coq- summary.ppt

7/27/2019 COQ- Summary.ppt

1/38

Reduction of Total

Cost of Quality

CIAMD

COQ


2/38

PROJECT CHARTER

CIAMD

COQ

Project Name * Reduction of Total Cost of Quality

Project Description * Reduction of In-House Machining Rejections & Penalties paid due to Customer Complaints

Champion * NV Devaraj Phone +91 44 2746 6080 Email [email protected] Leader * V sivakumar Phone +91 44 2746 8450 Email [email protected]

Finance champion * Ritanjali Panda Phone +91 44 2746 6080 Email [email protected] Belt * K Karthikeyan Phone +91 44 2746 8450 Email [email protected]

Region * TFC Asia Location * IMSD-India

Priority * Project Type *

Target Start Date * 2-Mar-09 Target End Date * 1-Sep-09

Actual Start Date * 25-Dec-08 Actual End Date * 28-May-09 Budgeted in FY09 (Yes / No) * Yes

Problem Statement * In-house machining Rejection has appreciable scope for improvement.

Customer complaints is high

Project Objectives * Reduction of Total cost of quality thru reduction of In-House Machining Rejections & Penalties paid due to Customer Complaints

Project Benefits * Cost of In-House Machining Rejection & Penalities paid to Customer complaints in Fy08 is 119K. Plan to reduce the cost from 119K to 60K

Please specify the way

how the financial benefits

are calculated

Project Scope * Parts machining in In-House Machine shop & Penalties paid due to customer complaints

In Total Cost of quality, Failure Cost only considered

Comments

Financial Metrics * Hard Soft

Sales Growth Sales Growth

Unit: USD '000 Projected Projected

Committed Committed

Implemented Implemented

GOI Growth GOI Growth

Projected ProjectedCommitted Committed


FCF FCF

Projected Projected

Committed Committed


Sign Off *

Name

Champion NV Devaraj

Belt K Karthikeyan

Entity controller Ritanjali Panda

Entity GM S Prabhakar

Asia HQ

Medium Cost Improvement

OpEx & E2E Project Approval Form

Annualized Realized in FY09 Annualized

60.00 -

Realized in FY09

Project Start - Date & Signature Project Close - Date & Signature Project Implementation - Date & Signature


3/38

TEAM MEMBERS

CIAMD

Role Name

Entity GM S Prabhakar

Champion NV Devaraj

Black Belt K Karthikeyan

Finance Champion Ritanjali Panda/S Prabhakar

Leader V Sivakumar

Team Member S Kannan

Team Member S Arunbabu

Team Member R Ellumalai

Team Member J Murugan

Team Member B Velayudham

COQ


4/38

CIAMD

Voice of Customer & Critical To Quality

VOC CTQ Metric

Reduction of TotalCost of Quality

Reduction of In-house MachiningRejections

KUS$

Reduction ofCustomerComplaint Debits

KUS$

COQ


5/38

MSAPerformed for Critical Process Parameters in 6 F362 Klok Body

15.15

15.10

15.05

15.00

1

Operators

Measurment

2 3 4 5

Mean

MuraliRajasekar

Thangam

O perators

Gage name: H Shift K lok Body

Date of study: 08/01/09

Reported by : S A runbabu

Tolerance: 0.1

Misc:

Panel variable: Sample

Gage Run Chart of Measurment by Sample, Operators

CIAMD

COQ


6/38

MSA

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

400

200

0

Percent

% Contribution

% Study Var

% Tolerance

0.04

0.02

0.00SampleRange

_R=0.00632

UCL=0.01627

LCL=0

Murali Rajasekar Thangam

15.12

15.06

15.00SampleMean

__X=15.0378UCL=15.0443LCL=15.0313

Murali Rajasekar Thangam

54321

15.12

15.06

15.00

Sample

ThangamRajasekarMurali

15.12

15.06

15.00

Operators

54321

15.12

15.06

15.00

Sample

Average

Murali

Rajasekar

Thangam

Operators

Gage name: H-Shift K lok Body

Date of study: 08/01/09

Reported by: S A run babu

Tolerance: 0.1

Misc:

