Process improvement in Farm Equipment Sector (FES): A case on Six Sigma adoption 1.

Introduction

Problem solving is not an art, its a science and a sneak-peek at the proven total quality improvement tools is enough to validate the point. Further, when a set of continuous improvement techniques are keyed in to humongous cost savings in millions, their importance cannot be overemphasized. In the current case, a team dedicated to improving a process achieved 99.567% reduction in the cost of poor quality which translated in the cost savings of INR 4.366 million /annum.

No one can challenge the fact that costs in general and cost of poor quality in particular are the evils an organisation needs to check if it were to bridge the gap between its topline and bottom-line. It is also true that one can inbuilt a perpetual cost reduction plan by inculcating a continuous process improvement culture on the shop floor. Therefore, it follows from the above premises that fuelling growth and sustaining it in todays dynamic business environment necessarily require continuous process improvements. Some of the well-known frameworks developed to raise the competitiveness of production processes are statistical Process Control (SPC), ISO 9000, KAIZEN, Total Quality Management (TQM), Benchmarking, Theory of constraints (TOC), and Six Sigma (Sambhe, 2012).

Originated at Motorola in the early 1980s, Six Sigma has been promoted as a new organizational improvement method (Hoerl et al, 2004; Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005). Six Sigma developed as an organized and systematic method for strategic process improvement that relies on statistical and scientific methods to make dramatic reductions in customer-defined defect rates (Linderman et al 2003; Tjahjono et al 2010). Not only, has it been widely adapted in manufacturing processes but also have been

proved to be successful in marketing, R&D, healthcare, banking, administrative, finance and many other business processes (Antony, 2004; Snee & Hoerl, 2003; Snee, R.D. 2010).

Despite the apparent popularity of Six Sigma, not many firms (other than the automotive component manufacturers) in India have adopted this methodology for improving their processes. Studies pinpoint lack of financial and human resources and time constraints in data collection & analysis as key challenges in the adoption of Six Sigma by Indian industries (Sambhe & Dalu, 2011).

Today, India is in process of mechanization of its agriculture industry, and there are huge prospects for growth for companies operating in tractor manufacturing sector in the country. However, there is a dire need to improve the existing production processes in this sector using cutting edge research and continuous innovation (Pray & Nagarajan, 2012).

The current paper is presented in form of a case study illustrating the adoption of Six Sigma DMAIC methodology for process improvement by a leading company operating in tractor manufacturing sector in India. The company was facing the chronic problem of high rate of field failures of its tractor assembly which was adversely impacting customer satisfaction and thereby its market performance. Needless to say that cost of poor quality was tremendously high.

Therefore, this study has been documented with specific goals, which are To demonstrate the effective application of various Six Sigma tools such as Pareto analysis, process mapping, and cause and affect Diagrams, capability analysis, control charts etc. To report preliminary findings, and to examine conditions which contributed to the successful implementation.

The rest of the paper is presented in the following sequence:

The first section briefly reviews the cases on Six Sigma implementation in manufacturing operations in the Indian context. The following sections describe the Six Sigma DMAIC (define-measure-analyze-improve-control) framework and process of integrating quality tools to the chosen process improvement project. This is followed by a discussion on the managerial implications of systematic Six Sigma DMAIC implementation in the company.

2.

Literature review

Before taking up the case explanations, let us briefly review the literature on status of Six Sigma practices in Indian context.

Sarkar et al (2013) applied Lean Six Sigma methodology for claim settlement cycle time reduction in the insurance sector. The study revealed that Lean Six Sigma methodology work very well in the insurance sector for reducing process cycle time by carrying out process changes.

Deshmukh and Chavan (2012) reviewed literature on evolution and status of utilization of the Six Sigma philosophy in the development of small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The study also documented illustrious Six Sigma practices in Indian context. The study found that management's commitment is most important in SME Six Sigma implementation. It was also revealed that the benefits of Six Sigma have been enjoyed largely by the bigger industrial units and to a relatively lesser extent by the smaller units, i.e. SMEs.

Kaushik et al (2012) in a study on a small bicycle chain manufacturing unit justified that right implementation of Six Sigma, which is normally presumed to be in the domain of large industries, can benefit the small manufacturing companies equally well. The study demonstrated the application of Six Sigma methodology to improve productivity levels. After applying Six Sigma it was found that the chain manufacturing firm increased its profits by controlling high rejection rate of cycle chain bush and improved its sigma level from 1.40 to 5.46 by reducing the variation of bush diameter in the process of bicycle chain bush manufacturing.

