Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 39

1

To Maximize the Profit Margin through Optimization of Product


Mix at Steel Processing Centres (SPCs) of Tata Steel

Tata Steel’s Vision:


“We aspire to be the global steel industry benchmark for Value
Creation and Corporate Citizenship “

2
Brief Summary of the Project

Summary:
Due to ongoing competitive environment, prevailing Industry &
Market scenario, business objective for Profit Maximization
was chosen to meet stakeholders’ expectations. This project
helped in increasing availability of 8mm TATA TISCON TMT
rebars (higher value product) from 37kt/Month to 45kt/Month
by Capability Building at its Steel Processing Centers (called
as SPC) using TQM methodology & tools, and thereby
addressing customers need to improve product mix basket .

Audited Savings:
INR 11.67 Crores

Note : Please refer to last slide on this


pack for Key legends, notes and
abbreviations used in this pack is
hyperlinked to

1
3

Section # 1
Project and Team Selection

Legend used in presentation Abbreviations used

Process SPC – Steel processing centers


CTP Critical to production
Challenges TOC –Theory of Constraints
CAT: Change acceleration Team
Unique / Good /Best practices

Back connectivity slide no , item no

Forward connectivity slide no , item no


Tata Steel India (Operations) Val Steel India (Operations) Value
KEY WORDS IN VIOLET COLOR
Stream

1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection 4

1.1.1 Who was responsible for selecting the project? (1/2)

Tata Steel has a very well defined TQM improvement framework and methodology for project TSL’s Value
1 selection and responsibility Refer item 1.3.0 slide 12
Stream

Vision, Mission, Policy Inputs from other


Values, Stakeholders Management Stakeholders
objective Process including VOC

Marketing
Sales
Corporate Level
Process Used

Objective Project Selection


Responsibility
Target
Who
LPP
setting
through
cascading Steel
Manufacturing

Target Setting for the department level


objective (LPP)

Refer item 1.2.0 slide 6

This Project is an Improvement Opportunity case Iron Making

Capability building
2 for production
Profitably

Opportunity Case Increase in desired


SKU production
from SPC Mining
Cost to serve
optimisation

Refer 2.2.2 slide 24

2
1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection 5
What background information of the company or those who selected the project is needed
1.1.1 to better understand the context of the project ? (2/2)

A. Background of the company :


Tata Steel, is a part of the Tata Group, has been in the business of Steel for over 100 years. It has operations in 26 countries
and commercial presence in over 50 countries. It is world’s 11th largest steel player producing 27.4 MTPA crude steel and
employing over 80,000 people. The Steel Manufacturing division ( India operations) is headed by Vice President ( Steel
Manufacturing). Under him, Long Products team produces TATA TlSCON rebar from Own Rolling mills and also by managing
production from SPCs located in various parts of India.
B. Tata Steel India (Operations) Value Chain
Mining Iron Making Steel Manufacturing (SM) Marketing & Sales

Long Products Flat Products CHALLENGE A


QUALITY
ASSURANCE
DEVELOPMENT &
LP Planning Production Own Mills DEPLOYMENT TO
“TATA TlSCON” is a premium MEET BRAND
brand rebar with low market share, PROMISE
having potential for tapping huge SPC Management Order Management
market demand
CHALLENGE B
Product Market Production from BUY IN FROM SPC
segment segment Billet Supply by SPC FOR CHANGE
Tata Steel IMPLEMENTATION AT
SPC

CHALLENGE C
Steel Processing Center (SPC)
Refer 2.2.2 slide 24 Mill: ( Beekay ,SSIL ,BMW ,Modern etc) TECHNO COMMERCIAL
(Facilities owned by SPC, TSL has given VIABILITY AT SPC
FG contract to SPC for using this facility)

1.2.0 Project Selection process 6


How was the gap or opportunity brought to the attention of the project identification group
? (1/3) & what was the opportunity (process improvement) (2/3) &
1.2.1 What area of the organization had the gap or the opportunity? (3/3)

Cascading of Objective from Corporate Level (TSL) to department (LPP) Refer to Slide no. 4, item number 1.1.1.

1 Achieve target Enrich sales mix Maximize the profit


profit and profitably by providing margin through
Operating profit new and value added optimization of
products to customers product mix at SPCs.

Tata Steel Steel Manufacturing Long Product Planning

2
Revenue Streams :Steel Value Chain

Meeting higher requirement of value added rebars

3
1.2.0 Project Selection process 7

1.2.2 What data was generated to help select the project ? (1/3)

1 1st Data – Customer facing (VOC) : Refer 2.1.1 slide 21 8 mm


TSL Online dash board monitoring
• VOC showed the need for optimization of product mix through 8mm increase
system for 8mm stock on daily basis

2 Refer 2.1.1 slide 21


2nd Data – Operational: To understand availability of 8mm
Replenishment
(SKU) at various Stockyards /Sales Points :
Model:
• Operating philosophy of TSL Long Product Supply chain : Replenishment Producing plant
model supplies material
to the stock yard
• Analysis: Potential for (hubs) based on
• Data Used/ generated: Dash the stock levels.
board stock level input used for improvement in 8mm
availability. The need for
input analysis. replenishment of
the SKU stocks
3 3rd Data - From Finance : The price realization for 8mm is is reflected by
the color
higher than other SKUs. indicated on the
dashboard.

4 4th Data – Target Setting : Brainstorming with M&S team to


arrive at below mentioned target (plan) for increasing 8mm
production. Highly < 33% of stocks
Undesired

5 Undesired 33%-66% of stocks


8 mm
Desired >66% of stocks

Refer 2.2.2 slide 23

Approach: Data inputs pertaining to key stakeholders

1.2.0 Project Selection process 8


What methods and /or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need ? (2/3) &
1.2.2 Why were these methods and or tools used to select the project? (3/3)
Policy Management Refer to slide 1.1.1 Policy Mgt Process
1
ABP ( Annual Business Planning )

Necessary and
BO&S Sufficiency Refer item 2.4.1, slide 31
Check ( N&S)
BO&S
N&S :
(Business
Ensures the
Objectives and
relevant
Strategy) : To “Need” projects are
identify Prioritization selected for
objectives for (P1, P2,…) each objective
meeting ABP
/strategy
targets

These methods and tools are unique to Tata Steel (winner of Deming Grand Prize (DGP)

2 Refer item 1.1.1, slide 5


Our project is
Framework for Project here ; being
Methodology Selection based a high impact
on Impact on Policy project it is Refer 1.3.4
Management reviewed by slide 18
the Change
Acceleration
Team (CAT)

CAT : Refer to slide


1.3.1

4
1.2.0 Project Selection process 9
What goals (organizational), performance measures, and/or strategies is the project expected to
1.2.3 impact? (1/3) & What was the relationship between the stated measure & perceived gap in 1.2.1 (2/3)

1
Corporate Objective Steel Manufacturing LPP Strategy Project Goal Other measures /
Objective KPI
Achieve target Enrich sales mix profitability Meeting higher Production of 8mm
margin by providing new and value Enhancement in requirement of 8mm TMT
added products services and profitability rebars 45,000 tpm,
Sales of 8mm TMT
solutions to our customers current capability
levels of 37,000 tpm

2
Availability of 8mm TMT Enriched Increasing Customer
Stated Measures (measured in terms of DDP) Product Mix satisfaction index (CSI)

Customer survey Quality of product : Zone Wise


shows adequacy of
Tata Steel
SKU needs East West North South
2014
improvement Base 963 444 129 168 222 Tata TISCON is a
specially in East T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 multiple award winner
region Overall Quality of products 76 72 78 74 85 brand of Tata Steel
Adherence of product to dimensional pertaining to TMT
tolerance 68 62 77 67 77 Rebars for which this
Refer item 1.1.1, slide 5 (Ovality) project has been taken
Quality of embossing on the rebar 70 64 82 69 76
Rib quality of rebar 71 65 84 69 79
Weight tolerance of rebars 69 65 77 72 71
Adequacy of SKUs available 67 59 82 76 75
Bow formation in 8mm rebars 62 59 72 57 68
Appearance as rusting 47 45 63 26 52
Random length bars coming in bundles 62 56 80 50 72
Bundling Quality 65 58 79 60 73
Safety of processing products 63 62 84 66 72

1.2.0 Project Selection process 10


What is the problem statement that expresses where the organization wants to
1.2.3 be at the end of the project? (3/3)

Business Level Opportunity :


• TSL’s Marketing and Sales
department indicated it is losing
sales because of limited
availability of 8mm section (which
is also an higher margin product of
Tata Steel).
• Based on the buying behavior of 2
customer it is known that the full
basket of sections should be Project Scope for building
available to ensure final sales to on the opportunity :
the customer, hence availability of To enhance 8mm production
8mm is critical to sales of other capability from 37ktpm (FY’14) to
sections also. 45ktpm and to optimize cost to
serve for increasing profitability, by
Mar’15 at SPCs.