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operators

Xbar Chart by Operators

Measurment by Sample

Measurment by Operators

Operators * Sample Interaction

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Measurment

CIAMD

COQ


7/38

MSA

CIAMD

Gage R&R

%Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000391 1.04

Repeatability 0.0000379 1.01Reproducibility 0.0000012 0.03

Operators 0.0000012 0.03

Part-To-Part 0.0037137 98.96

Total Variation 0.0037528 100.00

Process tolerance = 0.1

R&R < 10 % Acceptable

COQ


8/38


9/38

List of Potential-Xs

Error in Process Data Sheet

Improper Cutting Tools

Improper Jigs & Fixtures

Erratic errors in Machine

Error in change over

Improper Handling of Material

Error in first off inspection report Instrument Error

Incorrect Process parameter

Operator Error

New tool trials

Non availability of measuring instruments/gauges

Error in Tool Presetter

Improper cleaning of Jigs & Fixtures

Inspection method

Error in CNC Program

CIAMD

COQ


10/38

Qty 335 321 106 4

Percent 43.7 41.9 13.8 0.5

Cum % 43.7 85.6 99.5 100.0

Product OtherMorin YokeKlok DiscKlok body

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qt

y

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Rejections-Mar08-Nov08

CIAMD

COQ


11/38

Qty 8 16182 26 25 21 19 16 13 9

Percent 2.4 4.854.3 7.8 7.5 6.3 5.7 4.8 3.9 2.7

Cum % 95.2 100.054.3 62.1 69.6 75.8 81.5 86.3 90.1 92.8

Reasons

Other

Acro

ssflatdepth

Glandbore

T

oppadhole

Seatbore

Oil

Hole

Flangehole

10thReference

Seatface

Stemb

ore

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qty

Percent

Pareto Chart of Klok Body Rejections

CIAMD

COQ


12/38

Qty 860 60 24 9 7 6 4 4

Percent 4.433.0 33.0 13.2 4.9 3.8 3.3 2.2 2.2

Cum % 100.033.0 65.9 79.1 84.1 87.9 91.2 93.4 95.6

Reasons

Other

Poorfinish

Ovality

Ho

rizontalshift

Verticalshift

Damage

Unwash

Oversize

Linemark

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent

Pareto Chart of Klok Body Stem Bore

CIAMD

COQ


13/38

Stem Bore

Rejections

Causes Effect

Measurements Materials Men

Environment Methods Machines

Error in

Setting

(Tools &

Fixture)