Sambhe et al(2011) in a study on evaluation of Six Sigma implementation on medium scale Indian automotive enterprises found that many Indian small manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) were operating at 2 to 3 sigma quality levels resulting in a need for a good design methodology for Six Sigma implementation. Another finding was that the majority of these enterprises were implementing DMAIC (define-measure-analyseimprove-control) methodology, where almost no practices of DFSS (Design for Six Sigma) as well as lean manufacturing were found. Such a finding is important in the light of abundant evidence that majority of such enterprises are not using Six Sigma in new product development and their DMAIC implementation is incomplete until coupled with lean manufacturing principles.

Karthi et al (2011) proposed a model for integrating Lean Six Sigma DMAIC methodology and belt based training infrastructure with ISO 9001:2008 standard based Quality Management System. They suggested that the model L6QMS 2008 integrates the Lean Six Sigma requirements with the ISO 9001:2008 standard. The study also illustrated the implementation of integrated model through case studies.

Desai & Patel (2009) in a cross-sectional study on benefits of Six Sigma implementation in Indian industries found that the manufacturing sector is at the top in implementing

Six Sigma with 69% contribution followed by Information Technology (IT) industries with 15% contribution. The study found that all services combined stand at a contribution of mere 8%. The study highlighted that the largest benefit drawn from Six Sigma implementation is by large scale industries in the area of cost reduction. This is probably due to the scale of production that large industries enjoy. On the other hand, the medium scale industries have gained majorly in profitability.

Antony & Desai (2009) presented the results from an empirical investigation of Six Sigma status in the Indian industry. The results of empirical study reflected the reasons for application of Six Sigma by Indian organizations, the most and least commonly used tools and techniques, critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of Six Sigma, and common impediments in the implementation.

Prabhushankar et al (2008) presented the results of a survey conducted on Six Sigma implementation in Indian automotive component industry. The findings of the survey indicated that financial constraints and non-existence of any statutory requirement as the major barriers for implementing Six Sigma. The study highlighted the need for an exclusive model of Quality Management System (QMS) which would link the standards, innovation practices and Six Sigma for enabling the automobile manufacturing sector not only in India, but also in other developing countries to help them achieve global competitiveness.

Kaushik & Khanduja (2008) applied Six Sigma DMAIC methodology to a specific case of thermal power plant for the conservation of energy. They implemented Six Sigma project recommendations to reduce the consumption of demineralized (DM) make-up water from 0.90% to 0.54% of maximum continuous rating (MCR) resulting in annual comprehensive energy saving of INR 30.477 million .

Kumar & Sosnoski (2008) highlighted the potential of DMAIC Six Sigma in realizing the cost savings and improved quality by using the case study of a leading manufacturer of tooling. The study examined one of the chronic quality issues on shop floor by utilizing Six Sigma tools. The study showed that DMAIC Six Sigma process is an effective and novel approach for the machining and fabrication industries to improve the quality of their processes and products and ensuring profitability by driving down manufacturing costs.

Sujan et al (2008) examined the Critical Success Factors (CSF) for the implementation and operation of Six-Sigma and for studying the level of quality characteristics in Indian software industries implementing Six Sigma. The study identified that top management support as most important factor whereas linking Six Sigma to human resources as the least important factor in the ranking of CSFs. The study also found that the software industries need to improve the level of two Operational Performance Indicators, which are Product Attributes and Return on Quality.

Pandey (2007) in a case study on Multi-national Corporation (MNC) banks in Indian context examined the utility of Six Sigma interventions as a performance measure. The study explored the applicability of Six Sigma interventions in human resource (HR) function in general and in training function in particular, for making the training design and delivery operationally efficient and strategically effective. The study found that Six Sigma approach is helpful for better alignment of training function with the organizational requirements and it enables to change the role of the HR function from cure towards pro-action.

Desai (2006) presented a real life case where Six Sigma has been successfully applied at one of the Indian small-scale units to improve one of their core processes. The studies reflected that SSIs is constantly on the alert to gain a competitive edge, using many tools and techniques that have long been flaunted as a way to beat the competition.

3.

Case Study

The study is conducted at tractor assembly plant of a leading company operating in Tractor Manufacturing Sector located in Northern India. The company produces the leading tractor brand in India, since 1983 and possesses a strong commitment on the part of the top management to make the production system more efficient. . The company was facing the challenge of high rate of field failures of one of its tractors models and this was adversely impacting companys market performance.