This is an opportunity case for the team

5
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 11
How were the stakeholders groups identified? (1/2)
1.3.1

1
Tool - SIPOC

S LD # 1

I Analyst- LP Planning

P Steel Processing Centres


O Technology Group, Long Products, Business Analytics Group
C Sales Planning, M&S

2 Tool - ARMI

Refer item 1.1.1, slide 5 Role D M A I C


SPC
Chief LPP A A A A A
Management
Supply Chain
Analysts R R R R R
Head Technical,
LP Planning Head SPC M M M M M
Management
R R R R I
BAG, Sales Planning

Identification process using SIPOC and ARMI tools

1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 12


What or who are stakeholder groups ? (2/2)
1.3.1

VP SM

2. Change 2
1. Policy holder
1 (VP-SM sets the direction Acceleration Team VP SM
using Policy (CAT)
Chief, LPP
Management. (for steering
R Chief, BAG
LPP reports to VP-SM purpose) I
Refer item 1.1.1, slide 4 Chief , TG

Tata Steel
Head, SPC Management, Out
location
3. Cross
I Head, SPC Technical and New
Functional Team Initiative Senior Manager
E (CFT)
4. SPC ,Technical
(since the (for driving the Senior Manager ,Commercial
SPC to be chosen opportunity
based on drill project is Senior Manager, Order
down of improvement at identification E Management
opportunity SPC) &execution Steel Processing Centers
(SPC)
The 4 key stakeholder groups
Refer item 2.4.1, slide 34

I Influencer R Reviewer E Executer

6
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 13
What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the
1.3.2 project? (1/3)(1/3)

1
Critical Success Factor for project Critical Success Factor for project

• Right decision making and • Solution to be at


balancing all stakeholders optimal cost with

Supply Chain
expectations(including out affecting
SPC) service level to
• Buy In from SPC customer
Refer challenge on slide 5
Managerial 2 Refer challenge on slide 5

Skill
Project Management types
Critical Success Factor for project
Technical-Rolling
• Right selection of tools for
TQM &

problem solving (TQM


methodology) Critical Success Factor for project
• And implementation of CCPM
( Critical chain project • Defining /designing right
Management ) for faster technical solutions
implementation • Buy-in from SPC
Refer challenge on slide 5

Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals

3 The detailed team member wise skill mapping is shown in the next slide k.

1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 14


To what extent did the existing stakeholder groups have the required knowledge or skills? (2/3)
What additional knowledge and skill set were brought in to make the project successful (3/3)/?(3/3)3)
1.3.2
√ : Identified skill set Knowledge already available Gap in required Skill Set

Mr. Suman Mr. Anurag Mr. Anurag


Name Mr. S. Rajamani Mr. Rajesh Sehgal Mr. Rajiv Banka ***
Biswas Agarwal Raturi
Head SPC Head SPC,
Chief, Long Sr. Mgr, Order Sr. Mgr, SPC
Designation Management, Out Technical and New Sr. Mgr, Commercial
Product Planning Management Technical representative
location Initiative
(Policy Holder &
Role (Project Leader) (Team Member) (Team Member) (Team Member) (Team Member) (Team Member)
Project Mentor)
Lead the project
Technical guide Support in Support in
Problem solving for involvement of Guide on supply Support in
Desired Expertise for capacity commercial execution of
Expert relevant stake chain execution
enhancement activities planned technical plan
holders
Desired Skill Sets
Analytical Skill √ √ √ √ √ √
Innovative thinking √ √ √
Analysis and problem solving
skills Refer 2.2.1 slide 22 √ √ √ √ √ √
(TQM approach)
Customer centric approach √ √ √ √ √

Change management skills √ √ √ √


Product Knowledge √ √ √ √
Hot rolling Operation Skills √ √ √
Project Management √ √ √ √ √ √
Partner with suppliers √ √ √
Contracting and Negotiation √ √ √
Demand Management √ √
Influencing and Leadership √ √

QA Rollout √
Use of Optimiser tool √
Effective Communication √ √ √ √ √ √
Decision Making √ √ √

Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals

7
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 15

1.3.3 Before the project started ,what specific training was done? (1/2) (3/3)

Mr. Anurag Mr. S. Mr. Rajesh Mr. Rajiv Mr. Anurag


Name ***
Agarwal Rajamani Sehgal Banka Raturi
Head SPC Head SPC, SPC
Sr. Mgr, Sr. Mgr, Order Sr. Mgr,
Designation Management, Technical and representativ
Commercial Management Technical
Out location New Initiative e
(Team (Team (Team (Team
Role (Project Leader) (Team Member)
Member) Member) Member) Member)

Specific Training Imparted

What needs to be achieved


√ √ √ √ √ √
through this project

Project Management √ √ √ √ √ √

Optimizer tool √

Quality Assurance Rollout √

Partner with Suppliers √

Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals

*** SPC joined project at a


later stage

1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 16

Before the project started ,what was done to prepare the team to work
1.3.3 together as a team (2/2) (1/2)

1 2

Team preparation meeting 1 Refer item 1.3.4, slide 19 Team preparation meeting 2
CTQ drilldown “ Y” & Factors
Project Deadlines and
impacting the project- x1,x2,…
deliverables

Role & responsibility


Use of possible TQM
expectation from team Team preparation
tools to assist in
members
data analysis

KPIs expected to be impacted


& by how much

Approach : Shared vision/goal, clarity on expectation & deliverables &


commitment, mutual respect & trust , effective communication ,for
enabling high performance team

8
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 17

1.3.4 What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project (1/3)
(2/2)

1 (Policy Holder & (Team


Role (Project Leader) (Team Member) (Team Member) (Team Member)
Project Mentor) Member)

Mr. Anurag
Name Mr. Suman Biswas Mr. Anurag Agarwal Mr. S. Rajamani Mr. Rajesh Sehgal Mr. Rajiv Banka
Raturi

Head SPC
Chief, Long Product Head SPC, Technical Sr. Mgr, Order Sr. Mgr,
Designation Management, Out Sr. Mgr, Commercial
Planning and New Initiative Management Technical
location

2 Lead the project for


Technical guide for Support in Support in
Problem solving involvement of Guide on supply
Expectation capability commercial execution of
Expert relevant stake chain
enhancement activities planned technical plan
holders

1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 18


What deadlines and deliverables did the team have to consider
1.3.4 ahead of actually starting the project?(2/3)
Project Timelines
STRETCHED TARGETS CONSIDERING ITS INFRASTRUCTURAL/
Start Date: 25-02-2014 1 CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Completion of project : Mar’15

Phase wise buildup:


Feb’14 Mar’14 Apr’14 May’14 Jun’14 Jul’14 Aug’14 Sep’14 Oct’14 Nov’14 Dec’14 Jan’15 Feb’15 Mar’15

Define:

Measure:

Analyze:

Improve:

Control:

Holding Gains

Finalisation of Data Directional Contracting, Trial Stabilization Monitoring & review


Phase-wise the Project Collection output in terms Rolling at SPCs, of 8mm rolling
Deliverables Charter and of specific work rollout of Quality at SPCs. 2
Readiness required at Assurance Process
for inputs to SPCs
LP optimizer

Approach :
a) In view of High Impact project , taking stretched target . But considering interdependency of activities, 5W1H
b) Protects stakeholders interests
Customer First :Ensuring regular material availability (rebars) to customer
Supplier partnership :Minimization of downtime of SPCs
Expected date of completion