Typo in

PDS

Wrongloading

of Boring

bars

Upward Pallet

Movement in M-I

Y Axis Movement

during power cut

Tool Presetter Error

Cutting chips

accumulation in

Finish Boring Bar

HSS Drills

dragging in

CF8M Body

Incorrect

process

parameters

Non availability

of Dial Gauge

No identification

in gauges

CIAMD

Recommendedtools not used

Tool mark

due to

power cut

COQCause & Effect Diagram


14/38

Qty 8 16182 26 25 21 19 16 13 9

Percent 2.4 4.854.3 7.8 7.5 6.3 5.7 4.8 3.9 2.7

Cum % 95.2 100.054.3 62.1 69.6 75.8 81.5 86.3 90.1 92.8

Reasons

Other

Acro

ssflatdepth

Glandbore

T

oppadhole

Seatbore

Oil

Hole

Flangehole

10t

hReference

Seatface

Stemb

ore

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qty

Percent

Pareto Chart of Klok Body Rejections

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


15/38

Qty 23 1 1 1

Percent 88.5 3.8 3.8 3.8

Cum % 88.5 92.3 96.2 100.0

Reasons OtherLine markDimensional DeviationDamage

25

20

15

10

5

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Q

ty

Per

cent

Pareto Chart of Seat Face Rejections

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


16/38

Seat Face

Damage

Causes Effect



Improper Material

Handling

Improper cleaning of

fixtures & jigs

Storage

Method

Improper Material

Handling

CIAMD


COQ


17/38

Qty 335 321 106 4

Percent 43.7 41.9 13.8 0.5

Cum % 43.7 85.6 99.5 100.0

Product OtherMorin YokeKlok DiscKlok body

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qt

y

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Rejections-Mar08-Nov08

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


18/38

Qty 155 102 47 16

Percent 48.4 31.9 14.7 5.0

Cum % 48.4 80.3 95.0 100.0

Disc Reasons OtherStem boreDisc PinningDisc profile

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Pe

rcent

Pareto Chart of Klok Disc Rejections

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


19/38

Qty 145 10

Percent 93.5 6.5

Cum % 93.5 100.0

Disc Profile Line mark Damage

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Q

ty

Per

cent

Pareto Chart of Disc Profile

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


20/38

Disc Profile

Damage

Causes Effect



Improper Material

Handling

Improper cleaning of

fixtures & jigsDamaged Profile

cover

Storage

Method

Fixture designImproper Material

Handling Equipment

CIAMD

Tool mark

due to power

cut


COQ


21/38

Qty 155 102 47 16

Percent 48.4 31.9 14.7 5.0

Cum % 48.4 80.3 95.0 100.0

Disc Reasons OtherStem boreDisc PinningDisc profile

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Pe

rcent

Pareto Chart of Klok Disc Rejections

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


22/38

Qty 32 11 8 4 2 3

Percent 53.3 18.3 13.3 6.7 3.3 5.0

Cum % 53.3 71.7 85.0 91.7 95.0 100.0

Reasons

Othe

r

DrillBr

oken

Dimensio

nalD

eviatio

n

Damag

e

Horiz

ontalshi

ft

Verticalshi

ft

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qty

Percent

Pareto Chart of Disc Pinning Rejections

CIAMD

COQ

COQ


23/38

Disc pinning

Rejections

Causes Effect



Center Height Variation

in SPM II

Drill Grinding angle

Worn-out

Fixtures

Inspection method

variation between

Inspectors

Insufficient

Coolant

DRO Error

Manual Drill

grinding

PDS ErrorImproper

tools

Stem Keyway slot

Stem undersize

Disc bore

oversize

No proper gauge for

Taper checking

CIAMD

No identification

in reamers


Kl k B d St B R j ti COQ


24/38

Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections

CIAMD

Objective:

Specific Areas to Improve:

Support Team

Current Situation:

Problems to Overcome:

Activity Detailed Specific Actions in SequenceResponsible

person(s)Time Line

Resources

Required

Expected

Outcome/EvidencesDate Result

Process validation of PDS with actual RE 02-02-09 Process Validation Report 02-02-09 1.Bore size is not achieved as

per PDS of 12" Body, because

YKM Finish Boring bar is

mentioned in PDS which is not

running since the tool is not

available.

Process revalidation after procurement of tool RE 10-03-09 Boring Bar Process Validation Report 19-03-09 Completed

1.2.Elimination of line mark due to wrong loading of

boring bar in spindle

Visual display for loading method PN 08-01-09 One Point Lesson 18-02-09 Completed

1.3.Eimination of Rejection due to line mark caused

by upward movement of pallet.

Pallet seal kit to be replacement and observation NG Seal Kit Changed 25-12-08 Completed

1.4.Elimination of Rejection due to Y axis movement

During powercut in Mazak II

UPS Feasibilty to be studied NG TBD UPS required for

4 HMCS. Total

Cost of UPS is

80K

Defered now to avoid capital

expenditure

1.5.Elimination of Rejection due to Line marks caused

by Burr accumulationCombination Boring Eliminated & One additional

BB added for Gland Bore

JM/RE 09-01-09 Process changed & updated

in PDS

17-02-09 Completed

2.1. Elimination Rejection due to Oversize by wrong

Gauge Usage due to no identication on Gauge Guage Identification to be Done for All gauges

S Anandan/

S.Arunbabu

25-12-08 Implemented for all gauges 20-01-09 Completed

2.2.Elimination of Rejection due to oversize due to

Error in presetter Values for different machines

Estabish the list of values to be set in presetter for

individual boring bar.

RE 15-03-09 List displayed to refer and

set for the size required

02-04-09 Completed

2.3. Elimination of Rejection due to Oversize because

of burr inclusion in Finish boring Opn. (in

Combination Boring)

Combination Boring Eliminated & One additional

BB added for Gland Bore

JM/RE 09-01-09 Boring Bar Stem bore line mark

elimination Updated in PDS

17-02-09 Completed

2.4. Elimination of Rejection due to Oversize because

of non usage of bore dial during repass due to non

availability of Bore dial Gauges.