The intensity of problem was obvious upon studying the numbers. The warranty claim data for a period of 1 year (Dec. 2011 to Jan 2012) showed that a total of 451 tractors had experienced relief valve assembly failure in field and were subsequently replaced. This caused rising repair costs on the part of the organisation, let alone the beating it had on the products reputation.

A relief valve is responsible for the efficiency of hydraulic system of a tractor. The hydraulic system is an import assembly of tractor which helps in operating the tractor for agricultural purposes. The hydraulic system has a cylinder fitted with a safety valve called relief valve. A relief valve is an assembly, which comprises a relief valve body, piston, spring, and plug. The relief valve protects the cylinder from bursting in case of unwanted high pressures. Figure 1 shows the relief valve assembly and its components.

Figure 1: Relief Valve Assembly

The division initiated a project in January 2012 with the aim of reducing the rate of field failures. A project team was formed, comprising of members of functions impacted by the project implementation. The team adopted project by project approach using Six Sigma DMAIC methodology for solving the problem.

3.1

Methodology: Six Sigma Framework

The project team followed the DMAIC process within a Six Sigma framework. The five phases (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) and key tools used in each phase are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Six Sigma Framework Phases Define Measure Analyze Improve Control Tools used Project charter, CTQ Tree, SIPOC As is process map, measurement system analysis(MSA), Data collection plan, Baseline Sigma calculation, Capability analysis Cause & effect diagram, Pareto analysis, Hypothesis testing Process Failure Mode & Effect Analysis, Improvement plan Control plan, Control chart

These phases are discussed in detail in the following sections:

3.1.1

Define

In this phase, a project charter was created, customers of the project and their needs & requirements (critical to quality or CTQs) were identified and a high level process map (SIPOC) was created (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010).

Project charter: The project started with developing a project charter which included the business case, problem statement, mission statement, project goals, process boundaries, project team composition, and the project milestones.

Business case: It is important that the proposed process improvement project should have strong impact on the strategic business objectives (Kumar et al, 2009). Therefore, the business case of the project was created keeping the strategic objectives of the company in mind is as follows:

The company is facing high warranty claims due to field failures of relief valves resulting in higher customer dissatisfaction. Thus, by decreasing field failures at various stages, we can reduce the cost of warranty claims & anticipate an increase in customer satisfaction levels.

Problem statement: The problem statement framed, considering the aspects of timeperiod, specificity and measurability (Snee, 2001), is as follows:

Field failure of Relief valve assembly, to the tune of 111,810 PPM, resulting in high warranty claims & dissatisfied customers & cost of poor quality of INR 4.385 million /Annum.

Mission statement: The mission statement was framed as follows:

Reduction in field failure problems of Relief Valve up to 95% (from current 111,810 PPM to 478 PPM) level by the end of June 2012

The details of project goals, process boundaries, project team composition, and project milestones are specified as part of the project charter in Annexure I.

Identification of Critical to Quality (CTQs) factors: Since the CTQ (critical to quality) tree is the most effective tool for identifying the customer requirements, it was applied. This simple tool helps to move from general needs of the customers to the more specific requirements. (Lucas James, 2002). The CTQ tree for the present project is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The CTQ Tree

The process parameters identified as CTQs are defined as follows: Holding Pressure Low (y1): If pressure value after cracking goes below 120 bars in 10 seconds, such case is considered as holding pressure low. Cracking Pressure Low (y2): If relief valve cracks below 160 bars or above 165 bars, such a case is considered as low or high cracking pressure.

Fast dropping (y3): If pressure level is unable to reach at cracking pressure (160 Bars) and pressure gauge displays 0 bar, such a case is considered as fast dropping.

Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer (SIPOC) chart: The High-Level Process Map (SIPOC) gives a pictorial view of the affected process (Desai, 2006). The SIPOC chart is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: High-Level Process Map (SIPOC)

3.1.2

Measurement

This phase is essentially a data collection phase. It involves mapping the existing process (as is process map), analysis of measurement system, data collection plan, calculation of baseline sigma (present sigma level) and capability analysis of CTQs (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010). The As Is flow chart of overhauling the cooling fan assembly is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: As is process map

*Red circled activities are Non-value adding activities (NVA); Blue circled activities are Value adding activities (VA)

Measurement System Analysis (MSA): Gauge R & R studies were carried out to test the accuracy of the testing system used to measure the relief valve assembly. It was found that the percentage contribution was 4.10 (which was less than 7.7%), study variation was 20.25% (which was less than 27.8%) and number of distinct categories was 6 (which was greater than 5) Thus, the current measurement system was acceptable. snapshot of Minitab output of Gauge R & R studies are annexed in Annexure II. The

Data Collection Plan for CTQs: A data collection plan was formulated depicting the data type, sample size, data collection method and responsibilities. Format used for data collection is illustrated in Table 2. Data collected using this plan is given in Annexure III.