9
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 19

1.3.4 Before the project started, what team routines, including


communication were established?(3/3) (3/3)
Team Communication System / Routines

Team Communication Strategy


1 2 Means to ensure effectiveness
of communication

Regular
1 meetings
between 1+2=3
Experts and
Senior
Management

2 Roadmap
Identification
and Correct
results were 3
shared

4 Formal closure of
phases & compliance
3 to the project
execution plan
2
1

Learning : Communication drives team engagement and


Need: commitment
Across the level communication both formal & informal . Approach for communication : Clear & regular communication
To facilitates discussions at defined frequency but not limited by across levels, openness on exchange of ideas for co-creation
it. and collaboration

20

Section # 2
Current Situation and Root
Cause/Improvement Opportunity Analysis

BENCH- COST
MARKING MODELLING
DOE WHY-WHY

Possible
Solution
Final
Final Solution
SUPPLY
Opportunity
CHAIN
OPTIMIZER BUY – IN PROJECT
(LINDO) FROM SPC PLANNING DOE
( CCPM)

Refer 1.1.1 slide 5

Tools & Method Summary for Improvement Opportunity Analysis

10
2.1.0 Key Measures expected of the project 21
What specific goals and/or measures is the team trying to achieve with the project?
2.1.1 (1/2) & What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and /or
measures, will the project impact? (2/2)

Increase in
Production

Refer 1.2.3 slide 10


Specific goal
2 1
Maximize the
Additional measures profit (by
optimizing Improvement
Fulfillment of
in availability
VOC product mix at ( DDP)
identified
SPCs)
Refer 1.2.2 slide 7
Refer 1.2.2 slide 7

Improvement
in CSI
feedback

Annual Identified Saving Potential: INR 10 Crores

2.2.0 Possible root causes / improvement opportunities 22


What methods and/or tools were used to identify possible root cause / improvement
2.2.1 opportunities? (1/3) & Why were these methods and / or tools selected?(2/3) &
How was the team prepared to use the methods and /or tools? (3/3)
2 3

P W H A T W H Y H O W
o
s 1. Bar Chart Monthly level Analysis of Historic data
s available on SPC wise
Refer 2.2.1 slide 23 monthly production
i 1
b Understanding the Team already
l current performance had
levels understanding of
e
basic TQM tools
2. Production Owing to difference in
O infrastructure facilities,
p Capability matrix SKU level
different SPC has limitation in
p Refer 2.2.2 slide 24 producing various SKUs
o
r Refer item 1.3.2, slide 14
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

11
2.2.0 Key Measures expected of the project 23
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root
2.2.2 cause(s)/improvement opportunity? (1/2) What were the possible root cause / improvement
opportunities? (2/2)

There are two levels of analysis ; I level is shown below and II level is shown in the next slide
1
Ist level analysis to understand Production Trend Refer item 2.2.1 slide 22

Analysis of Historic data available on SPC wise monthly production Data analysis using Bar Chart

Bar Chart : Month on Month 8mm Production Trend (t)


40,000 36,145 36,150 37,039
34,527 33,843
32,303 32,884 33,010
35,000 31,436 30,399
28,146
30,000

25,000

20,000 24,743
22,773 22,314
21,231 21,251
15,000 19,236
17,383 17,304 17,844
16,146
10,000 14,523

5,000

-
Apr'13 May'13 Jun'13 Jul'13 Aug'13 Sep'13 Oct'13 Nov'13 Dec'13 Jan'14 Feb'14

Modern - SPC Brand Alloy - SPC Nanded - SPC Sharda - SPC WRM_W (Own)
WRM_E (Own) ISWP (Own) Sub total Own Total 8mm

First Level Analysis


• Total 8mm Production (Own + SPC) : FY’14: 37,039t, at this stage there is a gap of
2
8000t between project goal and current production

2.2.0 Key Measures expected of the project 24


What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root
2.2.2 cause(s)/improvement opportunity? (1/2) continued next slide What were the possible root
cause / improvement opportunities? (2/2) continued next slide

2 2 Understand from distribution 1 Understand technical possibility of


1
system point of view which SPC’s 8mm capability at SPC
capacity /capability build up will help
in cost reduction 8mm can be introduced at
Beekay 8mm volume increase
at Sharda

Approach: Right SKU, at


right production location, to
achieve cost to serve
optimization

Refer item 2.2.1 slide 22

Refer item 1.1.1, slide 5

Approach : Scenario based planning with Long term focus for systematic and systemic solution
Learning : Too many variables, hence Supply Chain optimiser needed to give best option depending upon options s

12
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 25
What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)/
improvement opportunities ? (1/3) Why were these methods and /or tools
2.3.1 selected to identify the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities ? (2/3)
Approach used was selection of suitable Supply Chain Optimiser to determine final opportunity

1 Defining Need for optimizer 2: Criteria for selecting Optimizer


1

• TSL supply chain is complex


considering multiple units of Criteria for Selection
production with various capacity ,
constraints , and cost structures Optimize
r Solution
• Cost to supply depends upon various Products
Option 1
modes and routes of transportation,
and depending on location of Data Integration with
Option 2 Cost Easy
production and customer locations Size TSL IT Systems
(20%) Interface(30%)
(10%) (40%)
Option 3
• Various scenarios of demand and
huge data processing Option 4 Cplex
Solver
Gourabi
• Can be run at short intervals Solver
Lindo selected on overall basis
Lindo
• Need to predict /forecast the volume Solver
to be served from various producing Matlab
unit for serving a given demand (at
SKU level) in the most profitable way.
On overall basis ‘Lindo’ selected 2

2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 26


How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools to identify
2.3.1 the final root cause(s) improvement opportunities?(3/3) (3/3)

Right Resource selection


for Optimizer usage
based on qualifications , skills Selection of user friendly
etc. screens for optimizer and
designing user IT Interfaces to
TSL data base system

Selection of
correct input
data Hands on Training on
past data using
Helped in surfacing of optimizer
initial input gaps wrt to
Optimiser

The robustness of team preparation for usage of LINDO was ensured through using 4M approach
i.e. Men ,Method , Machine, Material

Ensured robustness of model and training on the basis of past data, use of optimizer and fine tuning

13
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 27
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to
2.3.2 identify the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities? (1/3)
Data generation and analysis was done using LP Optimizer ( A Linear Programming Tool from LINDO) in which data
pertaining to “ Total cost starting from RM to final delivery of FG was analysed

1 Data Inputs/ Capacity of SKU Capability of RM and FG


Processing Cost
Customer Demand
Generated Producing Units Producing Units Transportation Cost & Location

Refer item 2.2.2 slide 24

Profitability by minimization of Total Delivery System Cost


Objective Function

Optimizer Model
Logic and
Formulation:

2
Forecasting the volume to be served from various producing unit for serving a given demand (at SKU level) and the geographical
Output / Analysis
spread of the customer in the most profitable way.

2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 28


2.3.2 What are the specific examples of data analysis that led to final root cause? (2/3)
What was (were) the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities? (3/3)
The evidences of the LINDO optimiser usage
1: Model Running Refer slide 27 ,item 2.3.2

Volume enhancement to
be done from Beekay and
Sharda

1
2: Front end screen of LP Optimizer

14
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 29
How was (were) the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities validated? (1/2) continued next
2.3.3 slide

A
Steps of Validation Process Need for Validation Process p
Long term impact of decision w.r.t. infrastructural p
changes (8mm) which is largely irreversible in nature r
1 1: Brainstorming 2: Feasibility Analysis o
a
Technical Experts c
h
:

S
y
s
• Looked at the productivity t
advantage of our mills vis-à-vis e
Validation
SPCs m
Purpose of The output
Global • Meeting the product segment s
Optima requirement TMT as well as analysis is shown
Wire rod in the next slide T
A
2 h
C
C Inward
• Will our Mill design allow to i
add 8 mm component n
U Looking
Features of k
Validation
R i
Process A n
C g
• Finally which are the SPCs
Y Outward where capability enhancement
Looking
can be done