Procurement of Bore Dial Gauges to meet our

requirement

S Anandan/

S.Arunbabu

06-01-09 D ia l gauge - 3

Nos size from

10mm-65mm

Boring bar procured &

implemented

24-04-09 Completed

3. Elimination of Stem bore Unwash due to drag

caused by improper grindingProcurement of "Drill Point Grinder" to ensure

proper grinding

VSK TBD Procurement of

new drill point

grinder - 3K

To avoid investment,

Resharpening arrangement

made with M/s Avenzer

Tools up to the procurement

of "Drill Point Grinder"

23-01-09 Completed

4.Elimination of Stembore Damage by burr inclusion

during loading of ComponentsOne point lesson is to be displayed

PN 07-01-09 One Point Lesson Displayed

in Workstation

17-02-09 Completed

Comments:

Signatures of Support Team

1.1.Elimination of Line mark rejection due to non

compliance of PDS parameters and tools

V.Sivakumar

Signature of Originator

54.3% of Rejection of K Lok Body Rejection of 43.7 % (23.7% of Total Rejection) was due to stem bore rejection during FY08

-

Implementation Evaluation

Reduce In house Machining Rejection

To reduce Rejection due to stem bore rejection

N Gobi, R Elumalai,P Nirmal raj, J Murugan, B Velayutham, TK Murali, S Anandan, S Arunbabau

ACTION PLAN

COQ



25/38

CIAMD

Objective: Date: 2/2/09


Support Team

Current Situation:


Activity Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Responsibleperson(s)

Time Line ResourcesRequired

ExpectedOutcome/Evidences

Date Result

1.Validating the process of 12"370 G1 K LOK Body as

per PDS

Process validation RE 02-02-09 Process Validation Report 02-02-09 1.Bore size is not achieved as

per PDS, because YKM Finish

Boring bar is mentioned in

PDS which is not running

since the tool is not available.

2.Combination rough boring

new insert Grinding and Shim

packing because insert

clearnce is not given(Tool

Design mistake)

3.Program Seqence is

mismatch

4.WCMX 080412 1020

GRADE Stock nill(old stock

insert runing)

2.Purchase of Finish boring bar 2.1.Tool Design RE 05-02-09 Tool Dwg No KHT 214 05-02-09 Completed

2.2.PR Creation RE 05-02-09 PR No 9040000207 05-02-09 Completed

2.3.PO Creation TKM PO No 9030000737 13-02-09 Completed

2.4.Tool Purchase TKM 09-03-09 Mat Doc # 5000007437 05-03-09 Completed

2.5.Tool inspection RE 10-03-09 Completed

3.Purchase of Combination Rough boring bar 3.1.Tool Design RE 23-01-09 Tool Dwg No KHT 241 23-01-09 Completed

3.2.PR Creation RE 06-02-09 PR No 9040000195 06-02-09 Completed

3.3.PO Creation TKM PO No 9030000710 13-02-09 Completed

3.4.Tool Purchase TKM Mat Doc # 5000007672 13-03-09 Completed

3.5.Tool inspection RE 19-03-09 Completed

4.Program Seqence mismatch 4.1.Program to be modified RE 06-02-09 Cadem Prg , 06-02-09 Completed

4.2. PDS Revision RE 10-02-09 PDS-0036-30-Rev2 10-02-09 Completed

5.WCMX 080412 1020 GRADE prequre 5.1. Maintaing Stock Level at store Paranthaman

Non moving insert WCMX

08 04 12 R53 4025 is being

used.Qty 10 as on 2/4/096.Process Revalidation Process validation RE 10-03-09 Bore Dial Gauge Process Validation Report 19-03-09 Completed

Comments:

Signatures of Support TeamSignature of Originator

Evaluation

Approval on Tool Inspection can be only justified after taking trial

Implementation

Process validation result found satisfactory. 36+11 nos in Job 0rder # 3437 & 3259 are prodcued without line mark. After

Consumption of WCMX 080412 R53 4025, Insert as per PDS (ie. WCMX 080412 1020) will be made stockV.Sivakumar

ACTION PLAN

Boresize not achieved when cutting parameters are maintained as per PDS for 10" &12" G1 Body

TK Murali, Arunbabu, M.Madhavraja, Paranthaman.R Elumalai,

To reduce Rejection due to Line mark in Stem bore- in K Lok Body Machining in 30th Opn.


Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections COQ



26/38

CIAMD

Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections COQ



Support Team

Current Situation:



person(s)Time Line

Resources

Required

Expected


1.Estabish the list of values to be set in presetter forindividual boring bar.