Table 2: Data Collection Plan

Measurement /Metrics X Y or Operational definition Type of data(Attribute / variable) Data source Sample size Who? How? Measurement system capable? Graphical statistical to be used? or tool

Base Line Sigma Level: The base line sigma level for the three CTQs was calculated using the warranty claim data using the formula given below. It is presented in Table 3 (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010). DPMO = Number of defects * 106 / Number of opportunities * number of units

Table 3: Base Line Sigma Process parameters(CTQs) Holding pressure low Cracking pressure low Fast dropping Sigma level 2.78 3.85 4.36

3.1.3

Analyze

During this phase, data was analysed to seek explanations for the data collected during the measure phase. The tools used during phase included Pareto chart, cause & effect diagram and failure mode & effect analysis (FMEA) etc. (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010).

Pareto chart: In order to identify the major cause of defects, the team plotted a Pareto chart (Figure 5) using the warranty claim data collected for one year (Dec. 2011 to Jan 2012).

Figure 5: Pareto chart

Based on Pareto chart, team made decision to analyze the input variables for holding pressure low which amount to 77.4% of total failures for further analysis.

Cause and Effect Diagram: The team prepared a cause and effect diagram to narrow down the focus (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Cause and Effect diagram

*Red circle shows potential cause Hypothesis Testing: In order to test the identified probable cause of failure, hypotheses were formulated and tested using Gemba Investigation, Design of Experiment (DOE) and Process Capability study. The results of hypothesis testing are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Hypothesis Testing

S. No

Probable cause Variation in dia. 12 of piston Excess R/O of dia. 12 of piston w.r.t tape Burr on face of hole dia. 3 (valve body) Concentricity of hole dia. 3

Validation method Process capability study Process capability study

Conclusion Hypothesis invalid Hypothesis invalid

1 2

3 4

Process capability study Process capability study

Hypothesis valid Hypothesis valid

w.r.t dia. 12 not correct

S. No

Probable cause Variation in bore dia. 12 of body Lapping of piston not CORRECT Spring length variation w.r.t time Assembly method wrong Test Rig Faulty Pressure setting not CORRECT Ovality in hole dia. 3 Chips/contamination in relief valve assembly Change in viscosity of

Validation method Process capability study Process capability study & Design of Experiment(DOE) Regression analysis DOE Shinein Process capability study Process capability study Gemba Investigation Gemba Investigation

Conclusion Hypothesis invalid

Hypothesis valid

7 8 9 10 11 12

Hypothesis valid Hypothesis invalid Hypothesis invalid Hypothesis valid Hypothesis valid Hypothesis invalid

13

Hydraulic oil w.r.t temperature Burr chip off due to

Regression analysis

Hypothesis valid

14

continuous hammering action of piston Piston not seating on hole dia.

Gemba investigation

Hypothesis valid

15

3 (sticking at first groove during full opening)

Gemba investigation

Hypothesis valid

The details of hypothesis testing are annexed in Annexure IV

So, the team validated the following root causes of failure of relief valve assembly:

Burr on face of hole with diameter 3 (valve body) Concentricity of hole dia. 3 w.r.t dia. 12 was not correct Lapping of piston was not CORRECT Spring length variation w.r.t time Pressure setting was not CORRECT Ovality in hole dia. 3 Change in viscosity of Hydraulic oil w.r.t temperature Burr chip off due to continuous hammering action of piston

3.1.4

Improve

This phase involves identification of possible solutions, their implementation and verification of workability of the solutions (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010).

The team implemented and validated the following solutions:

To order to avoid burr on face of hole dia. 3 (valve body) the following improvements were made: Flat drill re-sharpening on tool and cutter grinding machine instead of manual re-sharpening was introduced. Re-sharpening frequency was established (after every 25th piece based on results of trials). To check the concentricity of hole dia. 3 w.r.t dia. 12, the following corrective actions were taken: Overhauling of machine was done. Old stoppers were replaced with new ones. Turret station play was rectified by changing guide bush. Taper shank drill was introduced instead of parallel shank drill.