2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 30


How was (were) the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities validated? (1/2)
2.3.3 &What evidence showed that the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities
were validated prior to solution development? (2/2) A
Evidence of Validation : Output from brainstorming and feasibility analysis workshop produced here p
Prod. Unit Rolling Present Technical Analysis Possible Demand/
p
of production Impact Month r
8mm (in MT) (in MT) o
NBM X 0 Adverse impact on productivity 0 a
c
MM X 0 Mill design constraint 0 h
WRM Yes 8500 Adverse impact on Wire rod production 7500 :
(East)
WRM Yes 2000 Adverse impact on Wire rod production 2000 S
(west) y
1 ISWP Yes 11000 De-coiling is a quality concern. 11000
s
t
Beekay X 0 Possibility in Mill-2 can be explored +7000 7000 e
BMW X 0 Mill design constraint 0 m
s
Nanded Yes 4000 Not profitable. -6000 0
Sharda Yes 3000 Possibilities to enhance the Production +4000 7000 T
B. Alloy Yes 4500 Possibilities to enhance the Production +1000 5500 h
through continuous improvement i
Modern Yes 4000 Possibilities to enhance the Production +1000 5000 n
through continuous improvement k
i
Total 37000 45000
n
g
Challenge 1: Overcoming
Sharda ( SSIL) constraints related to
The final improvement productivity and quality w.r.t
2 8mm already under production
opportunity is by capability
building at SPC Beekay Steel Challenge 2 : Production of 8 mm
for the Ist time

15
2.4.0 Project Management Update 31
How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and
2.4.1 timing confirmed ( or , what changes were made))?(1/4) (1/4)
Change in scope
2
In CAT meetings, it was discussed that SPC Nanded
is a potential case for closure based on cost to serve,
hence to be excluded from the scope to determine the
revised distribution system and cost to serve

Change Acceleration
Team (CAT)
Change in team composition
Based on CAT meetings , it was
decided to include team
The Correctness w.r.t. - Cross Functional members from SPC ( Beekay &
Approach (CFT) SSIL )
• Scope
• Deliverables 1
• Timelines
Refer item 1.3.4 slide 17-19
Global Project
Management System
(GPMS)

Refer item 1.2.3, slide 8

Finalisation of Data Collection Directional Monitoring &


Phase-wise the Project and Readiness output in terms
Deliverables review
Charter for inputs to LP of specific work
optimizer required at SPCs

Approach used : Management by fact ( eg GPMS) & PDCA

2.4.0 Project Management Update 32


How were stakeholders involved and /or communicated with during the
2.4.1 root cause(s)/ opportunity phase of the project? (2/4)(2/4)
Stakeholder
Stakeholder Who Who
How How

• Vice President, SM
Obtaining Direction Setting at Key
Policy Holder Stages of the Project
Refer slide 12 ,item no 1..3.1

 Vice President, SM Review of project progress


 Chief ,BAG Resource allocation depending on the
Change Acceleration
 Chief, LPP need of the project Refer previous slide no. 31
Team (CAT) Overcoming obstacles during the ,item 2.4.1
 Chief, TG progress of the project & Change in

 Head, SPC Management, Out


location Basic Data insights and analysis Refer slide 12 ,item no 1..3.1
 Head, SPC Technical and New Contributed on techno commercial
Initiative feasibility of options
Cross Functional
 Senior Manager Technical,
Team
 Senior Manager Commercial

Approach used : PDCA & Management by fact.

16
2.4.0 Project Management Update 33
3.3.1
What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this
2.4.1 phase of project?(3/4) (3/4)
Refer 1.3.4 slide 17-19

Stakeholder groups Resistance Resistance


Who
Identified Addressed

• Vice President, SM R1: If we stretch SPC beyond their R1: Decided to put in place robust quality
Customer capability then Brand Promise assurance system so that there is no gap
(Quality )may get compromised w.r.t Brand expectations and actual
performance of the product

 Vice President, SM R2: Go ahead is conditional to R2: Involved Financial Analysis team and
Change required technical team to ensure the
 Chief BAG submission of vetted feasibility
Acceleratio options, robust project planning robustness of the process and get the Buy-In
n Team  Chief LPP timely manner
documents
 Chief TG
 Head, SPC Management, Out R3.1 : Team decided to explore through
R3.1: There was resistance in the
location
Cross team as this kind of project has benchmarking and consulting other experts to
 Head, SPC Technical and New
functional never been done before in TSL and understand the feasibility
Initiative
team R3.2: It was decided that the Critical Chain
 Senior Manager Technical, also the current setup of the
 Senior Manager Commercial
Project Management would be used to arrive
existing SPCs do not support at the possible timelines and the resources
 SPC
enhancement of 8 MM capability required
R3.2 : The project timelines
appeared to be very ambitious
R4.1: TSL shared the long term organizational
goal and objective of enriching the product
Processing  Beekay Steel & SSI(L Sharda R4.1 High investment requirement
mix. SPCs role in meeting above objective was
Partners explained . Benefits of Long-Term partnering
with TSL was also shared

Approach /Learning : Managing expectations of stakeholders is key to achievement of Long term results

2.4.0 Project Management Update 34


How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and
2.4.1 management routines confirmed (or, what changes were made )(4/4)
(4/4)
Appropriateness of Considerations :
Team Membership • Finalized project scope
• SIPOC and ARMI tools
• Skill set mapping

Management Routine Process

Stakeholder Who Process

 Vice President, SM
Change Acceleration  Chief ,BAG
Monthly Review
Team (CAT)  Chief ,LPP
 Chief TG

 Head, SPC Management, Out Weekly Review


Cross Functional Team location
 Head, SPC Technical and New
Initiative
 Senior Manager Technical,
 Senior Manager Commercial
 SPC

 Beekay Steel and Sharda SPC representative was a part of


SPC the CFT & used this forum for Refer item 1.3.4. slide 18
communication of concerns, ideas,
etc

17
35

Section # 3
Solution/Improvement Development

BENCH- COST
MARKING MODELLING
DOE WHY-WHY

Possible
Solution
Final
Final Solution
Opportunity SUPPLY
CHAIN
OPTIMIZER BUY – IN PROJECT
(LINDO) FROM SPC PLANNING DOE
( CCPM)

Tools & Method Summary for Improvement Opportunity Analysis

3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 36


What methods and/or tools were used to identify the possible solutions/
3.1.1 improvements? (1/3)

2: Buy-in with 3. Project


1: Benchmarking
SPC on Plan Management (CCPM)

Final solution
Possible solution
Challenge 1: overcoming constraints related to productivity Challenge 2 : Production of 8 mm for the
and quality w.r.t 8mm already under production Ist time
Refer slide 30 ,item 2.3.3

SPC 1 : SSIL STEEL SPC 2: BEEKAY STEEL

1: Benchmarking Pareto for Delay Analysis Benchmarking

Cost Modeling Cost Modeling

2: Buy –In New


Inc. in Capability
capability Dev.
of
of
8mm
3: Project Management ( CCPM) 8mm

Key Performance Indicators Key performance indicators

Refer slide 30 ,item 2.3.3


Change Acceleration Team Dev. - Development

Tools commonly used for both SPCs are Benchmarking, Buy-In, Project Management . Benchmarking used for infrastructure gap study for
production of 8mm. Cost modelling used for negotiation of rates & buy-in from SPC to take investment decision. CCPM used to reduce the
project commissioning time for up gradation of the SPC facilities & minimise the disruption of supplies to customers

18
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 37
Why were these methods and/or tools selected to identify the possible solutions/
3.1.1 improvements? (2/3)

1: Benchmarking 2: Buy-in with SPC on Plan 3. Project Monitoring( CCPM)


Refer slide 5
,item 1.1.1
Refer slide 5
,item 1.1.1 Refer item 1.3.4. slide 18

• Synergy Possibility : It was • Reduction in Cycle time of


• Investment Decision :
known that other units of Tata Execution: Taking proactive
Project involved strategic
Context

Steel / similar kind of mills is actions / mid-course


investment by SPCs in their
producing 8 mm corrections in case of
facilities
• The decision for investment deviation from plan
• Given the technical expertise of
in the SPC is take by SPC
Tata Steel the gap between SPC
management hence buy-in is • Facilitates visibility of plan Vs
and benchmarked unit can be actual performance to
required for taking this project
effectively bridged using concerned stakeholders
to next level
Benchmarking

Tool Specific Advantage Tool Specific Advantage Tool Specific Advantage

• Reduction in cost of failure • Buying-in helps in creating A • Gives visibility on activities on


• Reduction in implementation WIN-WIN SITUATION critical path.
time • Improves compliance to the • Better resource management
• FACILITATES BUY-IN FROM agreed plan
SPC

3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 38


3.1.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools to identify the
possible solutions/ improvements? (3/3)

1: Benchmarking 2: Buy-In with SPC 3. Project Monitoring

Refer slide 5
,item 1.1.1

• Brainstorming session with • To understand the range of rates for • Understanding of sample
• Brainstorming
inputs from Domain Experts
session with and • Based on study
negotiation of SPC specific
by understanding cost
cost case study
Mill Equipment
inputs from DomainSuppliers was
Experts and driver
model of other SPCs
done
Mill to arrive on
Equipment the was
Supplies • and benchmarking of relevant cost with
parameters
done to be
to arrive on benchmarked
the • other production
Development units forExecution
of Project development
parameters to be benchmarked of cost
Plan model
using which can be mutually
CCPM
• GEMBA Visit (Field Observation) agreed upon between PC and TSL
• GEMBA
was done for (Field
Visit processObservation) • Before the start of the project the
parameters
was done & checklist • Development of management
relevant project Project Execution
training
Plan using CCPM
was imparted .