1.1 Preparation of list of Sizes of Boring bars usedin KIA,Mazak I & Mazak II

RE 04-02-09

List of Boring Bars for all

sizes prepared for Kia, M-I,

& M-II

04-02-09 Completed. 36 Sizes /eachmachine identified,

1.2. Collection of data for list given whenever doing

settingRE 15-03-09

Actual Values against

Boring Bar Sizes Required02-04-09 Completed.

1.3.Compensation value arrived for the above

boring barsRE 15-03-09

First Time Right in Bore

sizes during setting02-04-09 Completed

2. Presetter Runout (0.06) to be rectified 2.2. Finding the root cause &Salvaging the problem RE 03-04-09 Ridges found in BT 50Taper corrected

03-01-09 Completed

Comments:

Signatures of Support Team Signature of Originator

Evaluation

Due to the above reason variation with Presetter value and Actual bore size . This variation varies with Tool length and Machine. Same tool produce different dimension when

interchange between workcenters

Implementation

V.Sivakumar

ACTION PLAN

Lack of confidence in applying compensation for tools in Tool Pre Setter and lead first job rejection during setting

M Madhavaraja,J Murugan,B Velayutham

To reduce Rejection due to Oversize in Stem bore- in K Lok Body Machining in 30th Opn.


Kl k B d R j ti T d COQ


27/38

CIAMD

Klok Body Rejections Trend COQ

Klok Body Rejections

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

May-08

Jun-08

Jul-08

Aug-08

Sep-08

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Qty(Nos.)

Stem bore

Total Body

COQ


28/38

CIAMD

COQKlok Disc Profile Damage Rejections



Support Team

Current Situation:


Activity Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Responsibleperson(s)

Time Line ResourcesRequired

ExpectedOutcome/Evidences

Date Result

1.Elimination of rejection due to Loading of

Component in fixture with burr

Operator Training JM On going - One Point Lesson 17-02-09

Elimination of Material Handiling without

protector.

MM/JM/BV On going - OJT provided to Operators

& Material Handlers

17-02-09

Removal of Wornout & damaged end caps JM/BV On going Replacement of

wornout endcaps

scrap wornout & damaged

end caps

26-05-09

Comments:


K Karthikeyan,J Madhvaraja, A K Ravichandran TK Murali,Arunbabu

To reduce Rejection due to Disc Profile Damage


ACTION PLAN

48.4% of Rejection of K Lok Disc Rejection of 41.9 % (20.27% of Total Rejection) is due to Disc profile Damage

2.Elimination of Rejection due to improper Material

Handling


Evaluation

Training of material handlers & trainee operators

Implementation

V.Sivakumar

Rejection due to profile

damage drastically reduced

COQ


29/38

Klok Disc Profile Rejection Trend

CIAMD

COQ

Klok Disc Rejections

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

May-08

Jun-08

Jul-08

Aug-08

Sep-08

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Qty(Nos.)

Profile Damage

Total Disc

COQKl k Di Pi i R j ti


30/38

CIAMD

COQKlok Disc Pinning Rejections



Support Team

Current Situation:



person(s)Time Line

Resources

Required

Expected


1. Elimination of Rejection due to Centre Ht. Variation

of Both SPM I &II

Both Machines are made to Same Ht. NG 22-01-09 Same Fixture Can be used

in both machines

24-01-09 Completed

2. Elimination of Rejection due to difficult checking

method by using Pin Implementation Taper Gauge.

SAB 27-03-09 Gauge Taper gauge which is easy

to check in online

03-04-09 Completed for 4"Fig 370 &

horizontal deployment to other

sizes

3.Elimination of rejection due Manual Grinding

leading to Drill Drag

Drill Point Grinder is to be implemented to avoid

manual grinding

VSK 09-06-09 Procurement of

new drill point

grinder - 3K

Elimination of Manual

Grinding

23-01-09

To avoid investment,

Resharpening arrangement

made with M/s Avenzer Tools

up to the procurement of "Drill

Point Grinder"

4. Avoid usage of tools without identification & tools

mixup

Separate tool location are provided to avoid tools

mixup. Part number engraving on tools

JM 04-02-09 Part Number engraved on

Tools. Separate tools

location provided

04-02-09 Completed

Replacement of worn out parts in fixtures PN 27-02-09 Reconditioned fixtures 05-05-09 Replacement of individual

parts does not produced the

desired result.

