-
1
Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement
ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award 1
Founded in 1945 in Uttoxeter by Joseph Cyril Bamford, hence JCB.
-
2
JCB Group
22 PLANTS
770 DEALERS
+
2200 OUTLETS
+
150 COUNTRIES
+
12,000 EMPLOYEES
+
Five factories
5,000+ Employees
8 Product Lines
50+ Products
380+ Local Suppliers
60+ Dealers
650 Outlets
JCB India Operations
JAIPUR
PUNE
DELHI-NCR
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqjd3ptLPWAhVJULwKHVvXCPUQjRwIBw&url=http://www.freepngimg.com/flags/india&psig=AFQjCNFfNZN2ewnRtGEO6-0S--a4tx4zfQ&ust=1505984827381086
-
3
Section 1:
Project Background & Purpose
5
High Level Context
6
Source: www.focus-economics.com
GDP Growth Rate
F u t u r e w i l l T R A N S F O R M I N D I A
Infrastructure Deficit Opportunity
-
4
JCB “Business Excellence Framework”
1.01 Organizational Approach to Project
Planning
One Global Quality
Drive overall Customer Satisfaction
Maintain Product Leadership
7
1.02 Project identification Process (General)
JCB’s Aspiration based on VOC:
Fault Free Product
Break down free machine
Zero issues in 3 months of Warranty (T3)
Customer centric solutions
End application based solutions
Uptime & productivity to drive prosperity
8
-
5
1.03 Project Selection Process (General)
Confidential absolute values not shared
One Global Quality Chart (T3) – Oct-16
Gap
Objective : • Best in Group 3 months
Warranty (T3)
9
Structure:
Main Frame Boom/ Dipper Buckets
Backhoe Loader Sub-System Introduction
Hydraulics :
Rams & Valve Blocks Hoses
Proprietary :
Wheel Rim, Tyre/Tube Radiator
Paint :
Skin Part Fabricated Parts
10
Power Train:
Engine Gear Box
Cab & Electrical:
Cab Door Locks , Cluster
-
6
Hydraulic Cab &Electrical
Proprietary Powertrain Paint Structure
Project Goal:
Hydraulic subsystem Faults per
Machine (FPM) reduction by 50
% by Dec-2017
1.04 Project Selection (Specific)
T3
Fau
lts
pe
r m
ach
ine
T3 FPM – Subsystem performance
Objective : • Best in Group 3 months
Warranty (T3)
11
Focus Areas
S. No. Sub-System FPM contribution
% (A)
Avg Downtime
(B)
Voice of Customer
(C)
Total Score (A*B*C)
1 Hydraulics 5 4 4 80
2 Cab & Electrical 4 3 4 48
3 Proprietary 3 4 4 48
4 Powertrain 2 4 5 40
5 Paint 1 3 4 12
6 Structure 1 5 5 25
Selection Prioritization Matrix
Rating FPM contribution
Downtime hours
VoC
5 >30 % >24 5
4 20-30 % 5-24 4
3 10-20 % 2-5 3
2 1-10 % 1-2 2
1
-
7
Selection Prioritization Matrix is a combination of Performance Data & Customer Perception
13
1.04 Project Selection (Specific)
T3 Faults per
Machine
Average Machine
Downtime
Voice of
Customer
Enhanced Product
Reliability
Improved Perceived Value
Brand Quality Image
Increased Market Share
Uptime & Productivity
MTTR
Customer Satisfaction
Loyal, Repeat Customers
Severity Severity Occurrence
Detection
2016 Target 2017 2016 Target 2017
14
1.05 & 1.06 Project Goals & Benefits & Success
Measures/Criteria Identified
Hydraulic 3 months warranty targets (T3)
50 %
2016 Target 2017
Fault free %
20 %
Leak per machine
50 %
Area Tangible Benefits
Reliability (1 year warranty) + 40%
Part Inventory - 30%
MTTF + 20%
Reduction in warranty cost - 25 %
Intangible Benefits
Customer Delight & prosperity
Skill Development of team
Sustain Market leadership
Reduced Cost of Ownership
Additional Benefits
Fault per machine
-
8
2.0 Project Template
PROJECT STATEMENT
PROJECT TYPE
ASSUMPTIONS/EXPECTATIONS PROJECT SCOPE
BUDGET (Financial and/or Resource Constraints)
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Backhoe Hydraulic Subsystem warranty fault per machine is the largest contributor to customer dissatisfaction.