• Before the start of the project the


relevant project management training
was imparted (refer to slide number
1.3.2 and 1.3.3)

19
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 39
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine
3.1.2 the possible solutions/ improvements? (1/3) continued next slide
What are the possible solutions/ improvements? (2/3) continued next slide
1: 2: Buy-In with SPC 3. Project
on Plan Monitoring
Benchmarking

Data Analysed Analysis


Mill availability & reasons for delays (Pareto) Sharda’s availability lower than Tata Steel – Thailand

Comparison of infrastructural facilities Table shown below

Plant operating parameters Benchmarking can give direction of solution but due to differences in the operating
parameters DOE during the pilot testing is needed

Table 1 - Benchmarking Data

Target Benchmark Why? Infrastructural Gaps at


SPC partner SPCs
Beekay Brand Both have Gaps wrt
steel alloys similar mill
configuration & • No of rolling stands
Non slit straight • Water box
rolling technology
arrangement
• Cooling bed
arrangements
SSIL Tata Steel, Both have same Gap wrt to Roll pass
Thailand mill configuration design
& 3 slit 4 bars
technology

3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 40


What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine
the possible solutions/ improvements? (1/3)
3.1.2
What are the possible solutions/ improvements? (2/3)
1: 2: Buy-In with SPC 3. Project
on Plan Monitoring
Benchmarking

1
Instead of Data the process as per the TOC approach is shown
for getting the Buy-In from SPC Benchmarking
Six Layers of Resistance
Layer 1: Agreement on the problem
Layer 2: Agreement on the direction of the solution
Layer 3: Agreement that the solution will bring the
desired benefits
Yes, but…
Layer 4: Fear of negative ramification
Layer 5: Fear about how to implement the solution 2
Layer 6: Unexplained fear (say “yes” but do “no”)
CCPM Plan of bridging the infrastructural gaps

20
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 41
What evidence showed that the solution/ improvements identified were
3.1.2 possible instead of final? (3/3)

2: Buy-In with SPC on 3. Project


1: Benchmarking Plan Monitoring

a) Proven Design
The Slit rolling Technology is new to the world specially w.r.t to 8mm .SSIL had
very recently incorporated slit rolling .Our extended manufacturing facility at
Thailand had encountered all this problem and were duly solved by modification
of original roll pass design ( dog bone ) .
b) Supported by basics of roll pass design
This change in design is supported by Basics of Roll Pass Design..

For confidential reasons


the agreement details of
processing rates agreed The evidence of the
with the SPC are not CCPM plan is shown in
Above shows evidence of new roll shown the previous slide
pass design used in DOE 1

3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 42

What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)/
3.2.1 improvement(s)? (1/3)
2: Buy-in with 3. Project
5. Why-Why
1: Benchmarking 4. DOE
SPC on Plan Management (CCPM)

Final solution
Possible solution
Challenge 1: overcoming constraints related to productivity Challenge 2 : Production of 8 mm for the
and quality w.r.t 8mm already under production Ist time
Refer slide 30 ,item 2.3.3

SPC 1 : SSIL STEEL SPC 2: BEEKAY STEEL


Refer slide 39, item 3.1.2
1: Benchmarking Pareto for Delay Analysis Benchmarking

Cost Modeling Cost Modeling


DOE used DOE not used
- For over coming as both the units
difference in operating condition 2: Buy –In New
Inc. in were 8mm & similar other
-For achievement of Capability
capability operating conditions
quality parameters Dev.
of
of
8mm
3: Project Management ( CCPM) 8mm
Why-Why
to support DOE
Key performance indicators
Key Performance Indicators

Dev. - Development
Change Acceleration Team

Rational for using DOE & Why-Why in SSIL & not in Beekay. (Need for DOE also explained in slide 39 (item 3.1.2))

21
3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 43
Why were these methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)/
improvement(s)? (2/3)
3.2.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools to identify the final
solution(s)/ improvement(s)? (3/3)

Tools DOE Why-Why

1
• While benchmarking showed direction of
solution but actual plant conditions are • While doing DOE ,when intended
Why and How different and requires arriving at SPC specific results were not achieved ,this tool
process parameter level was used to modify the parameter
these tools were
used • So under controlled environment interaction of level based on gap /abnormality
various factors were studied to arrive at a final analysis
solution

Three approaches used:


2
The first approach used for team preparation was arriving at the plant/ process parameters
for DOE purpose based on technical understanding of the subject.
How the team
was prepared Second approach was to prepare the formats for data capturing &
(approaches) Lastly responsibilities were assigned for monitoring purpose

Background for this approaches


is 4M which is mentioned in slide

3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 44


How were the methods and/or tools used to determine the final
3.2.2 solution(s) / improvement(s)? (1/2) & what are the final solutions ?(1/2)(2/2)
Phase -1 Critical to Production (CTP) Phase -2 Critical to Quality (CTQ) Refer item 1.1.1, slide 5
P
Roughing Intermediate Finishing Mill
R
Mill Stand Mill Stand stands
Water box
O
C
E
S
S

1 2
Issues at various stages
A step wise approach was
used Initial Problem Pertaining Next level of problem and Final Solution: through Evidence
Phase 1: Critical to to approach Design changes under
(CTP/CT controlled condition for
Production -Using process Q) the final solution
knowledge, the product
design parameters were Phase -1 * CTP Issue in Alignment of rebars Evidence-2
Dog Bone pass DOE2 done for Change
drilled down to actual getting damaged Further why-why analysis in entry guide & slitter 44
process and plant design (DOE1 was done. design
parameters (Area :Finishing
Mill)
Phase 2: Critical to Quality Phase -2 CTQ Inconsistency in Mechanical DOE3 Evidence-3
– Quality defect in property DOE for Water Box
Vital few Critical to quality, the Finishing Stand Nozzle design changes (
Critical to Production Nozzle diameter
(Area Water Box) Further why-why analysis DOE4 Evidence-4
parameters were shortlisted was done to change Water Changes in Thermax
for implementation ( design Nozzle diameter and circuit Length
of experiments) using why – design
why analysis to validate the
solution

*New Dog Bone Design pass was tested as per Benchmarking Input. Changes were successful but full benefit could not be derived.

22
3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 45
How were the final solution(s)/improvement(s) validated? (1/2)(1/2)
3.2.3

Validation for final solution done using Pilot run at SPCs


shop-floor under expert supervision and guidance based on
Pareto for Area data collection analysis and results
to address

Identified
Final DOE Pilot Testing
Opportunity Why-why
for critical
factors

Results

Within Specs Out of Specs


data data

Why-Why

SOP Modification Process FMEA


& solution

Approach used : PDCA, Customer focus ( Quality ) 45

What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to 46


3.2.3
3.2.3 implementation? (2/2)(2/2)

Evidence-2 Evidence-3,4 (refer slide 3.3.2)

DOE2: C11 Entry guide aligned to pass

1
Background for DOE3 and DOE4:
From a single billet cut piece, there are 4 rebars length produced. To achieve consistency in YS, the variation in YS is studied
at various cut length of each rebar. Study done also to understand the variation between various piece of rebar
Relationship to explain the cause –effect of various parameters:
Yield Strength (YS)= Function(FRT)  Function (Water flow rate, Time of Quenching) 
Function (Nozzle Diameter, Length of Water Box)
Snapshots of trial results during DOE journey is shown below. However , full factorial DOE was done(factors :3
,Levels :3 )

2
DOE3: Reduced the nozzle diameter DOE4: Reduced the Water Box length (the gap
(still gap in the between YS values at various point hence between YS of various point has been significantly
DOE4 was conducted) bridged)
3
Trial Trial
results results
during
DOE
during
journey DOE
journey

