Improve Quality in MS and Brazing

Rollators Area

IMPROVE

1DEFINE

DMAIC

Sponsor:• Ensuring that the project is aligned with overall organization goals• Providing personnel and resources• Removing roadblocks and barriers• Allotting time to hear progress reports from the team and provide meaningful feedback

Signed: Imelda SalasName DateDirector of OperationsTitle

Champion:• Arranging Lean Sigma training for the team, as necessary• Coordinating available resources and support• Conducting frequent reviews of the team's progress

Signed: Javier EstradaName DateEngineering and Lean ManagerTitle

Team:• Applying the Lean Sigma methodology to make sustainable improvements to key metrics• Contributing our knowledge, ideas, and experiences• Attending scheduled meetings and events• Completing all assigned action items• Communicating project progress to the Champion and Sponsor

Signed:

Gladys Quiroz Mfg. Engineer / Floor SupportName Date

Eusebia cedillo Quality Engineer / Floor SupportName Date

Jorge Sanchez Gral. Supervisor / ProdcutionName Date

Alejandro Perez Project Engineer / ProjectsName Date

Jorge Castellanos Lean Department / PlantName Date

Ramon Garcia Gral. Supervisor / Tool RoomName Date

Name Date

Title / Role

Title / Role

Title / Role

Title / Role

Title / Role

Title / Role

Title / Role

Signature Page:I commit to support the successful completion of this project by:

I commit to support the successful completion of this project by:

We commit to contributing to the successful completion of this project by:

Project Project ApprovalApproval

Improve Quality in MS and Brazing Area - Rollator Models

Examples include Production Increase, Cost Reduction, Capital Avoidance

10/15/2010 5/15/2011

Reduce the dimensional variation on the frame and cross bar of the rollators model.

Business Objective

Invrease Productivity, Delivery and Reduce Cost

Estimated COPQ: Metric(s) to be Improved:

Project Objective

Provide an estimated cost of poor quality.List the metric(s) that you expect to affect and whether you expect them to increase, decrease, etc. (IPO ouptuts)

Apply some Lean Manufacturing concepts such as 5"S, Quick Set Ups, Overproduction,etc,. Then we will recolect data from the equipment mentioned above in order to find the root cause using statatistic tools, the reduce the variation of the processes.

Definition of a Defect:

In Project Scope: Not in Project Scope:

Vision of Success:

Eliminate mis balance and three wheeling

Tubing, Tube benders, Piercing, Notching and welding

Painting, purchased components and Final Assembly

Lean Six Sigma Project Contract

Name of Project:

Business Driver(s):

Estimated Start Date: Estimated Completion Date:

Project contractProject contract

Dolomite Rollator

Core Team

Team members– Gladys Quiroz ( Engineering)– Eusebia Cedillo (Quality)– Jorge Sanchez (Production)– Alejandro Perez (Engineering)– Jorge Castellanos (Lean Mfg)– Ramon Garcia (Tool Room) – Jesus Fonseca (Production)

Support Members– Carlos Gonzalez (Finance)– Hector Elizondo (Maintenance)– Edilberto Reyes (HR & Safety)

• Sponsor – Imelda Salas• Champion – Javier Estrada

Black Belt – Mario Ruiz

● Objective: Reduce the dimensional variation on the frame and cross bar of the rollator models

● Business Objective: Increase productivity, delivery and reduce cost

● Problem Statement (s):

– Reduce rejects at the Final Assembly area

– Increase delivery time

– Increase production base on the resources assigned

– Reduce scrap

PROJECT SCOPE

Project Timeline

VOCVOC

1. What process are we working on?• Rollators (Machine Shop & Brazing)

1. What is the process objective (voice of the customer and/or business)?• Reduce and Eliminate rework and scrap due cross folding and three

wheeling1. Has the customer been interviewed to confirm the VOC?

• Yes1. What is the project business objective (COPQ)?

• While eliminating this type of defects we minimize the chances of shipping bad product to our customers. We will also improve our safety and ergonomics eliminating the risk for a long term injuries. We can increase our production velocity, reduce the inspection time and material handling.

1. What does success look like (project goals)?• Hit Target: What is the target?

– Feb 2011 for hand off training and Owner sign off• Minimize: to what level, cost or effort?

– 80% Rework / Scrap reduction for cross folding and three wheeling• Robustness: To what degree?

– Maxi and Legacy Rollators regardless of the customer

Customer Interview

VOC6. How long had this issue been present?