(Based on T3 FPM Data : Jan-16 to Oct-16), Hydraulic subsystem 3 months warranty faults per machine reduction by 50 % by Dec-2017.
Project is based on Six Sigma DMAIC approach (Design, Measure, Analysis, Improvement & Control).
Jan-16 to Oct-16 warranty data considered as base data for improvement.
Validation cycles planned considering 3000 hours of machine clocking in a
year .
Machine upkeep & timely preventive maintenance during validation of design
change.
Machine usages on both Loader/Excavator application considered for testing
& validation.
Test rigs availability at JCB & supplier as per project schedule.
In Scope:- All Hydraulic parts in Backhoe machine:
Hydraulic Cylinders
Loader & Excavator Valve blocks
Hydraulic Breather
Hoses, Feed pipes & Adaptors
Others
Out of scope:- Other Models (Loadall, Skid steer, Excavators etc)
Budget allocated for Relia-soft & Minitab software in Quality for 2017
Provision kept in 2017 budget for testing & validation for design changes
Travel budget to be used for supplier & field visits
Project Statement
Backhoe Hydraulic Subsystem warranty fault per
machine is the largest contributor to customer
dissatisfaction.
(Based on T3 FPM Data : Jan-16 to Oct-16)
Specific Goal
Hydraulic subsystem 3 months warranty faults per
machine reduction by 50 % by Dec-2017
Project Scope
In Scope:- All Hydraulic parts in Backhoe machine:
• Hydraulic Cylinders
• Loader & Excavator Valve blocks
• Hydraulic Breather
• Hoses, Feed pipes & Adaptors
• Others
Out of scope:- Other Models (Loadall, Skid steer,
Excavators etc)
16 Confidential absolute values not shared
2.0 Project Framework/Charter
Budget
• Budget allocated for Relia-soft & Minitab software
in Quality for 2017
• Provision kept in 2017 budget for testing &
validation for design changes
• Travel budget to be used for supplier & field visits
Project Approach
Project approach is based on Six Sigma DMAIC
(Design, Measure, Analysis, Improvement & Control) Approach.
-
9
Assumptions
17
2.0 Project Framework/Charter
• Jan-16 to Oct-16 warranty data considered as base data for improvement.
• Validation cycles planned considering 3000 hours of machine clocking in a year .
• Machine upkeep & timely preventive maintenance during validation of design change.
• Machine usages on both Loader/Excavator application considered for testing & validation.
• Test rigs availability at JCB & supplier as per project schedule.