1F 2F 2B Extreme Back
2B Extreme Back

23
What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final 47
3.2.4
solution(s)? (1/2) & Were the additional potential benefits anticipated
prior to implementation? (2/2)(1/2)

Customer
• Fulfillment of VOC on
8mm availability

Anticipated
benefits

Tata Steel
SPC • Improvement in Customer
• Debottlenecking of production & satisfaction
quality constraints • Increase in Profitability
• Increase in business share with • Improvement in availability
Tata Steel. • Consistency in quality leading
• Decrease in quality rejection and to Zero customer complaints
thereby improvement in Yield

Approach used : Value creation for stakeholders , Expectations (Stated and Implied )

.2.5 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify & why the chosen 48
3.2.5 final solution(s) / improvement(s) should be implemented? (1/2) & What evidence
showed that that justification was performed prior to implementation ? (2/2)(1/2)

The results from the trials/DOE of key critical parameters w.r.t quality specification confirmed the
implementation

Critical Quality Analysis Done Quality Compliance(%) Should we


Parameters Specifications implement
the
changes
identified
(yes/ no)
YS Box plot, 520 Mpa min 100% Yes
UTS/YS ratio Box plot 1.15 100% Yes
Weight tolerance % Box plot -5 to 0 % 100% Yes
Adherence to TSL drawing Actual As per drawing 100% Yes
measurements of
sample

The pilot test results (shown above) were taken as a evidence for confirmation for proceeding ahead of
the implementation to achieve the desired results

Approach used : Management by fact ,Statistical tools for decision making

24
How was the correctness of the updated project scope, deliverables and 49
3.3.1 timings confirmed?(1/4)

Change Acceleration
Team (CAT)
Change in scope – NO CHANGE

Cross Functional
Approach (CFT) Change in team composition –
The Correctness w.r.t - NO CHANGE
• Scope
• Deliverables
• Timelines Global Project
Management System
(GPMS)

The project deadlines were met and the project deliverables were completed as per the
project plan. The solutions were approved for implementation by all the stakeholders
(including SSIL & Beekay Steel).There was no need felt by the team at this stage for change
in the scope or the team composition

Learning : Involvement of employees in decision making helps in boosting commitment and motivates for problem solving

How were stakeholders involved and / or communicated within 50


3.3.1
solution /implementation stage of the project?(2/4)?(2/4)

Stakeholder Who How

Policy Holder Vice President, SM Obtaining approval for solution

Vice President, SM Through monthly review meetings


Change Consulting other subject matter
Chief ,BAG
Acceleration Experts to be approached
Chief, LPP
Team (CAT)
Chief, TG

Head, SPC Management, Out location Weekly team meetings or as per need
Head, SPC Technical and New Initiative basis
Cross Functional Senior Manager Technical,
Team Senior Manager Commercial
SPC

Beekay Steel and SSIL (Sharda) Participated in decision making and


SPC Involvement in various stages of the
project through exchange of ideas,
feasibility of options
5
0

25
What stakeholder resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase 51
3.3.1 of the project?(3/4)/4)

Stakeholder Who Resistance Identified Resistance


addressed

R1: 1. Reinforcement of
R1: Product should move
Vice President, SM comprehensive quality assurance
Policy Holder out of SPC premises only
plan was done
when it complies with all
2. Re-training people on the shop
TSL requirements
Vice President, SM floor.
Chief, BAG 3. Extensive sampling & testing in
Change R2: Data analysis should be
Chief LPP TSL Lab
Acceleration done & compliance to TSL
Team (CAT) Chief TG norms to be confirmed
R2: 1. Data collection was done.
before commercial
2. Process capabilities was
production
Head, SPC Management, Out conformed by calculating CpK .
location 3. Commercial production
Head, SPC Technical and New R3.1 Availability of clearance was given.
Cross Functional infrastructure/ equipment
Initiative
Team should be on time R3: Syndication with equipment
Senior Manager Technical,
Senior Manager Commercial R3.2: The trial losses should supplier& close follow-up for
SPC not be high ensuring timely availability of
equipment

Beekay Steel & Sharda R4.1 Production loss in trial R4.1: With input from
SPC should be compensated benchmarked partners & support
by DOE tool, the team was
confident that the losses will be
Refer 1.3.4 slide 18 bare minimum.

How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines 52
3.3.1 confirmed? (4/4)

Considerations :
Appropriateness of Team Membership • Finalized project scope
• SIPOC and ARMI tools
• Skill set mapping

Management Routine Process

Stakeholders Who Review Frequency

 Vice President, SM
 Chief ,BAG
Change Monthly Review
 Chief, LPP
Acceleration Team  Chief, TG

 Head, SPC Management, Out location


Cross Functional  Head, SPC Technical and New Initiative
Team  Senior Manager Technical, Weekly Review
 Senior manager Commercial
 SPC

SPC representative was a part of the CFT & used


SPC this forum for communication of concerns, ideas,
 Beekay Steel and Sharda
etc

52

26
53

Section # 4
Implementation and Results Verification

4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 54


4.1.1
4.1.1 How were the stakeholders involved in planning the solution/ improvement
implementation?(1/2) (1/2

Stakeholder Who How

Policy Holder Vice President, SM


• Administrative clearance was given
based on the results

Vice President, SM • Trial results were presented to the


Change CAT team & go ahead for
Acceleration Team Chief, LPP,
implementation was obtained
Chief, BAG,
Chief TG

Head, SPC Management, Out location,


Cross functional Head, SPC Technical and New Initiative, • Providing technical know how
team Senior Manager Technical, • Development of implementation plan &
Senior manager commercial, • Defining of responsibilities w.r.t to activities
SPC planned
• Validating improvement actions
SPC

54
54

27
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 55
How were the stakeholders involved in implementing the solution/
4.1.1 improvement?(2/2) (2/2)
Stakeholder involvement

Implementation
Resource SOP Validate
Stakeholder Approve Communicate plan Training
allocation development results
development

Policy Holder

Change
Acceleration
team

Cross fucntional
team

Learning : Emotional engagement at individual and team level is sometimes critical to decision making

55

4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 56


4.1.2
What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred?(1/3) (1/3)

Actions taken to
Stakeholder Who anticipate resistance

Policy Vice President, SM 1. Preparing FAQs with


Holder answers & circulating to
identified stakeholders.
Vice President, SM
Change
Chief BAG 2. Meeting with identified
acceleration
Chief, LPP stakeholders on various
Team
Chief, TG points of concern from time
to time

Cross Head, SPC Management, Out location, 3. Internal team discussions


Functional Head, SPC Technical and New Initiative, followed by consulting with
Team Senior Manager Technical, external equipment
Senior manager Commercial, suppliers for SPCs on likely
SPC issues

SPC Beekay Steel & SSIL (Sharda) 4. Awareness on CCPM


methodologies & advantages
were briefed to SPCs

Approach used : Background analysis and usage of TOC principles for addressing the resistances

56

28
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 57
What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of
4.1.2 solution/ improvement implementation?(2/3) 2/3)

Resistance Encountered Resistance Type

1. Will the project deliver envisaged at


the beginning of the project ( increase Financial
by 8000 tpm) to get the maximum
saving? Policy
Holder

2. Under the given situation how the


improved results can be sustained? CAT Technological / Operational

3 During the change over period of the


mill ( which is fairly more than a
month), how the sales to the
customers will be managed? CFT Meeting customer demand

4. How compensation related to


change over period will be provided to
SPC? Processing
Partners Financial/ contractual

4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 58

4.1.2 How was the actual resistance identified? (3/3) (3/3)


Resistance Identified How (identification done based on impact Criteria : If one of is High then
& likelihood of resistance) its High. If one is medium and
other is Low then its Medium. If
both are L , then only Low
Impact Likelihood Overall

1. Will the project deliver


envisaged at the beginning of
the project ( increase by 8000
tpm) to get the maximum
Policy
saving? Holder
H M H

2. Under the given situation how All the four resistance


the improved results can identified were
be sustained? CAT H M H subsequently chosen
for addressal based
on the overall high
3 During the change over period
impact
of the mill ( which is fairly more CFT H H H
than a month), how the sales to
the customers will be managed?