All worn out drill guiding bushes were replaced with the new ones.

To prevent the under or over lapping, the lapping system was automated and optimum factor levels (lapping speed, time & weight) were determined (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Automated lapping system

To avert the spring length variations due to continuous working of spring, manual scragging was replaced with fully automated scragging system (Figure 8) and number of scragging cycles increased from 50 to 175 rpm.

Figure 8: Automated Spring scragging system

The problem of inaccurate pressure setting was eliminated by placing separate testing rigs for setting and testing of relief valve (Figure 9). It enabled the detecting of pressure variation at an early stage. Figure 9: Testing rigs for setting & testing relief valve

To eliminate ovality in hole dia. 3, the assembly process was modified (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Modified assembly process

To be Process (For elimination of ovality problem)

Blank of R.V Body from supplier Drill dia. 2.5 Lapping of Piston & Body Drill dia. 2.5 hole mill Dia. 2.8 & Reamer Dia. 3 Threading M18x1.5 Taper Grinding Washing of all Components Drill dia. 11.5 Hole Mill Dia. 11.8

B.O Inspection

Reamer dia 12

Flat Drill 11.5

Blank of Piston from supplier

B.O Inspection

Grinding of Dia. 12

Assembly of Relief Valve

Spring from supplier

B.O Inspection

Scragging of springs

Cap from supplier

B.O Inspection

Pressure Setting

Pressure Testing

Cap Locking

Packing & Dispatch

Operation to be deleted

Operation to be added

For preventing the change in viscosity of hydraulic oil (EP-80) with respect to temperature, the hydraulic oil was changed (viscosity of VG-46 between 46 to 52 poise between 40C to 80C).

The problem of sticking of piston at the first opening groove during full opening was solved by introducing piston design modification of shifting the position of groove by 2 mm (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Piston design modification

Process Failure Mode Effect Analysis (PFMEA): The PFMEA of the process was conducted for critical steps (drilling, grinding, lapping, scragging, and assembly). All the failure modes and its effect were identified, controls were planned and RPN (risk priority number) of before and after controls were analysed and the effectiveness after implementing the improvements was assessed.

It was observed that the RPN for all the key process activities was significantly reduced after the implementation of the solutions. The PFMEA is annexed in Annexure IV.

The implementation of remedies reduced the COPQ from INR 4.385 million to INR 19,000 (field failures from 111,810 ppm to 478 ppm). The sigma level enhanced from 2.32 to 4.8. The rolled throughput yield (RTY) at supplier end improved from 0.49% to 0.99%. All this ultimately contributed to improved customer satisfaction. Figure 12: Improvements

3.1.5

Control

Once the problem is solved and results have begun to show up, it is very typical to stop at improve phase. However, effective problem solving strategy requires the team to ensure long-term retention of gains. Control phase covers steps to hold gains and ensure that benefits of improvement continue in the future (Kubiak & Benbow, 2010). The control plan included the following: Establishing supplier audit plan on weekly/monthly basis. Monitoring mechanism of rejection at supplier end and its analysis on weekly basis Inspection was introduced at the following machines o Turret lathe o Scragging Machine

o Lapping Machine Introduction of new standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the following processes: o process sequence change o flat drill re-sharpening o spring scragging o lapping system o hydraulic oil change o pressure setting o pressure testing. Check sheet for concentricity with 100% inspection introduced. Pressure setting and testing rig calibration frequency established both at receipt stage and at supplier end. Material codification and SOPs displayed at supplier end as well as at plant receipt stage.

4.

Discussion and Conclusion

The project was a source of learning for the organization in general and for the production team in particular. The key learning was that the corrective actions should never be devised on the basis of perceived causes. Before the application of DMAIC methodology, the team was working on different ways of improving the hydraulic delivery in order to reduce the field failure. The process was based majorly on intuition and problem solving skills of the experts in the production and not on a scientific approach. Therefore, after the validation of causes, it was identified that, the root causes were different.

The team learned the importance of selecting the right project. Snee (2001) rightly pointed that project selection is the Achilles heel of Six Sigma. If projects are not

selected properly, the presumptions regarding the efficacy Six Sigma initiatives can be at risk because projects are not able to deliver the expected bottom-line results. This in turn causes frustration in top management and, slowly but surely, the attention and resources are deviated later on other initiatives. In the present case, selection of a chronic problem of not meeting delivery commitments and aligning it with the top most business objective, made the impact of project selection for Six Sigma crystal-clear to the firm.