Project Risk & Mitigation
RISK MITIGATION
Budget constraint • Additional budget requirement to be taken up with project sponsor
Team availability • Weekly Project progress review with Project Manager (Head Quality)
Required competency • Skill matrix development & need identification • Supplier support in seal design & Chrome Plating • External training on Reliability tools & Program management
High Inventory level • Stock controls in advance for timely implementation of changes
Un-predictable Failure during validation
• FEA analysis & Supplier level validation is to be ensured before JCB Validation
Project schedule
2.0 Project Framework/Charter
18
W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26
Project identification
Team formation
Project Charter sign off
Team skill matrix & need
identification
Training plan
Data collection- individual
part wise
Process mapping - SIPOC
Failure part analysis
Possible causes
Potential & final root cause
Root cause validation
Possible solution
Final Solutions
Solutions validations
Execution of final solution
Change documentation
On line MIS/command
centre
Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17
Improve
Control
Define
Measure
Analysis
Skill matrix, supplier tie-ups, external training plan
Data collection : Joint inspection -warranty returns with product support
Joint field visits, end application studies
-
10
Suppliers Input Process Output Customer
Suppliers:
Hydraulic Ram
Valve block
Hyd. Breather
Hoses
Assembly manpower
Machinery
Tools & Fixtures
Child parts
Assembly Shop
Oil Cleanliness
Torqueing
Orientation & Routing
Backhoe Loader
Hot test
Product Support
Dealers
End Users
3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified
Stakeholder Who Role
Project Sponsor BU Head • Drive Strategic objectives • Drive organization goals • Monthly Management review meeting
Finance CFO • Budget allocation • Pricing approval
Purchase VP • Supplier engagement • NQCRPM reviews with Supplier top management
Design AVP • Design reviews, timely ECN release • Design testing & validation
Manufacturing GM • Weekly Project reviews • Drive QCD targets
Product Support AVP • Drive MTTF, First time fix, parts availability
Business Partners Suppliers • Ensuring QCD goals, legal compliance
Customers Dealer / End Users • Customer satisfaction survey/feedbacks
Internal
External
19
20
3.02/3.03 Project Champion & Team selection
Management Review Meeting - Monthly
Frequency of
Project update
Project Review Meeting - Weekly
-
11
3.04 Team Preparation
21
External supplier support
taken :
• Polymer Technology
•Chrome Plating
Team training done on
•Reliability tools
(ReliaSoft)
• Program management
San
jay
Ch
ou
dh
ary
Taru
n
Sh
arm
a
Am
it A
ro
ra
Jayd
ev N
egi
Su
rd
eep
Mo
r
Bin
od
Sin
gh
Su
darsh
an
Yad
av
Kap
il
Marw
ah
Bh
up
en
der
Jagla
n
Pro
ject
Lead
er, G
M
Su
pp
lier
Qu
ality
, A
GM
Pro
du
ct
Su
pp
ort,
SM
Cu
sto
mer
Qu
ality
, M
Hyd
Lead
Bu
yer, S
M
En
gin
eerin
g,
SM
Ru
bb
er &
last
ic, S
DE
Pro
cess
Qu
ality
, A
GM
Pro
du
cti
on
, M
Metallurgy
Hydraulic Process
Rubber & Plastic Process
Machining
Welding
Problem Solving, 6 Sigma
Chrome Plating
Program Management
Change Management
Team Management
Technic
al S
kill
sStr
ategi
c S
kill
s
Mem
ber
Ro
le
Skill Matrix for Project Team
Training required Can complete task
under supervision
Can complete task
without supervision Can train others
22
Team Routines & Communication
Activity Routine How Recorded Responsibility
Project Team Meeting Weekly Project Tracker
Timeline/ Milestone Chart Project Leader
Management Review Meeting Monthly Project Template Project Sponsor
Specific Functional/Stakeholder Reviews As required Functional Trackers Project Leader
Supplier & Field Visits As required MoM through e-mail Project Members
Team Meeting Field Tracker Project Review Field Visits
3.05 Team Routines
S.No RequirementJCB Rating
(0-5)(Current)
Observations Action Plan
1
Quality Organization Structure: Availability of Quality
Organization Structure; Supplier Quality/ Process Quality/ Final
Quality/ Development & Quality Planning roles should be
covered; Roles & Responsibilities clearly defined; Quality
Manager empowered; Linkage with voice of the customer;
Quality Manager sharing Quality risks with Plant Managers
4
- Qual i ty organization s tructure ava i lable with proper reporting s tructure.
- Mr. Ranganath i s heading plant Qual i ty with reporting to Jayanth (India
Qual i ty Head).
- Roles ava i lable with Suppl ier Qual i ty, Customer Qual i ty & process Qual i ty
with clearly defined respons ibi l i ty.
- Qual i ty Manager has taken ini tiatves on technol igica l front to reduce the
FPM : Ba l l Press ing on port holes , double chamfer in tube to avoid foul ing
with pis ton seal , buffer sea l project, welding configuration, snap ring extra
hole deletion etc.
