
• Total Investment cost saved : Rs. 126 lacs

Institutionalization and horizontal deployment, if any:

Chassis assembly Process sheet & Input-Process-Output (IPO) modified in line with the changes made with the help of ME dept.
Following documents are revised by adding the more check points to sustain the changes implemented.
JH, PM, OPL & SOP sheets updated, Process parameter document revised, Pick & place, EMS drive values, parameters sheet revised, machine master list updated in the SAP system, machine manual of ABB robot, SPM, Pick & place, EMS, Pallet conveyor, Tracks, lifters are modified with the help of central maintenance. Safety audit check sheet revised & communicated to the central safety dept. Training of revised process is given to cell members & concern managers & respective data updated along with HR dept.

Other relevant information:

• Executed the above project within the span of 6 months only with payback of 3 months.
• Project is implemented by working on weekly offs without loss of production.
• New model launched on time without any sales loss with sustained OEE, Zero defect & Cost reduction.

RAMP-UP OF SGM25 (Sundaram Gear Reduction Motor)

Project implementation start and end date:

19.9.2014 to 26.11.2014

Is it in continued operation now? Yes

Innovation: Elaborate in detail as to how your project stands out for its uniqueness / innovation.

• Sudden increase in customer demand for LD-GRS platform1.0 lit starter motor, needing augmentation of capacity by 2-times of the current level the capacity enhancement done by leveraging on the In-house experience, competency and talents. Innovative ideas implemented in all the key cells of the starter motor manufacturing value stream.

Armature line improvements:

• Plan and control to optimize flow in Armature manufacturing cell (Heijunka-leveled production) adopted (Result Armature line balancing output increased by 15%)
• Innovative methods adopted in core pack lamination tool design to improve the input imbalance of the core pack and reduce the final rejection in Armature manufacturing (Result : Armature output increased by 30 % )
• “MTTR” improved in armature manufacturing Dynamic balancing machine and conductor fusing machine by upgrading the control system (both hardware+software). (Result: Down time of both the machines were reduced & MTTR improved from 45min to 3.2 min system up gradation also helped to reduce the cycle time by elimination of additional station(Audit station) in the operation sequence )
• Cycle time reduction in one of the critical bottleneck stage armature core and commutator machining operation by upgrading the special cutting tools and re-design of tool layout.

Yoke & Sub-assembly line improvements:

• SMED concept implemented in Yoke, Armature & Sub-assemble manufacturing cell to minimize losses due to change over time (Armature line equipped with 80% one-off critical capital intensive machines )
• Engineering solution arrived for final performance testing of starter motor to de-bottle necked (Result: Cycle time reduced 38 sec to 27sec.Hence output increase by 20%).

Problem identification: Why was this problem selected? What methodology was adopted to identify the problem?

Customer has come with sudden volume ramp-up increased by 100% in SGM25 starter motor assy from 800 no’s to 1600 no’s/day. But the current capacity was 1086 nos in Armature assembly which is the lowest capacity module among the all sub-assemblies.

• Some of the Critical process in sub assemblies were identified as bottleneck stations
• Down time and MTTR in Armature assembly is high
• Product change over time is high in Armature assembly.
• Imbalance rejection in Armature assy is high
• Disruption of workflow in armature assy brown stage

Tools and Techniques used:

• TAKT time analysis – To identify bottleneck stations
• Time study – Used stopwatch to take COT study
• Bar graph – Imbalance rejection trend
• Down time study and analysis – To reduce MTTR
• HEIJUNKA - Flow line study

Task force was formed to do productivity improvements in all modules to meet the customer demand with less investment in a short period of time

Data collection: What data was collected? What methodology was adopted to collect the data?

• Demand increase due to localization of starter motor & new product volume increase in the market.

Identification of process measures:

We have done “TAKT” time analysis and time study for all sub assemblies & main assemblies to identify the bottleneck station to do productivity improvements

Tools and Techniques.

• Takt Time study.
• SMED and Cycle time study
• Rejection trend analysis .
• Downtime & MTTR analysis in Armature balancing machine.

Comprehensiveness of data collection:

• We checked imbalance value in every stage and found not much variation. So we tried to reduce the initial imbalance of input component by restricting the sheet metal thickness variation and optimizing the pitch setting of lamination blanking tool

• Reduction of both cutting & non cutting time was planned in Core & Commutator OD turning process. Peripheral activity timing was reduced (51 to 38 Sec) & improved insert with sharper geometry was chosen to reduce double pass (38 to 30 Sec).
• In output shaft bush and pin assy, while doing bush and pin pressing in single station auto loading of bush and indexing of tool takes more time. So we separated both operations
• In performance test rig, 10 times cranking was done against the spec of 5 times for our product endurability. After having consistency in performance, we decided to reduce cranking cycles with approval of product Engineering and quality assurance.

• Among the four underutilized machines, varnish plant was upgraded and the other three were tooled up to suit SGM25.
• SMED - QCT tooling’s planned for Core assy, Conductor twisting and Radial insertion machines which are having more COT
• Input imbalance of corepack was correlated with Face out and R/O and it was reduced by pitch setting. Commutator imbalance was reduced at supplier end by optimizing the process parameters in manufacturing. Where the rejected corepack and commutators were reworked and we can use it.
• MTTR analysis – Balancing and Hotstaking m/c were selected to reduce MTTR .Introduced upgraded hardware unit in balancing m/c and pressure switch for ensuring the collet clamping in Hotstaking

Implementation: How was the chosen solution tested/validated and implemented?

(1) Developed sheet metal thickness variation within 5 microns was tried out to reduce face out of the component within 0.2 mm. We checked 1000 no’s for initial imbalance and found 98.45 % of the core pack are below 500 mg. The rejected corepack were reworked by machining the core OD to reduce CE, DE and Static imbalance.

In Hot staking, clamping of component feedback taken from proximity sensor. Due to ineffectiveness in sensing, interruptions were observed frequently.

SMED – QCT provided in three m/c and COT was reduced from 60min to10 min

Operational benefits: What benefits were accrued to the organization as a result of the implementation of the project?

• Customer satisfaction by enhancing the capacity from 800/day to 1600/day in shortest possible lead time.
• Support export market to realize a sales value grown up to Rs66.0 lakhs/month (New business)
• Savings Thro’ productivity improvements; 30 % Increased

• a.Manpower reduction 15 man .(optimize the armature flow line improvement done ,Cycle time reduction (core OD turning, Conductor fusing and Performance testing )
• b.SMED Applied ,Setting change over reduction doneTools investment cost / consumables cost reduction.

Institutionalization and horizontal deployment, if any:

Please elaborate on how the changes have been embedded in the system and horizontally deployed as applicable

Standardization:

(a). Process change note(PCN) raised for cycle time reduction in core & commutator OD turning and got approved from Quality Manager – Form no.

(b) SOP provided for checking of Core and Commutator imbalance checking and also for reuse of rejected core pack and Commutator after reducing initial imbalance by doing rework.

(c) Component approval made for major tooling, process change and re-establishment of process in underutilized machines – Form no

(d) All the improvements done in this project have been standardized through KAIZEN sheet.

Horizontal deployment:

(a). Same idea in reducing the initial imbalance has been adopted in other varieties like M70 – PRD3, M74 and M70s LTV and successfully we have improved the productivity .

(b) Cycle time reduction in core OD turning process has been going on for the following machines IA0061, IA0049 & IA0057

Contestants may give any other relevant information that can prove helpful to make it a winning entry.

Lamination blanking tool