Employee and supervisors interviews states that three wheeling has been since product initiated production, and cross folding control became due a some customer complains.

What has been done about it so far?Some tooling and process correction and 100% inspection at final assembly thru kaizen events.

7. Construct an Input, Process, Output diagram of the process. Outputs need to be measurable, in units, and possibly normalized. Use continuous data when possible. All outputs need to represent the voice of the customer or business.

SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Target

Materials Raw Material

H.Resources SOP's Delivery increase 95% <= 2 Days Government

Process Eng. Manpower Machine Shop Airlines

Maintenance Training Scrap Reduction 70% Parks

Industrial Eng Equipment Brazing Farmacies

Prod. Sup. Machines FPY 98% Warehouses

Safety Parameter Homecare

Utilities WIP Reduction 60% DC’s

8. Do you have baseline data for the outputs?• Yes, there are scrap and first pass yield reports• Measurements of the product were given but new parameters needed to be

set up due to new tooling for bender equipment.9. Can the project be completed (new controls in place) in 4-6 months?

• Yes, it can be completed

10. What are the problem statement(s)?• Cross folding• Three wheeling• Dimensional capability

11.Do you have an idea of what is causing these issues? • Yes, potential dimensional variation during the machining and welding

processes. Can that be supported with data?

• Not at this time, we have to collect data from the source.12. What prevents us from being in the desired state?

• Machine capabilities• Process operator dependable

13. Is this process within our realm of influence?• Yes, if a major investment is required a Cap Ex must be issue and approved

prior implementation

VOC

15. Who should be on the project team?• Core Team – multi-task employees with experience in this

product.

Suppliers Process Participants

Customers Others

Warehouse Cutting Paint Line Production Control

Planning Bending Final Assembly Quality

Production control Punching

Maintenance Welding

Tool Room Piercing

Engineering

14. Who are the stakeholders in this process?

VOC

Value Stream Map (Current state)

Cost of Poor Quality

$23,198

$60,133

$8,408

$14,608

$4,146

$3,516

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

F.A. Reworkcost

F.A. Scrap cost BrazingRework cost

Brazing Scrapcost

Bend Reworkcost

Bend Scrapcost

Yearly rework cost: $35,663Yearly rework cost: $35,663Yearly Scrap cost: $84,335Yearly Scrap cost: $84,335

Total $119,997Total $119,997

Defects Pareto

3508

857503 440

209 92 68 40 37 250

500

100015002000

25003000

35004000

Incorre

ct Ben

d

Set-u

p failu

re

Mat

erial

relat

ed

Bend fla

tness

Toolin

g den

t

Oxide

welding fa

ilure

Bad fo

rming

Incorre

ct len

gth

Metal

dent

Uni

ts

Bend Defect Pareto

Incorrect Bend degree77%

13%7% 3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Bender D-11 Press P54 Weldingfixture

Chrome

77% of bend defects relates to bender equipment77% of bend defects relates to bender equipment

FMEA

Requirements Failure Mode(s) Effect(s) of Failure

SE

V

Cause(s) of Failure

OC

C

Process Control(s)

DE

T

RP

N

Recommended Solution(s)

SE

V

OC

C

DE

T

RP

N

Resp & Target Date

4 First piece and last piece audit 4 64-Bring tubing cut to length from supplier -Cut machine set-up

check list4 4 4 64

M. Granados Manufacturing

2 -Use of fixture Go no Go 3 24Make sampling plan to use Go no

Go4 2 3 24

Manufacturing/Quality

Go no Go fixture not

in use4 Training/Supervision 3 60

Check list to verify Go no Go uses. State in the work instructions.

5 4 3 60Manufacturing/Eng

ineering

4Sampling plan or revalidation

process.3 60 Process re-validation 5 4 3 60 Engineering

2 -Use of fixture Go no Go 2 20State Go no Go use on work

instructions5 2 2 20

Manufacturing/Engineering

Wrong bending

tools4

-Identify bending dies per tubing to use

3 48Put marks on bending dies & state

on set-up instructions4 4 3 48 Manufacturing

warehouse location for this tube 4 4 2 32 Warehouse Tube cut to length from supplier

to prevent mixed material4 4 2 32 M. Granados

Bender non adjusted

4-Monitoring pressure levels

on bender3 48 TPM program 4 4 3 48 Maintenance

Paint defects-Scrap, Quality complaints,

Customer dissatisfaction3

Un-appropriate paint rack

4 Quality inspection check list 3 36paint inspection before send to final assembly & final assembly

area inspection before assemble.3 4 3 36

Manufacturing/Quality

4 -Identify tubing on warehouse 2 32

Die miss-adjusted

Apearance

Flatten bends -Customer Dissatisfaction 4 Wrong tubing

holes location & orientation

withing Spec.