Qual i ty Managers need to s tart critical monitoring
of time parameter to become more effective.
2
Reactive Quality: Adherence to JCB response time (Immediate
containment, Corrective action in 14 days); Quality of response
in 5Why/8D, prevention against escalation level increase (from
1.1 ->1.2->2->3). Record of previous problems, Holding the gains
: updation of JCB A3 sheet, PFD,PFMEA, control plan, visual aids,
check sheets etc based on previous problems; verification
mechanisms of previous problem
3
- 2015 Performance :
- Hot Test : No issue since Jun-15 , Total 5 rams replaced in 2015 (as on date)
against 28 rams in 2014.
- Current T3 : 0.030 (Reporting Sep-15) , against 0.05 ( Reporting Jun-2014)
- Current T12 : 0.19 (Reporting Sep-15), aginst 0.32 (reporting Jun-2014)
'- Hot test & field trend are showing improvement. Though cons idering the
Target of Zero T3 Leaks & < 100 PPM target , Wipro i s to be ensure cons is tency
in Hot test performance with s tep change improvement s teps regarding T3.
- Hot Test Issues : Al l five i ssues reported ti l l now in 2015 , closed thorugh
8D within 14 days of i s sue receipt.
- For field rel iabi l i ty improvement - buffer sea l has been suggested
speci fica l ly for Excavator, Slew rams. Field seeding has been done with NOK
& SIMRIT make seals . No issue observed in NOK make seals in T3 , where as
one fa i lure observed in SIMRIT make s lew ram.
- For welding fa i lures out of 47 , 25 i ssues are rea l ted to Excavator Bucket
only. HEC s ide feed pipe orientation change request i s received on 23 Sep-15.
- In few cases AVON feed pipe have been found punctured. No robust action
plan evident to ensure no repeati tion of the problem.
- Wipro needs to present < 100 PPM plan to
ensure zero fa i lures in Hot test in cons is tent
manner. To be presented by Wipro in 9 Oct-15
QBR.
- Steering Ram 8D actions for early hour i ssues
of sea l reverse fi tment not closed in effective
manner.
'- Weld improvements needs to be tracked in
field for fa i lures & JCB is to kept informed
regarding any a larm in field.
- Packaging & transportation improvements
suggested to avoid any trans i t i s s ie (re-cyclable
packaging etc).
Quality Progress ReportSupplier Name: M/s Wipro Peenya
W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26
Project identification
Team formation
Project Charter sign off
Team skill matrix & need
identification
Training plan
Data collection- individual
part wise
Process mapping - SIPOC
Failure part analysis
Possible causes
Potential & final root cause
Root cause validation
Possible solution
Final Solutions
Solutions validations
Execution of final solution
Change documentation
On line MIS/command
centre
Improve
Control
Define
Measure
Analysis
Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16
Skill matrix, supplier tie-ups, external training plan
Data collection : Joint inspection -warranty returns with product support
Joint field visits, end application studies
-
12
4.01 Project Approach
The Hydraulics sub-system FPM improvement project used a typical Six –sigma approach of DMAIC with below mentioned activities :
Define Measure Analysis Improve Control
• Baseline study
• T3 FPM
• Sub-System wise distribution
• Top Contributors
• Labour/ Warranty claims
• Target Setting
• Data collection
• Part –wise contribution (Pareto)
• Hour –wise distribution
• Dealer-wise distribution
• Failure-mode wise distribution (Warranty attribution – ASD)
*(A- Assy, S-Supplier, D-Design)
• Root cause analysis
• Field return part analysis
• End application studies
• Possible causes
• Potential & final root causes
• Root Cause Validation
• Generating Solutions
• Validate & Implement solutions
• Standardization
• Change Management
• Communication
• Team Recognition
23
4.02 Tool Used Throughout Project
Define Measure Analysis Improve Control
• BHL T3 Plot chart
• Voice of Customer
• Prioritization Matrix
• SIPOC Analysis
• Stake Holder Power Interest Analysis
• RACI Chart
• Skill Matrix
• Data Analytics
• Pareto Analysis
• Pie-Chart for major contributors
• Scatter diagram
• Scooping Tree
• Cause & Effect Diagram
• Why-Why analysis
• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments)
• Box-Plots
• Hypothesis Analysis
• Process Capabilities studies
• Reliability Analysis (B5 Values)
• Brain Storming
• Finite Element Studies
• DOE Studies
• Response optimizer
• Interaction Plot
• Bench Marking
• Design FMEA
• Process FMEA
• Re-PPAP
• On line SPC/ Controls charts
• Periodic Process Audits
• Periodic Layout checks
• Quality MIS – End of Line (EOL) Right First Time Ratio
24
-
13
4.03 Tool output at different stages of Project