4. How compensation related to SPC H H H


change over period will be
provided to SPC? H: High M: Medium L: Low

29
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 59

4.1.3 How was the actual resistance addressed? (1/2) (1/2)

Resistance Identified Resistance Addressed

Policy Robustness in QA system


1. Will the project deliver envisaged at Holder a) Hand holding by TSL:
the beginning of the project ( increase by Technical know how given by TSL for process finalisation
8000 tpm) to get the maximum saving? b) Change in process/ systems: Key process parameters & control
limits along with modification of SOP, PFMEA etc
2. Under the given situation how the CAT
improved results can be sustained?
Alternative action to mitigate the negative impact
CFT
3 During the change over period of the During the change over following actions taken
mill ( which is fairly more than a month), a) Syndication with M&S to commit sales volume with respect to the
how the sales to the customers will be reduced tonnage
b) To minimise the impact of shutdown, it was coincided with the
managed? shutdown of LD1 ( source for RM input billet supplied to SPC)
c) The shortfall of 8mm production from SSIL was managed by tweaking
of the rolling plan of WRM-E & ISWP

Creating a win-win situation based on partnership concept:


4. How compensation related to change Assurance given to SPC that this improvement initiative will result in
over period will be provided to SPC? dilution of their fixed cost through better mill utilisation & the short term
SPC losses will get offset by long term gains in volume

4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 60


4.1.3 How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance? (2/2)2/2)
4.1.4 What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in?(1/2)1/2)

1 2
a. No customer complaints or a. The key performance indicators on
adverse feedback about the
Policy holder CAT quality were showing healthy trends.
product supplied during the b. CAT meeting approval
pilot testing and later on .
b. CAT meeting approval

3
4
a. The sales loss was minimised
during the implementation. This
a. The SPCs did not come back
is measured indirectly in terms
with any claim for the initial
of increased compliance to the
loss of production based on the
customer order for which KPI
subsequent increased loading.
used is DDP (sales loss inversely
b. SPC signed the contract
related to DDP)
before implementation
SPC CFT

b. CFT team agreed for mitigation plan


to minimise loss during change over

Approach used : Management by fact ( ie Good performance of relevant parameters indicates Stability )

30
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 61

4.1.4 What evidence showed that buy in obtained prior to implementation?(2/2)

The following actions were taken to get the buy-in of the stakeholders:

A. Sign off from Business Analysis Group ( CAT meeting participant)


o Confirmation by Business Analysis Group on the profitability of the project
w.r.t the revision in the processing rates of SPCs.
o Based on above Go ahead of the Senior Management was obtained in
CAT meeting before implementation

B. Sign off from SPC


o Signing of the Contract Agreement
o Formal sign off process on the Project Implementation Plan (CCPM)

4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 62


What process(es) or system(s) were changed or created to implement the
4.2.1 solution/improvement? (1/2)

Action taken SPC wise as follows :


Beekay Sharda ( SSIL)
Equipment/ Infrastructure up gradation Equipment/ Infrastructure up gradation
• 2 number of rolling stands were increased. • Implemented revised roll pass design ( Dog
• The water box & cooling bed were shifted to Bone )
accommodate these two additional stands. • Implemented new Water Box in terms of
• The location of the pyrometer (measuring FRT) Nozzle diameter and Thermax Length
was accordingly shifted • Implemented new water circuit design
• Increase in pyrometer and Installation
Process location
/systems
changes to
implement
solution
Processes: Processes:
1. FRT limits were fixed based on the trial results. 1. FRT limits were fixed based on the trial results.
2. High low alarm was fixed & set. (fool proofing) 2. High low alarm was fixed & set. (fool proofing)
Systems: Systems:
• SOP was made • SOP was made
• Training was given to all the employee • Training was given to all the employee

Approach used : Change Management ( ie Planning for changes )

31
4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 63
What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation? (2/2) continued in next 3 slides

Multiple actions were taken related to system changed or creation of new measures &
managing the performance of implementation. The evidences of which are shown in the
next 3 slides

Beekay & SSIL

• Mill standard stock & Checklist


• Mill critical Jobs following SOP made
• Daily quality related checkpoint & prestart up checklist Managing
made. performance at
• Regular analysis of product quality Beekay & SSIL
• Prepared decision tree for maintaining sectional weight &
yield

Approach used : Change Management ( ie Planning for changes )

4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 64


What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation? (2/2) continued in next 2 slides )

Evidence Running Water Pressure


Rolled Termax Running Mill
at Beekay Sr No
Size Length Pump
Pump Nozzle Dia
Speed A B
FRT Temp Remarks
Capacity
related to 8MM 2.8MTR 2 100HP 30MM 9.50M/S 7.0Kg/cm2 No Required 580-620
1
daily 8MM 2.8MTR 1 150HP 30MM 9.50M/S 7.5Kg/cm2 No Required 580-620 12-Apr-13

quality 2 10MM 3.8MTR 1 170HP 30MM 10.51M/S 10Kg/cm2 No Required 580-630deg C 13-Mar

related 3 12MM 3.8MTR 1 170HP 30MM 9.01M/S 16.5Kg/cm2 No Required 580-630deg C 13-Mar

check 4 16MM 8.380MTR 1 170HP 35MM 11.0M/S 10Kg/cm2 8Kg/cm2 470-500deg C 13-Mar
points
5 16MM 7.800MTR 1 170HP 50-55MM 9.60M/S 9Kg/cm2 1Kg/cm2 470-500deg C 13-Apr
during the
running of 7 20MM 7.800MTR 2 100HP 50-55MM 7.0M/S 15Kg/cm2 11Kg/cm2 460-500deg C
the Mill 8 20MM 7.080MTR 1 170HP 35MM 7.0M/S 14Kg/cm2 11Kg/cm2 460-500deg C 13-Mar

12kg/cm2 with mill


9 25MM 7.800MTR 1 170HP 50-55MM 4.31M/S 2Kg/cm2 460-500degC 13-Mar
dumy TMX full water
Evidence
at SSIL 10 25MM 7.800MTR 2 100HP 50-55MM 4.21M/S 13Kg/cm 3Kg/cm2 450-500deg C

related to
QC check
point Daily Check Points Observation Remarks
2) Mill Speed As Per the above chart
before the 6) Billet Temp 1040 - 1100deg C.
7) FRT Pyrometer Setting with display counter As Per the above chart
start-upof 9) Thermax Length with Nozzle Dia As Per the above chart
the Mill 10) Thermax Water Pressure
11) Thermax Water Temp. Every Shift 2 time)
As Per the above chart
Less Than 35 deg C

32
4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 65
What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation? (2/2)

Evidence on decision
tree for maintaining
sectional weight at
Beekay
Evidence on decision tree for maintaining Yield Strength at
Sharda

Approach : Eliminate human based errors of judgment to reduce cost of failure

4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 66


What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation?(2/2)4/4)

2
Before After
Box Plot of YS- section 8mm (July’14) Box Plot of YS- section 8mm (Dec’14)

UCL

UCL

500 LCL
LCL

1
Started usage of Statistical tools : Box plot analysis started on regular basis to understand the
performance of critical quality parameters such as Yield strength .
The Box Plot analysis on Ys, shows that after implementation there was no outlier or extreme values in
Ys which is desired effect

Change in control limits of factors having causal relationship:


Redefining the control limits of FRT for control of Yield strength ( refer Back ground DOE on slide 46.)

Approach used : Usage of statistical tools helps in better decision making at shop floor and subsequently Poka-Yoke
was done

33
4.3.0 Project Results 67
What were the results?(1/2) & How did the results compare to the specific
4.3.1 project goals/ measure from item 2.1.1.?(2/2)
1. Increase in Production 8mm Production (t) Refer 5.1.2 slide 74
50000 44355 42911 43420 43484
37039 36259 35939 36121 39375 38181
40000 33843 33579 33380
30999
30000 26938

20000

10000 Before Project During the Project Post Project


0
Dec'13 Jan'14 Feb'14 Mar'14 Apr'14 May'14 Jun'14 Jul'14 Aug'14 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2 FY'15 FY'15 FY16 FY'16 FY'16 FY'16

During the start of the project the volume target taken was 45000tpm . In Q3 of FY’15, figure achieved was 44355 tpm.
In next 2 quarters (Q4 FY’15 & Q1 FY’16) the volumes was lower due to reasons external to SPCs.
So we confirm that the capability building exercise is complete and the Actual Audited savings achieved Rs.11.67 crores.