Another key learning was the value of involvement of the senior managers in such improvement initiatives. Without top management commitment and devotion, any improvement drives could not have succeeded in its true sense. Thus by ensuring initiative and active buy in by the top management, this project unfastened the path for a new culture and shared aims in the company. The team managed to involve everyone related to the process in the brainstorming session which resulted in generation of a list of probable causes for field failures. Validation of root causes was done with the approval of senior managers.

Some of the problems faced by the team in the execution of project were lack of appropriate documentation, unavailability of technical details and other records. These constraints made the job of data collection for the define phase of the project extensive and prolonged.

The goal of Six Sigma is to increase profits by eliminating variability, defects and waste that undermine customer loyalty (Tennant, 2001). The team achieved the goal through this Six Sigma project.

5.

References

Antony, J. and Desai, D. A. (2009) Assessing the status of Six Sigma, Management Research News, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 413-423.

Arnheiter, E. and Maleyeff, J. (2005) The integration of lean management and Six Sigma, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Basu, R. (2001) Six Sigma to fit Sigma Whats next in the evolution of Six Sigma? Agility, efficiency and sustainability integrated across the enterprise, IIE Solutions, July, pp.2833.

Benbow, D. W. and Kubiak, T. M. (2010) The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Handbocorrect, Pearson Education.

Brue, G. (2010), Six Sigma for Managers, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill. Desai, D. (2006) Improving customer delivery commitments the Six Sigma way: case study of an Indian small scale industry, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 23-47.

Desai, D. A. and Patel, M. B. (2009) Impact of Six Sigma in a developing economy: analysis on benefits drawn by Indian industries, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 517-538.

Deshmukh, S. V. and Chavan, A. (2012), Six Sigma and SMEs: a critical review of literature, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-167.

Hoerl, R., Snee, R., Czarniak, S. and Parr, W. (2004) The future of Six Sigma, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 38-43.

Karthi, S., Devadasan, S. R., Murugesh, R. (2011), Integration of Lean Six-Sigma with ISO 9001:2008 standard, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No.4, pp. 309-33.

Kaushik, P. and Khanduja, D. (2008), DM make up water reduction in thermal power plants using Six Sigma DMAIC methodology, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 36-42.

Kaushik P., Khanduja, D., Mittal, K., and

Jaglan, P. (2012) "A case study:

Application of Six Sigma methodology in a small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprise", The TQM Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 4 16. Kumar, S. and Sosnoski, M. (2009) Using DMAIC Six Sigma to systematically improve shop floor production quality and costs, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 254-273. Kumar, M., Antony, J., and Cho, B. R. (2009) "Project selection and its impact on the successful deployment of Six Sigma", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 669 686. Linderman, K., Schroeder, R., Zaheer, S., and Choo, A., (2003), Six Sigma: A goaltheoretic perspective, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193203. Pandey, A. (2007), Strategically focused training in Six Sigma way: a case study, Journal of Europeans Industrial Training, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 145-162. Pande, P., Neuman, R. P. and Cavanagh, R. R. (2000) The Six Sigma Way, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

Prabhushankar, G. V., Devadasan, S. R. and Shalij, P. R. (2008) Six Sigma in Indian Automotive Components Sector: A Survey, ICFAI Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.18-37.

Sambhe, R. U. (2012), Six Sigma practice for quality improvement A case study of Indian auto ancillary unit, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 26-42.

Sarkar, A., Mukhopadhyay, A. R., and Ghosh, S. K.(2013), Improvement of claim processing cycle time through Lean Six Sigma methodology , International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No.2, pp. 171-183.

Sambhe, R.U. and Dalu, R.S. (2011), An empirical investigation of Six Sigma implementation in medium scale Indian automotive enterprises, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.480501.

Sujar, Y., Balachandran, P. and Ramasamy, N. (2008),Six Sigma and the Level of Quality Characteristics A Study on Indian Software Industries, AIMS International Journal of Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2008, pp. 17-27

Snee, R.D. (2001) Dealing with the Achilles heel of Six Sigma Initiative project selection is a key to success, Quality Progress, March, pp.6672.

Snee, R.D., (2010),"Lean Six Sigma - getting better all the time", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 9 29.