Incorrect holes location & orientation

Bad function of the folding mechanism.

5

3 3 45Manufacturing/Eng

ineering

3 60 Maintenance

Incorrect bender set-

3preferably Use of Protractor

Go no Go as a secondary 3 45

Sampling program to verify correct bend on tubing.

5

60 TPM program 5 4Bender miss-

adjusted4

-Monitoring pressure levels on bender

3

Angles within +/-0.5 degree Spec

Angles out of Spec limits

Back frame will not match with the front frame. The

Rollator will not have symmetrical structure.

Potential Three wheeling.

5

Tube cut lengthshort or long cut to length

Misalignment of side tubes on 13192 weldment fixture

4Bad cut length

Process: Machine Shop Process Responsibility: Alejandro PerezComponent: 13347 BACK FRAME LEGACY 600 Creation Date: 4/07/2010

Team: Rollator TEAM Revision Date: 9/10/2010

Measure Plan● Team will measure the part numbers as follow:

– Bend process: Angle on 1149178 y 1149181 left & right sides – Punching: Distance between holes and angles on 1150607 &

1150608 left and right sides– Welding: distance between sides and between holes on 1149177

● Procedure:– Production will send 5 pieces of each run to metrology for 2

weeks • 1st piece, 3 more during the run and the last piece.• Set up Tech will record all process changes during the run in order to

understand where is the variation.– The pieces will be delivered to metrology technician one by one;

the measured pieces will be picked up and sent back to line.– Metrology lab will maintain the record and at the end of each shift,

the record will be sent to the quality engineer.– Quality engineer will process the data and obtain the graphics

2010 Defects

1,261 1,284 2,460

1,702 1,782

1,787

1,309 1,748

1,959

1,645

1,270

2,049 2,086

3,997

2,765 2,895

2,904

2,127 2,841 3,184

2,673

1,016

2,207 2,246

4,304

2,978 3,118 3,128

2,291

3,059 3,429

2,879

2,539

296 556 641

329 264 385

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-11

2010

Units

M.S. Defects Brazing Defects F.A. Defects

Significative improvement achieved for production to control runs and Significative improvement achieved for production to control runs and avoid mixing set-ups has helped reduce three wheeling.avoid mixing set-ups has helped reduce three wheeling.

Three wheeling Defect Trend

Nov 2010 Production started to control production orders for Nov 2010 Production started to control production orders for left and right sides of the frame.left and right sides of the frame.

2.92%

4.83%

2.54%

4.28%

3.70%3.60%

4.49%

8.38%8.19%

7.34%

1.95%

0.35%0.30%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-11

2010

IMPROVE

DMAICDMAIC

IPO Grid Bender

Output Variables

Tube bend operation Bend angle

Distance between

bends Length Total

Weigh Factor 9 5 1

Process input variables

Speed 9 5 1 107

Die penetration 9 1 1 87

Pressure 9 5 1 107

Stops position 1 9 9 63

Temperature 5 1 1 51

Lubrication 5 1 1 51

Forming dies 5 5 1 71

Tube strength 9 1 1 87

Tube position 1 5 5 39

Per our pareto graphs we weighed bend angle as our output variable to focus

Time Series Plot 610 angle Run trial to establish our start point.• 20 pieces in Bend & Punch operations • Measured the 4 angles of the piece after each operation• Graph each Angle to compare

2018161412108642

62.0

61.5

61.0

60.5

60.0

59.5

Index

Dat

a

Angle 1Max 1Min 1Punch 1Spec 1

Variable

Time Ser ies Plot of Angle 1, Max 1, Min 1, Punch 1, Spec 1

Interval plot 600 Angle

after pierce 160

61.0

60.9

60.8

60.7

60.6

60.5

60.4

60.3

60.2

Dat

a

60 degree Bend Before and Af ter being pier ced95% CI for the Mean

Delta of mean = 0.255 degrees

Hypothesis test for piercing process● The Angle deformation made during piercing operation is

statistically significant to deviate in +/-0.5 degrees

H0-0.50<m0>+0.50

H1-0.50>m1<+0.50

One-Sample T: Z-test Test of mu = 0.5 vs not = 0.5Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T PZ-test 59 -0.0458 0.3164 0.0412 (-0.1282, 0.0367) -13.25 0.0090.009 One-Sample T: Z-test Test of mu = -0.5 vs not = -0.5Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T PZ-test 59 -0.0458 0.3164 0.0412 (-0.1282, 0.0367) 11.03 0.0090.009