25
Define Measure Analysis Improve Control
• BHL T3 Plot chart – Comparative analysis
• Voice of Customer- Opportunities for improvements
• Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor
• SIPOC Analysis – Process interaction & stake holders identification
• Stake Holder Analysis – Power & interest mapping
• RACI Chart – Responsibility allocation
• Skill Matrix – Competency levels & gap area
• Data Analytics –DBMS data screening & categorise into sub-systems
• Pareto Analysis - Subsystem distribution - Cylinder wise failure distribution
• Pie-Chart - Contribution of Hydraulic parts in warranty FPM - Failure modes wise distribution
• 4 Quadrant warranty analysis– Dealer wise, hour wise analysis
• Scooping Tree–Identify types of failure mode
• Cause & Effect Diagram –Identify possible causes
• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments) – Significant factors
• Hypothesis Analysis -To verify the hypothesis statistically
• Process Capabilities studies -Process variations, shift from mean
• Benchmarking - with Heavy duty application machine
• Brain Storming – Gather ideas
• DOE Studies – Interaction Plot
• Bench Marking
• Process FMEA – Risk Analysis & mitigation
• Reliability Analysis – Box plot comparative analysis, B10 life
• Process Capabilities studies (before & after) -Process variations, shift from mean
• Re-PPAP
• On line SPC/ Controls charts
• Periodic Process Audits
• Periodic Layout checks
• Quality MIS – End of Line (EOL) Right First Time Ratio
4.04 How Team was prepared to use tools
Forming : Created Sense of Urgency, Buy-in
Critical
Success
Factor:
Hydraulics
Failures
Storming : Individuals thoughts on approach
Ap
pro
ach
Fin
alized
Tra
inin
g N
eed
s
Norming : Training session Performing : Team Objectives aligned to Project
Sh
are
d C
om
mit
men
t
Project
Goal:
Hydraulic
subsystem
FPM
reduction
by 50 %
by Dec-
2017
26
W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26
Project identification
Team formation
Project Charter sign off
Team skill matrix & need
identification
Training plan
Data collection- individual
part wise
Process mapping - SIPOC
Failure part analysis
Possible causes
Potential & final root cause
Root cause validation
Possible solution
Final Solutions
Solutions validations
Execution of final solution
Change documentation
On line MIS/command
centre
Improve
Control
Define
Measure
Analysis
Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16
Skill matrix, supplier tie-ups, external training plan
Data collection : Joint inspection -warranty returns with product support
Joint field visits, end application studies
-
14
4.05 Dealing with Project Risks
Risk Mitigation Action Status Remarks
Budget constraint • Additional budget requirement to be taken up
with project sponsor
• Project : No additional budget required
• Product improvement : Cost approval taken during Improvement phase
Team availability • Weekly Project progress review with Project
Manager (Head Quality)
Required competency
• Skill matrix development & need identification • Supplier support in seal design & Chrome
Plating • External training on Reliability tools & Program
management
• External training taken during
Define phase on Reliability & Program management
High Inventory level • Stock controls in advance for timely
implementation of changes
Minimum stocks level calculated as : • Cylinder assembly level – 24 days • Child part level – 42 days
Un-predictable Failure during validation
• FEA analysis & Supplier level validation is to be ensured before JCB Validation
27
4.06 Encountering and Handling Resistance
Mechanism to
anticipate resistance Resistance Anticipated
Change in product design
Increase in cylinder cost due to
design modification
Salvaging of Old Stock
Steps taken to mitigate resistances
Joint field workshops with Project team to
understand end applications & duty cycle
Reliability improvement with warranty cost
reduction worked out & elaborated
Advance Design change information ensured
for smooth implementation
Technical Review of
Solutions done with
Design Team
Central Purchase
Quality Team
Product Support
Team
Assembly Team
Finance Team
Resistance on the expenditure
needed on Foot Print upgrade
Detailed Business Case prepared to justify the
expenditure
Design Team
Materials
Finance
Central Purchase
28
-
15
4.06 Encountering and Handling Resistance
Prior mitigation plan to counter resistance helped in
minimizing the actual resistances during implementation
S. No. Resistance Raised by Addressing Resistance
01
Cylinders sealing design change with no
interchangeability with machines already
in running in field.