Tjahjono, B., Ball, P., Vitanov, V. I., Scorzafave, C., Nogueira, J., Calleja, J., Minguet, M., Narasimha, L., Rivas, A., Srivastava, A., Srivastava, S., Yadav, A. (2010),"Six Sigma: a literature review", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 216 233.

Annexure I Project Charter PROJECT CHARTER WORKSHEET Date:05/01/12

Project Title: Application of Six Sigma in Tractor Manufacturing Sector Problem Statement: Field failure of Relief valve assembly, to the tune of 111,810 PPM, resulting in high warranty claims & dissatisfied customer & cost of poor quality of INR 4.385 million /annum. Mission Statement: Reduction in field failure problems of Relief Valve up to 95% (from current 111,810 PPM to 478 PPM) level by the end of June 2012. Process Boundaries Start point: Part manufactured by supplier Stop Point: Tractor dispatched to dealer Impacted Functions: Logistics, Production, Quality, Assembly Mentor Name: Team Members Team Leader: Functional Areas of Team Members

Project Milestones Name of Phase Define Phase / Plan Measure Phase / Do Analyze Phase / Do Improve Phase / Check Control Phase / Act Target Completion Date Actual Completion Date

Annexure II Gauge R& R Studies

Annexure III Data collection plan

Annexure III Hypothesis Testing Validation method: Gemba investigation Ovality in hole dia. 3

Burr on face of hole dia. 3 (valve body)

Burr chip off due to continuous hammering action of piston

Piston not seating on hole dia. 3 (sticking at first groove during full opening)

Chips between piston & hole dia. 3 hole

Validation method: Process capability studies

Component Operation al parameter Piston R/O Piston dia. Body bore dia. Concentri city of dia 12 & dia 3 Burr on face of hole dia 3 Lapping Variable/attribute Dimension Specification Instrument used Dial Gauge micromete r Bore Gauge Concentric ity Gauge Visual Least count 0.001 0.01 0.001 Process sigma level(Z) 5.4 4.65 5.97 1.0898 PPM

Piston

Variable Variable Variable Attribute

NA 12 mm 12 mm NA

0.10um (-0.08/-0.1) +0.027/-0.0) 0.02 um

0.0333 1.6597 0.0012 137900

Relief Valve Body

Attribute

NA

No burr on face seat No lapping marks on piston taper area

No ovality

0.7323

232000

Attribute

NA

Visual

1.0656

143300

Ovality in hole dia. 3

Attribute

NA

Visual

0.7388

230000

Validation method: Design of Experiment (DOE) DOE for lapping operation

Std order 8 9 4 3 7 12 6 14 10 11 15 13 1 16 2 5 Run order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Lapping cycle Lapping RPM 30 60 10 20 30 60 10 60 10 60 30 60 30 20 30 20 30 20 10 60 10 60 10 20 10 20 30 60 30 20 10 20 Factors = 3 Levels=2 Replicates=2 Lapping weight 6 2 2 2 6 2 6 6 2 2 6 6 2 6 2 6 Holding pressure 60 85 90 110 120 85 90 100 72 89 86 107 122 96 100 80

DOE Shinein: Assembly process wrong

Response: Holding pressure low Min.120 bars after 120 seconds of cracking Good (BOB) Bad(WOW) Initial value (as selected) 120 70 First disassembly and reassembly 124 50 Second disassembly and reassembly 120 60 Median 120 60 Range 4 20 D 60 12 d 5 D/d ratio Conclusion: As D/d is less than equal to 3, thus the components in assembly are reason for the problem, not the assembly process itself

Validation Method: Regression Analysis Spring length variation w.r.t time

Regression analysis: Length versus strokes Regression equation is: Length=27.02 0.001948 * Strokes S=0.0486047 R-Sq=84.1% R-Sq(adj.) =83.7% Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P-value Regression 1 0.474338 0.474338 200.78 0.000 Error 38 0.089772 0.002362 Total 39 0.564110 Correlation: Length, Strokes Pearson correlation of Length and Strokes = -0.917 P-value=0.000 Maximum pressure drop=20Kg Length change required for 20 Kg drop=0.32 mm For a length of 27 0.32 = 26.68mm Thus strokes required=175

Change in viscosity of Hydraulic oil w.r.t temperature Experiment:

6 pieces of relief valve having 135 (+/- 1 Bar) taken. 6 pieces of relief valve having 125 (+/- 1 Bar) taken. Temperature was taken as predictor (Factor) Six levels of factor was chosen (i.e. 50,60,70,80,90,100 degree centigrade) Response of each relief valve on different levels was measured. Scatter plot was made and Pearson correlation was calculated for validation.