P-values range from 0 to 1. The smaller the p-value, the smaller the probability that rejecting the null hypothesis is a mistake

Conclusion:The H0 is rejected as P value in both tests are 0.009

0.500.250.00-0.25-0.50-0.75

X_

Ho

Z- t est

Boxplot of Z-test(with Ho and 95% Z-confidence interval for the Mean, and StDev = 0.25)

Cause and effect analysis

WheelingThree

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

No experience

Lack of t raining

equipment check up

prevent ive maintenance

tooling condit ion

unstable pressure

walnut out of tolerance

Material inconsistency

Material hardness

Lenght

process controls

Welding process

tooling lifecycle records

Operator dependant

set up parameters

tube posit ion

Set up tools

measurement toolsimproper

lack of calibrat ion

Go-no go out of spec

Safety factors

Temperature

Cause-and-Ef fect Diagram

Bend Angle Three

Wheeling

Bend Data Sheet● Pieces from the bend operation were measured

and the results are shown in a control chart

117104917865523926131

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

Index

55 d

egre

e

Time Ser ies Plot of 55 degree

USL

LSL

Mean

Gage R&R● Gage R&R was performed to evaluate our

measure system on:– Precision

– Repeatability

– Reproducibility

Measure

35.25

35.10

34.95

34.80

34.65

34.50

1

Operat or

Mea

sure

men

t

2 3 4 5

Mean

AB

Operator

Gage name: Angle Date of study : 12/23/2010

Reported by : Mario RuizTolerance: Misc:

Panel variable: Unit

Gage Run Char t of Measurement by Unit , Operat or

Graph Shows measurement system is consistent between Operators using the Faro measurement tool

ANOVA of Gage R&R

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

100

50

0

Per

cent

% Cont ribut ion% Study Var

5432154321

0.10

0.05

0.00

Unit

Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R=0.044

UCL=0.1004

LCL=0

A B

5432154321

35.1

34.8

34.5

Unit

Sam

ple

Mea

n __X=35.044UCL=35.0761LCL=35.0119

A B

54321

35.1

34.8

34.5

Unit

BA

35.1

34.8

34.5

Operat or

54321

35.1

34.8

34.5

Unit

Ave

rage

AB

Operat or

Gage name: Angle measurementDate of study : 12/23/2010

Reported by : Mario RuizTolerance: 1Misc:

Com ponents of Variat ion

R Chart by Operator

Xbar Chart by Operator

Measurem ent by Unit

Measurem ent by Operator

Unit * Operator I nteract ion

Gage R& R (ANOVA) for Measurement

Pieces are out of control, meaning measurement

system is valid

No interaction of operator if lines are almost parallel

system is on control, means operators are measuring almost the

same,

Variation of the pieces, OK

Major contributor of variation is the parts, means, the measuring

system is correct

ANOVA to the measuring system shows our measurement system to be reliable

Six pack Bender Analysis

Process sigma, CP and Cpk was determined

2321191715131197531

56

55

54Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X= 54.913

UCL= 55.994

LCL= 53.833

2321191715131197531

2

1

0Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R= 0.574

UCL= 1.877

LCL= 0

2015105

56

55

54

Sam ple

Valu

es

56.455.855.254.654.053.4

LSL USL

LSL 54.5USL 55.5

Specifications

57.055.554.0

Within

Ov erall

Specs

StDev 0.5092Cp 0.33Cpk 0.27PPM 333124.40

WithinStDev 0.5987Pp 0.28Ppk 0.23Cpm *PPM 408572.88

Overall

1

Process Capabi l i t y Sixpack of C5Xbar Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

R Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

Last 2 4 Subgr oups

Capabilit y Histogr am

Nor mal Pr ob PlotAD: 0.421, P: 0.320

Capabil ity Plot

Xbar shows data to be normal as well as the histogram

2321191715131197531

56

55

54Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X= 54.913

UCL= 55.994

LCL= 53.833

2321191715131197531

2

1

0Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R= 0.574

UCL= 1.877

LCL= 0

2015105

56

55

54

Sam ple

Valu

es

56.455.855.254.654.053.4

LSL USL

LSL 54.5USL 55.5

Specifications

57.055.554.0

Within

Ov erall

Specs

StDev 0.5092Cp 0.33Cpk 0.27PPM 333124.40

WithinStDev 0.5987Pp 0.28Ppk 0.23Cpm *PPM 408572.88

Overall

1

Process Capabi l i t y Sixpack of C5Xbar Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

R Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

Last 24 Subgr oups

Capabili t y Histogr am

Nor mal Pr ob PlotAD: 0.421, P: 0.320

Capabil it y Plot

Data shows a dispersion from 53.83 to 55.99

Six pack Bender Analysis

Defect opportunities 2

Events observed 140

Defects made (include defects fixed) 56

DPO (defects per opportunity) 0.200

Yield 80.00%

Process Sigma ~2.4

2321191715131197531

56

55

54Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X= 54.913

UCL= 55.994

LCL= 53.833

2321191715131197531

2

1

0Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R= 0.574

UCL= 1.877

LCL= 0

2015105

56

55

54

Sam ple

Valu

es

56.455.855.254.654.053.4

LSL USL

LSL 54.5USL 55.5

Specifications

57.055.554.0

Within

Ov erall

Specs

StDev 0.5092Cp 0.33Cpk 0.27PPM 333124.40

WithinStDev 0.5987Pp 0.28Ppk 0.23Cpm *PPM 408572.88

Overall

1

Process Capabi l i t y Sixpack of C5Xbar Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

R Char t

Tests performed with unequal sample sizes

Last 2 4 Subgr oups

Capabilit y Histogr am

Nor mal Pr ob PlotAD: 0.421, P: 0.320

Capabilit y Plot

Our Bender D-11 is not capable to perform within +/-.5 degree specs

Process

analysis

Mu

lti-Vari

Ca

us

e

org

an

ization

Hip

ote

sis

verific

atio

n

Reg

resion

DoE

5Control

1Define

2Measure

4Improve

3Analyze

DMAICDMAIC

Multi-vari analysis

11.8

11.7

11.6

11.5

11.3

55.50

55.25

55.00

54.75

54.50

16-Dec

15-D

ec

14-D

ec

13-D

ec

10-Dec

9-Dec

8-Dec

3-Dec

2-Dec

1-Dec

30-Nov

26-Nov

25-Nov

24-Nov

Angle parameter

Mea

n

date

Main Ef fects Plot for Cur r entData Means

The Encoder misread angle position, We use a cross reference table to set the angle

Time series Plot by angle set

140126112988470564228141

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

Index

Curr

ent

11.311.511.611.711.8

parameterAngle

Time Ser ies Plot of Cur rent

We will likely look for extremes in order to see potential DOE variable

Facts about Bend precision● Angle Precision vs Speed

– Equipment states that Angle precision and speed are inversely proportional; If we increase speed, the result angle is less precise.

– the equipment is capable to decelerate the upper piston speed almost at the end of the bend cycle.

– The set up is obtained by the constants of deceleration and proportional of speed.

– More details can be found in the equipment’s display.

– Based on this, we determine the variables to use in our DOE.

DOE Matrix and Results.Std

OrderCenter

PtRun

Order Blocks P1 P2 Speed Prop.

decelerationResult

1Result

2

14 1 1 1 950 1600 0.8 10.00 89.3 89.3

3 1 2 1 700 1800 0.5 1.00 83.3 85.2

13 1 3 1 700 1600 0.8 10.00 89.1 88.4

4 1 4 1 950 1800 0.5 1.00 85.4 86.2

11 1 5 1 700 1800 0.5 10.00 89.6 88.9

15 1 6 1 700 1800 0.8 10.00 89.6 89.2

8 1 7 1 950 1800 0.8 1.00 84.3 87.1

16 1 8 1 950 1800 0.8 10.00 89 89.6

6 1 9 1 950 1600 0.8 1.00 86.4 87

10 1 10 1 950 1600 0.5 10.00 89.6 89.6

7 1 11 1 700 1800 0.8 1.00 84.6 86.1

12 1 12 1 950 1800 0.5 10.00 89.4 89.5

2 1 13 1 950 1600 0.5 1.00 86.4 88.1

1 1 14 1 700 1600 0.5 1.00 84.7 86.4

9 1 15 1 700 1600 0.5 10.00 88.8 89.7

5 1 16 1 700 1600 0.8 1.00 84.8 86.3

Results of DOE

Results of DOE to be normal due variation as expected.