Product Support Technical bulletin was released to encounter
the problem for field.
Resistance identified in Project Meeting
29
4.07 Stakeholders involvement in Project
30
Interest of Stakeholders
Pow
er o
f St
ake
hol
der
s
Connect through Weekly & Monthly
meetings
Kept satisfied through brainstorming inputs
& factual data points
Direct involvement in root cause analysis
Closely managed by involvement in
- Decision making
- Consulted regularly
Continuous information through team meetings
Direct involvement in root cause analysis
Customer
Assembly Product Support
Finance
BU Head
HR
Quality Design
Purchase
Supplier
Business Stakeholders
Governance Stakeholders
Technology Stakeholders
Operational Stakeholders
-
16
5.01 Walkthrough specific tool output
Define Measure Analysis Improve Control
• BHL T3 Plot chart – Comparative analysis
• Voice of Customer- Opportunities for improvements
• Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor
• SIPOC Analysis – Process interaction & stake holders identification
• Stake Holder Analysis – Power & interest mapping
• RACI Chart – Responsibility allocation
• Skill Matrix – Competency levels & gap area
• Data Analytics –DBMS data screening & categorise into sub-systems
• Pareto Analysis - Subsystem distribution - Cylinder wise failure distribution
• Pie-Chart - Contribution of Hydraulic parts in warranty FPM - Failure modes wise distribution
• 4 Quadrant warranty analysis– Dealer wise, hour wise analysis
• Scooping Tree–Identify types of failure mode
• Cause & Effect Diagram –Identify possible causes
• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments) – Significant factors
• Hypothesis Analysis -To verify the hypothesis statistically
• Process Capabilities studies -Process variations, shift from mean
• Benchmarking - with Heavy duty application machine
• Brain Storming – Gather ideas
• DOE Studies – Interaction Plot
• Bench Marking
• Process FMEA – Risk Analysis & mitigation
• Reliability Analysis – Box plot comparative analysis, B10 life
• Process Capabilities studies (before & after) -Process variations, shift from mean
• Re-PPAP
• On line SPC/ Controls charts
• Periodic Process Audits
• Periodic Layout checks
• Quality MIS – End of Line (EOL) Right First Time Ratio
31
Opportunities for improvements Voice of customer
Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor RACI chart Skill Matrix
SIPOC Analysis Stack Holder Analysis
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Define
Define Phase work covered in section 3 & 4 32
One Global Quality Chart (T3) – Oct-16
-
17
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Measure
Ram - 1 (2 nos.)
PISTON ROD
TUBE
CAP END COVER
PISTON
HEAD END COVER ROD EYE
Rod seal Piston seal
Ram - 2 (2 nos.)
Ram - 5 (2 nos.)
Ram - 6 (2 nos.)
Ram – 7 (2 nos.)
Ram - 3 (2 nos.)
Ram - 4 (2 nos.)