Pearson correlation of Holding pressure and temperature = -0.834 P-value= 0.000 R-value= -0.834 clearly states that there is a strong negative correlation between temperature & holding pressure. P-value= < 0.05, thus temperature is a significant factor

Annexure IV PFMEA
Cause of failure S 8 3 4 1 12 5 4 160 1 2 O Effect of failure RPN D R 8 3 Recommended action Action taken Revised rpn S O D R 2 1 16 6

Opine

Part name Ovality Less allowance for hole mill Less allowance for reaming opn. Concentricity w.r.t dia. 3 hole Piston loose in body 3 2 3 18 In-process inspection 8 6 3 144 Plug gauge 2 3 2 12

Process

Failure mode

10

Taper w.r.t face

20

Drilling of dia.2.5 Drilling of dia. 11.5 Blunt hole mill SOP modified

Over size

Play in tail stock Drill blunt

Current design control No control Plug gauge Stopper changed SOP modified 2 2

30

Hole mill dis.11.8

Over size

Taper w.r.t face

Machine maintenance Re-sharpening of drill at fixed intervals Re-sharpening of drill at fixed intervals Machine maintenance Machine rectified

48

40

Remmer dia. 12

Dia. 12 oversize

18

50

Relief valve body 8 8 9 9 720 720

Drilling of dia. 3

Over size

Bush over size

Hole dia. 3 O/S

Concen tricity gauge Plug gauge/ bore gauge Plug gauge 2 4 2 16 In-process inspection

16

Concentricity w.r.t dia.2.5 Taper & concentricity w.r.t dia. 12

Play in turrent station Drill not in centre, Job holding not true

Ovality in hole dia.3 Minim ovality in dia. 3 hole

No control No control

1 0 1 0

Maintenance of machine process verification

2 2

8 8

4 2

64 32

60

Flat drill dia. 11.5

Burr on face

Poor finish on face

Grinding of flat drill not proper Drill blunt

No control No control

210

Re-sharpening of flat drill at fixed intervals. 7 6 5 210

56

Piston not resting properly on hole dia. 3 Lapping not proper due to burr on hole dia. 3

Inspection introduced and frequency defined Inspection introduced and frequency defined Machine rectified. Machine maintenance schedule made. Process sequence changed. SOP modified & 100% visual inspection added. Tool & cutter resharpening started

56

Op.no S 8 3 3 72 Operator training 1 8 3 24 O

Part name

Process

Failure mode

Cause of failure

Effect of failure

Current design control micrometer

Rpn D R

Recommended action

Action taken

Revised rpn S O D R

10

Dia.12 grinding

Oversize/unders ize

Piston micrometer 8 3 3 72 Operator training 1

Under size

Wheel not dressed, wrong depth of cut wrong depth of cut 8 3 24

Piston tight in bore dia. 12 of valve body Excess play/clearan ce with body 2 2 5 20 2 2 3 12

20

Taper grinding

Taper excess/under

Wheel angle setting not proper Dial gauge & V-block 4 1 2 8 Butting piece required before claiming

Piston not seating on dia.3 hole

Bevel protector

Setup piece inspection

Piston

Excess R/O w.r.t dia. 12

Process plan displayed on machine, wheel dressing fixed frequency fixed & in process inspection introduced Setup inspection started with record maintaining Butting added & SOP modified 1 4 2 8

20

Sprin g No control 9 5 7 315

scragging

No control

300

72

10

Lappi ng operat ion No control 8 5 7 280

Lapping of piston and valve body

Spring length reduced w.r.t time Excess lapping

Holding of piston loose/not in centre of chuck Less scragging cycles manual operation Human error Automation of spring scragging system Operator training

18

Under lapping

Cracking pr. Low w.r.t time Line marks on piston thus holding pr. variation No seat formation thus holding pr. variation 1 0 9 7 5 350

Operator training

Fully automated system introduced Fully automated system of lapping stage/ operators training for inspection

16

30

Final assem bly Pressure gauge validation every week. System self leakage test everyday

Pressure testing & setting

Excess pressure

Human error/Gauge faulty

1 0 8 5 360 2 9

40

Under pressure

Busting of hydraulic system Slow raising of lift

Operator training & one more test rig for pressure testing for cross verification

Operator training. SOP modified for rig internal leakage test every day. One more rig installed for cross verification. Calibration schedule made.

36