2. Student A as per Dr Kano’s Four Student Model - for assessing Business Objective Fulfillment

4.3.0 Project Results 68

4.3.2 What additional benefits were realized from the project.?(1/3)1/3)

 8mm Quality and Capability developed at SPCs:


• Improvement in CpK of YS and Weight Tolerance at SPC
• Improvement in availability of 8mm is measured in terms of
• Compliance to the customer promise delivery date (called as Due Date Performance –
DDP.

 VOC ( Improvement in Customer satisfaction Index)


One of factors earlier for low score was SKU availability

 Although the project was for volume enhancement by capability building


at Beekay & SSIL but based on data analysis the SPC Nanded was
closed. This resulted in savings to Tata Steel .

34
4.3.0 Project Results 69
How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were
4.3.2 “soft”.?(2/3)2/3)

Benefits Measure
Production • Higher morale of SPC team • Now high compliance by SPC
From TSL in taking 8mm production to rolling plan given by TSL ( in-
( earlier there was reluctance ) fact asking for more of 8mm
view
plan )

• Lower Quality rejections • Now SPC achieving yield norms as per


Quality ( earlier huge pile of scrap was contract
seen in 8mm production)
• No non compliance to Surprise Quality
audit done by TSL

• No complaint /adverse feedback from


• Improvement in customer customer
Customer experience

• SPC gained due to reduction • Despite unit power rate and furnace
Production in fuel and power costs , price increase SPC continued contract
from SPC view reduction in payment by SPC without rate increase
on overtime to its staff

4.3.0
3.2.4Project Results 70

How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the
4.3.2 expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4? (3/3)3)
Subsequent to customer
Customer survey ( mentioned in
criteria item 1.2.3 ) there is
Fulfillment of VOC on 8mm no adverse feedback on
availability adequacy of product mix
basket

Anticipated
benefits

SPC Tata Steel


• Debottlenecking of production & quality • Improvement in Customer satisfaction
constraints • Increase in Profitability
• Increase in business share with Tata • Improvement in availability
Steel. • Consistency in quality leading to Zero
• Decrease in quality rejection and thereby customer complaints
improvement in Yield

Indicates

Achieved more than


expected Achieved as expected Achieved less than expected No benefit

35
71

Section # 5
Sustaining and Communicating Results

5.1.0 Sustaining Results Over Time 72


What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation (Item
5.1.1 4.2.1) continued to be followed? (1/2) & What evidence showed that this became part of the organization
cultural strategy ?(2/2)

A B

One Time

A. Completion of negotiations and contracting with


SPC – Beekay Steel for inclusion of 8mm in the
product basket.

Sustenance C
TABLE A Take samples as per COMPREHENSIVE QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR EPAs - DECISION TREE ( Fe 500 D and Fe 500 SD )
Location Sampling Plan in Table A
Section No:of Samples Frequency
Front (F) Middle (M1,M2...M6) Back (B)

B. All relevant guidelines released in a


8mm 8 1 6 1 1Hour

D
10mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour
12mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour Check whether % Wt
Check whether % Wt
16mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour Test samples as for Tol is in the range Check whether %
NO Retest samples as per Tol is in the range -5 to
% Weight tolerance -5 to 0 for 8mm to NO Wt Tol is NO
20mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 0 for 8mm to 10mm , -
10mm , -4 to 0 for sampling plan : Table B conforming to BIS
25mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 12mm to 16mm , -3 to 4 to 0 for 12mm to
Specificatioon for
32mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 0 for 20mm and above 16mm , -3 to 0 for
Fe 500D
20mm and above

comprehensive SPC Operating Manual & training


TABLE B YES YES
Test samples as for YES
Condition for Retesting Sampling Location Nos of samples YS & UTS
530MPa <YS >630MPa Samples to be drawn 2 from each bundle
from the bundle from for each failure ( i,e
which low YS was 2+2+2 for each
reported and samples failure)
from the adjacent
bundles rolled before
Check whether UTS/YS > 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D)
and after this. YES Check for Cra ck Bend Test OK Check whether C,S & Pa s s the
YS result is Check for > 1.15 (For Fe 500 SD) P of the test piece is YES
YES duri ng Bend a nd bundle for
% Wt Tol is not in the between 530- UTS/YS Ratio Rebend test within the BIS Spec at
di s patch

to SPCs.
Samples to be drawn 1 from each bundle 630Mpa
the cast number level.
range
from the bundle from for each failure ( i,e
-5 to 0 for 8mm to 10mm ,
-4 to 0 for 12mm to 16mm , which low YS was 1+1+1 for each UTS/YS < 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D) Bend Test Not OK
-3 to 0 for 20mm and above reported and samples failure). <1.15 (For Fe 500 SD)
from the adjacent NO NO
bundles rolled before
UTS/YS > 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D)
and after this. Retest samples as per
>1.15 (For Fe 500 SD)
sampling plan in Table B
Refer to
Hea d
T&NI

C. Decision Tree for Quality Assurance system at Any sample


YS <500 MPa Check for
YS
Any samples YS>500MPa
Check for
UTS/YS Ratio
UTS/YS < 1.15 ( For Fe 500 SD)

UTS/YS < 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D)

SPCs – Beekay Steel & SSIL & training to SPC


Scra p the
bundle
a nd cut to
1meter
Prepared by : JIJITH NJ (Manager Quality , LP Planning)

Approved by : S. RAJAMANI ( Head EPA, T & NI)

Remarks

personnel.
# Bundles need to be quarantined corresponding to the duration of “High/Low Alarm” or “Abnormal condition” and to be kept at HOLD bay with complete identity and Front, Back and Middle of 3 bars at random to be tested and the above tree has to be followed.

Take first billet sample Start Mi l l


after Mill starts by s etti ng
a s per SOP Sampling plan and acceptance criteria for 'Mill set-up'and ' Restart after maintenance&shut down'

Test samples for dimension


( Shape, Ribs etc )

D. Revision of MoU on Quality with SPCs NO Check


whether bar
YES Test the samples for %
Weight tolerance)
Check whether % Wt
Tol is in the range
-5 to 0 for 8mm to
10mm , -4 to 0 for
12mm to 16mm , -3 to
0 for 20mm and above
YES
Test the samples for YS
Check whether
YS result is
between 530-
630Mpa

NO
YES Test the samples for YS after
15 billets

Gi ve cl earance for
Check whether
NO YS result is YES conti nuoues rolling
between 530- a nd follow regular
s a mpling as per
630Mpa
Ta bl e A

Scra p the
bundle ad
cut to
1meter

36
5.1.0 Sustaining Results Over Time 73
What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation
5.1.2
will be maintained ?(1/2))

1. A review mechanism related to


items mentioned in the
previous slide was also put in
place to additionally ensures
that the implementation is
sustained on an on going
basis.
2. Tracking of 8mm production
on a monthly basis beyond
Mar’15.
3. Monitoring the bottom line
impact due to increase in 8mm
production

5.1.0 Sustaining Results Over Time 74


What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s
5.1.2
culture/operating strategy? (2/2)2/2)

 Reference our response to criteria item no 4.3.1, the organizational results shows that
the production of 8mm is at increased levels.
 The above was possible as the rolling of 8mm is done on regular basis each month.
( For evidence purpose the Rolling Plan is attached below)

Refer 4.3.1 slide 67

37
5.2.0 Communication of Results 75
How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder
5.2.1 groups? (1/1

76

End of Document

38
77
Key legends, notes and abbreviations used

Key Abbreviations:
Key legends: SPC : Steel processing centers
CTP :Critical to production
Challenges
TOC :Theory of Constraints
Unique / Good /Best practices CAT: Change acceleration Team
CFT: Cross Functional team
Back connectivity slide no , item no TSL: Tata Steel Limited
LPP: Long product planning department
Forward connectivity slide no , item no DOE: Design of experiments ( includes
Tata Steel India (Operations) Val Steel India (Operations) Value incorporating proven design changes of
Stream equipment etc )
COST TO SERVE: total delivery cost
ktpm: 1000tons per month
tpm: tons per month
DDP : Due date performance

Key Notes:
Note1 : SPC & processing partners are used interchangeably
Note 2: SSIL & Sharda denotes the same SPC

39

Вам также может понравиться