Background – Hydraulic Ram details
33
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Measure
Data Analytics
Hyd. Subsystem Part break-up
Build Month
DBMS (Dealer Business Software big Data)
Measure Phase work covered in section 3 & 4 34
Ram wise failure distribution
-
18
All 8 Rams warranty data analyzed – Rod seal failure emerged as highest contributor
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Measure
• Piston rod Dent : 0.010 • Arching : 0.006
Pie- Chart – Failure distribution Pareto Chart – Failure modes
35
Exc. Bucket Ram : Warranty analytics Dealer wise failure distribution Hour wise failure distribution
Planed joint field visit
Seal worn out issues in late hours
59%
72%
84% 90%
96% 100%
Rod sealfailure
Piston sealfailure
Chromeplating failure
Weld failure RamAssembly
isssue
Other
Data Analyzed Top Failure Modes- Identified
Scooping Tree
A
S
Supplier
S
Manufacturing
Process
Failure Pareto Chart
D
Design
D
A
Rams Failures Mode
Rod seal
failure
Weld
failure
Piston seal
failure
Chrome plating
failure
Cylinder
assy. issues Others
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
36
-
19
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
180 field return sample analysis
Field visit - 3Gs
approach(Gemba, Gembutsu
& Genjitsu) – to understand
end application
Possible Causes Validation Potential Causes
Highlighted with red colour
Failure Mode 1 – Rod Seal Leakage 37
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
Hypothesis analysis on Cleanliness
Rt not maintained during rod grinding DOE : Pressure spikes with Duty cycles, current sealing
DOE Study – Rt has direct impact compare to Ra
Failure Mode 1 – Rod Seal Leakage 38
-
20
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
Failure Mode 2 – Piston Seal Failure
Root cause simulation with cavitation affect
Reliability curve, B10 life Tensile Strength Benchmarking with Excavator piston seal
39
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
Failure Mode 3 – Chrome Plating Failure (Process controls at sub-supplier)
Failure stratification – based on platters
Failure stratification – based on Plating thickness Root cause validation with
benchmarking
Adhesion issue
Chrome eaten away
40
Worst effected Partially effected
-
21
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis
Final root cause established based on detailed validation
Failure Modes Final Root Causes Root cause Validation
• Piston rod surface finish (Rt values)
• Pressure spikes
• Oil Cleanliness values
• Burnishing process before port
welding (causing roundness error)
• DOE study – Box plot
indicate Rt is a significant
factor
• Pressure spike linked with
duty cycles affects seal life
• NAS value direct affects the
seal life
• Localized roundness error
created by burnishing process
• Piston seal O ring hardness (70
shore A)
• Less tensile Strength of Seal –
under pressure spike condition
• Under cavitation O ring failed
due to less hardness
• Seal tensile strength found
less as benchmarked with
Excavator
• Process controls at sub-suppliers
end (Adpro, Ennar, Shriraj, Surya)
• Pre-plating issues (time delay after
grinding)
• Simulation results (SST
Testing ) & plating thickness
variation - indicate poor
process controls at Platters
Localised roundness error
41
Improvement
Before
Solution: Piston rod surface finish (Rt) improvement
After
42
Brain Storming session
Possible Solutions Solution Validation Final solution
-
22
5.01 Data driven Project flow: Improvement
Brain Storming session
In-house lab test : shown good results with modified sealing arrangement
JCB Validation : 2 machines successfully completed 3000 hours with negligible seal wear out .