Index

Res

ult

30272421181512963

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

Time Ser ies Plot of Resul t

Sample order

Marginal Plots

950700

89

88

87

86

18001600

0.80.5

89

88

87

86

10.001.00

P1

Mea

n

P2

Speed Prop.

Main Ef fects Plot for Resul tData Means

Proportional deceleration has the main effect for the desired result

Interaction Plot18001600 0.80.5 10.001.00

90.0

87.5

85.090.0

87.5

85.090.0

87.5

85.0

P1

P2

Speed

Prop.

700950

P1

16001800

P2

0.50.8

Speed

I nteract ion Plot for Resul t Data Means

Between Factors, Proportional of deceleration has the main effect for the desired result

Conclusion of DOE

101

90

89

88

87

86

85

Dat

aDot Plot of Propor t ional of decelerat ion

95% CI for the Mean

Higher proportional of deceleration factor has the main effect for the desired result

Time Series of DOE

30272421181512963

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

1 10

Deg

ree

Time Ser ies PlotProportional deceleration change

Solutions

FMEA

Pilot tests

Action plan

5CONTROL

1DEFINE

2MEASURE

4IMPROVE

3ANALYZE

DMAICDMAIC

Pilot test Results

17015313611910285685134171

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

Index

Curr

ent-

pilo

t

Time Ser ies Plot of Cur rent -pi lot

UCL

LCL

Mean

Pilot Test results show and improvement in bend accuracy.

Box Plot Pilot

PilotCurrent

56.5

56.0

55.5

55.0

54.5

54.0

53.5

53.0

Dat

aBoxplot of Cur rent , Pi lot

USL

LSL

Mean

Box Plot shows IQ range improvement of 0.4

IQ Range = 0.8 IQ Range = 0.4

Solution Grid Solution Status Responsible Due date Comments

Run pilot test to validate constant of deceleration sets. 60 Pieces run thru all process

Closed Team 3/7

Conduct a SMED event in D-11 Bender to improve set-up time ClosedJorge

Castellanos5/18

Setup all part numbers parameters and save them in the equipment to avoid missing information due set up technician change/absence.

Closed Jesus Fonseca 3/25Set-up technitians were trained to load and save

parts in equipment

Bender Equipment Parameters training to personnel Closed Mario Ruiz 3/15Parameters reviewed and

saved in equipment

Perform TPM to assure proper bender operation and set preventive maintenance schedule (oil leaks repair, change worn parts)

Closed Ramon Garcia

Develop a trouble shooting manual for Bender equipment Closed Ramon Garcia

Trouble shooting completed, will prepare info in binder to deliver

production

Welding fixtures maintenance and verification to assure dimensions

Closed Ramon Garcia 3/25Welding fixtures reviewed

and pass specs.

Reset Encoder to absolute 0 degrees Closed Hector Elizondo 4/05Review with Pines model

& serial number.

Develop new inspection fixtures (go-no go). Closed Mario Ruiz QC certified the fixture

SummarySummary

Description Before After Results Annual savings Improvement %

Monthly Lost hours

$292 $3 $288 $3,461 98.92%

Scrap Report $3,102 $852 $2,250 $27,000 72.53%

Incorrect Bend $1,705 $14 $1,691 $20,292 99.16%

Rework cost $2,972 $32 $2,940 $35,279 98.91%

Lean Initiatives cost reduction

Model Before After Results Annual savings

Improvement %

12050-37-85VA $62.09 $59.61 $2.48 $8,683 4.00%

12050-37-86VA $66.84 $65.31 $1.53 $52,044 2.29%

12120-37-746 $85.07 $83.34 $1.73 $23,793 2.03%

12122-37-746 $84.25 $82.53 $1.71 $2,142 2.03%

12122-37-23 $88.47 $86.67 $1.80 $2,249 2.03%

Annual cost Savings $171,482.00

Monitoring

Evaluating results

Documentation

Closure

5CONTROL

1DEFINE 2

MEASURE

4IMPROVE

3ANALYZE

DMAICDMAIC

Monitoring● As a method to constantly review bend

performance, Team has implemented to check the bend at the beginning of the run, every 10 pieces and the last piece, this has helped understand variation and correct as necessary.

● Scrap and Rework has been dramatically reduced.

Scrap monitoring

$0.00

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

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

2010 2011

Average 2010 scrap related to Bend defects was $ 1,979.44

2011 up-to-date scrap average $110. 37

Rework cost

Rework costs 2011

$-

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Average 2010 rework cost related to Bend defects was $ 2,971.92

2011 up-to-date scrap average $35.39