New Fixture Design & Development RE 05-08-09 New Fixtures for 8 sizes 4" Fixture procurement willcomplete in june 3rd week Design Completed &procurement action inprogress

for 4" fixture

Validation of all new Pinning Fixtures RE 28-08-09 New Fixtures for

8 sizes

Completion of all Fixture

validation

Comments:


31.9% of Rejection of K Lok Disc Rejection of 41.9 % (13.36% of Total Rejection) is due to Disc pinning Rejection

5.Elimination of Rejection due to Wornout Fixtures


Evaluation

Disc Pinning Fixtures recondition

Implementation

V.Sivakumar

P.Nirmal Raj, R Elumamalai, J Murugan, B Velayutham TK Murali, Ananadan,Arunbabu

To reduce Rejection due to Disc pinning Operation


ACTION PLAN

COQ


31/38

CIAMD

Customer ComplaintsCOQ

Customer Complaint Debit

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Casting Packing Machining

USD

Value

Note: All Non Conformance debit from slurry product line only

COQ


32/38

CIAMD


Objective:


Support Team

Current Situation:



person(s)

Resources

Required

Expected


1. Existing stock to be send to foundry for inspection Radiography test to be done in foundry & repair ifneeded

SK/PMR/TS - Casting free from nonconformance Feb-09

2. Improve the quality of castingsAction plan to get the quality castings from the

existing foundriesSK/PMR/TS - - Jan-09

No support from the foudry to

improve the quality of castings

3. Develop New FoundriesDevelop New foundry and shift tyco patterns from

existing foundry without affecting productionNVD/TM/PMR -

Development of new

suppliersApr-09

In Phase-1 Seven patterns

shifted & developed at new

source. In Phase -2 twenty

patterns shifted to new

foundries. Phase-3 in

progress for 23 Patterns

Comments:


Casting failure at customer end in NDT


Evaluation

Casting failures in Slurry valves from 3 key foundries

Implementation

NV Devaraj

NV Devaraj, S Kannan, P Mohan Rangan, T senthil, T Murugan

Supply of the Castings to be improved

ACTION PLAN

To reduce Non conformance Complaint from customers

COQ


33/38

CIAMD


Packing

Implementation of End covers to avoid serration damages at all stagesincluding from supplier end, transit and packing of FG

MachiningSupplier audit done for machining process & Measuring instruments

Implementation of one point lessons at supplier end

To avoid further customer complaints, critical parameters are re-inspected for

the components in stock, which is machined at supplier.

Supplier rationalization is in progress to avoid continuous quality issues

COQ


34/38

CIAMD

In-house Machining Rejection TrendCOQ

1.52%

0.77%

2.09%

1.19%

0.74%

1.63%

1.52%

0.82%0.67%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

FY-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09

FY-08 Inhouse Rejection %

Project

Initiated in

Jan-09

COQ


35/38

CIAMD


8.2

1.30.7

4.4

0.0 0.0

0.0

10.0

24.724.724.7

20.3

8.2

18.3 19.6

8.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Oct'08 Nov'08 Dec'08 Jan'09 Feb'09 Mar'09 Apr'09 May'09 Jun'09 Jul'09 Aug'09 Sep'09

NCR Debit Value KUS$ Cumulative FY09 KUS$

Project

Initiated in

Jan-09

COQ


36/38

CIAMD

Cost of Quality TrendCOQ

9,7849951

3,304

1,701

6,293

5,546

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

FY-08 Monthly

Avg

Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09

Valuein

US

FY-08

COQ

Project Initiated

in Jan-09

COQC l M f I h


37/38

CIAMD

COQ

Control Measures Responsibility

Daily Review of In-house machining rejections VS

Random Process Audit at in-house machine shop RE / SAB

Revalidation of Fixtures RE

Monitoring Standard cycle time (Noted in PDS) to ensure

process parameters are not altered

JM

Ensuring all CNC programs downloaded from DNC JM

Replacement of all worn out Protective Covers / End Caps BV

Training of new employees VS & Team

Control Measures for In-houseMachining Rejections

COQ


38/38

CIAMD

COQ

Control Measures for Customer Complaints

Control Measures Responsibility

Customer Complaints Review & Effective CAPA SK & PLMs

Ensure Periodic process audit at both suppliers & in-house SK & Team

Strengthen Development of New Products QM & Buyers

Strengthen Development of New Suppliers QM & Buyers

coq- summary.ppt

Documents