Current Sealing Modified sealing
Bench marking:
Possible Solutions Solution Validation Final solution
Solutions – Rod Seal modification as per benchmarking 43
With Heavy duty application machine
Excavators
Improvement
Solution: Cleanliness improvement from NAS 9/10 to NAS 6
End of line testing Return line filtration 30/20/10 No offline filtration
End of line testing Return line filtration 3/5/10 Offline electrostatic filter on 24 hours
Before After
On line Particle counter with interlock
Process FMEA
44
Possible Solutions Solution Validation Final solution
-
23
Improvement
Solution: Tube burnishing process sequence modified
Process FMEA
After
Tube Port Welding
Burnishing
Washing
Before
Burnishing
Tube Port Welding
Washing
45
Possible Solutions Solution Validation Final solution
Summary Improvement
Solution: Tube burnishing process sequence modified
Failure Modes Possible Solution Final Solution
• Piston rod surface finish (Rt values)
• Pressure spikes
• Oil Cleanliness values
• Burnishing process before port welding (causing
roundness error)
• Integrated in-house high speed center
less grinding
• Rod seal modification to accommodate
pressure spikes & duty cycles.
• Oil line particle counter with interlocks,
with EOD filtration improvement.
• Burnishing process modified
• Piston seal O ring hardness (70 shore A)
• Less tensile Strength of Seal – under pressure
spike condition
• O Ring hardness & Tensile strength
modification in line with JCB Excavator
seals to avoid cavitation issues
• Process controls at sub-suppliers end (Adpro,
Ennar, Shriraj, Surya)
• Pre-plating issues (time delay after grinding)
• Integrated state of art piston rod
manufacturing unit from raw material
inputs to chrome plating rods, using no
men interface in line.
46
-
24
5.02 Solution Validation
No issue observed during validation
JCB Accelerated validation simulating worst field conditions
Accelerated Rig validations with pressure spikes & high duty cycles, simulating field conditions
47
5.03 Solution Justification
Solution approved from stake holders based on justifications.
Before
After
Timely delivery & transit damages improved due to reduction of multiple chrome platters & grinding
sub- suppliers.
Improvement is inline to JCB Brand Positioning & One Global Quality Strategy.
Foot prints upgrade supports JCB’s volume growth in domestic & exports market.
48
Reliability Box plot of Seal life: Before & After
Significant improvement in Cylinder seal life
Piston rod Chrome plating
Significant improvement SST life (35 %)
-
25
5.03 Solution Justification
Sign off & Approval
Signoff & approval from Stake Holders Release of Engineering Change Production approval & Cut in
49
5.04 Results
50
50 % 53 %
22 % 20 %
59 % 50 %
Fault free %
Leak per machine
Fault per machine
Target: 50% Achieved: 53%
Target: 50% Achieved: 59%
Target: 20% Achieved: 22%
-
26
5.04 Results
Successfully achieved the target of “ One Global Quality”
Significant improvement on comparative graph
51
Area Tangible Benefits
Target Actual
Reliability (1 year warranty)
+ 40% + 43 %
Part Inventory - 30% - 27 %
MTTF + 20% 24 %
Reduction in warranty cost
- 25 % - 23 %
Intangible Benefits
Customer Delight & prosperity
Skill Development of team
Sustain Market leadership
Reduced Cost of Ownership
* Other hydraulic parts FPM improvement with similar problem solving approach
5.05 Maintaining the gains : Control
Launched T3 War room for steadfast measurements & analysis
Re-PPAP Activity Monthly Audits
Ongoing Supplier Internal Performance Dashboard : Weekly Ongoing Capability Studies for CTQ
52
-
27
Regular sub-system review & monitoring
Command Center : Escalation & Monitoring
Hydraulic Subsystem: Journey Continued…
Online MIS & Touch Points on Lotus Notes
Subsystem Reliability added in Quality Roadmap
5.05 Maintaining the gains : Control
53
5.06 Project Communication
Communication to Dealer Engineer Sub-System Board
Top Management communication in QBR
Management Quality Report
54
-
28
Achievements……….
Maintained Global Market Leadership – Export to 90+ countries
One Global Quality – Best in Group
Continuous Improvement
“Jamais content – that’s very
much me. I am never
content” Joseph Cyril
Bamford
“We have created this industry’s finest product support network
& continue to improve…” Lord Bamford, Chairman, JCB Group
“Sense of Urgency” Joseph Cyril Bamford
-
29
We Care, That’s Why We Are Every Where
Thank You
57