six sigma green belt project reportsixsigmagb.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/1/26613590/six_sigma... ·...

SIX SIGMA GREEN BELT PROJECT REPORT

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF QUALITY CONTROL LAHORE - PAKISTAN

AND

SINGAPORE QUALITY INSTITUTE

January 25, 2014

COUNTRY: PAKISTAN CITY: BAHAWALPUR

REDUCTION OF PIPING JOINT DEFECTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM

BY IMPLEMENTING SIX SIGMA STRATEGY

MUHAMMAD EHSAN

1

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description of contents Page Number

Preface 2

A. Define - A.1 Six Sigma Project Charter (Project Title / Business case) 3

(Problem Statement) 4

(Goal / Metrics / Project Scope / Project Team) 5

(Project Plan / Communication Plan / Process Flow Diagram) 6

A.2 SIPOC Diagram 8

B. Measure Phase 8

B.1 Cause and Effect Analysis / Fish Bone Diagram 9

B.2 Data Collection for Measurement 9

B.3 Metrics 11

B.4 Measurement of Most Critical Independent variables / Pareto Measurement 14

C. Analyze Phase 19

Why-Why Analysis 19

Pair T test and CI for the analysis of data (Null Hypothesis) 20

Regression Analysis 21

Correlation Analysis 21

Correlation Analysis and Scatter plot for Secondary Metric 22

D. Improve Phase 23

Design of experiments for Improve Phase 23

Pareto Chart of Effects / Pareto Chart of Standardized Effects

Half Normal Plot of Standardized Effects / Main Effect Plot for Responses

Interaction Plot for Response / Cube Plot and validation of Secondary Metric

D.1 Conclusions 28

E. Control Phase 29

E.1 Solution Implementation and Monitoring 29

E.2 Solution Implementation Schedule 29

E.2.1 Process Control Plan 29

E.2.2 Revised Flow Diagram 31

E.2.3 Training 31

E.2.4 Communication Plan 32

E.3 Control Charts for Primary and Secondary Metrics 33

E.4 Conclusions and Knowledge Sharing 35

Glossary I

Personal Profile II

2

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

PREFACE

For the past 6 years, since Saudi Technical Ltd. Group of Companies started working as approved Saudi

Aramco Contractor, Water based Fire Suppression System Installation, testing and Commissioning is one of

the frequently awarded businesses to the Company. With all finished projects lying in the category of being

successful, the Profit margins have been reported truncated due to high in count piping joint defects during

hydro static pressure testing and pre commissioning phases which need extra man hours for reinstatement.

Moreover, these leaks due to piping joint defects, damage finished civil works, adding to the cost in

damages. It is therefore required to identify the chief cause(s) of defect(s) and its mitigation to reduce

current DPMO of failed joints up to 250. Hence, Six Sigma strategy will be deployed to achieve desired

results and shall be maintained to make sure all current and future projects yield maximum profits and on

time finish, thus directly enhancing repute of the Organization as ‘Do it Right for the First Time and Do it

Right Every time’ as a long term goal.

(A) Civil works damaged by above ceiling water based fire protection piping system leakage.

(B) Typical Zone Control Assembly for Water based Automatic Fire Suppression System.

3

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

A. DEFINE

A.1 SIX SIGMA PROJECT CHARTER

Project Title Reduction of Piping Joint defects for Water Based Fire Suppression System.

Date: 18.12.2013 Revision: 00 Champion: Area Manager, Jeddah Zone

Organization: Saudi Technical Ltd. Group of Companies – MEP Construction Wing – Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia.

Project Sponsor: Saudi Technical Ltd. Group of Companies – MEP Construction Wing – Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia.

Business Case

- Cost of damages in 2010 is US $ 20000 which is 16.67% of expected profit due to 1% defective joints. - Cost of damages in 2011 is $ 35000 which is 17.95% of expected profit due to 0.94% defective joints. - Cost of damages in 2012 is $ 60000 which is 17.1% of expected profit due to 1.07% defective joints.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

CMOR 1010Project (2010)


Parking 5487-bProject (2012)

AM

OU

NT

IN U

S $

YEAR WISE PROJECTS

BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS OF EXPECTED PROFITS VS ACTUAL PROFITS

Sum of Project Budget (InUS Dollars)

Sum of Expected Profits (InUS Dollars)

Sum of Actual Profit (In USDollars)

Sum of Cost of damages(Leaks fixing rework andCivil re-Works)

4

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Problem Statement

- Average 1% defect rate for threaded /grooved joints out of total no. of joints and corresponding proportion of cost in damages for the last three consecutive Projects.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

CMOR1010

Project(2010)

CMOR1020

Project(2011)

Parking5487-bProject(2012)

NO

. OF

JOIN

TS

YEAR WISE PROJECTS

TOTAL NO. OF JOINTS VS DEFECTIVE JOINTS

Sum of Total numberjoints in pipingnetwork

Total number ofdefective joints inpiping network

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000



Parking 5487-bProject (2012)

EXPECTED PROFITS VS ACTUAL PROFITS - PROJECT WISE

Sum of ExpectedProfits (In US Dollars)

Sum of Actual Profit(In US Dollars)

5

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Goal Goal is to bring down Piping joint defects from 566 DPMO to 250 DPMO (or less) to increase profits and correspondingly minimize cost in damages.

Metrics

(CTQs)

Primary Metric

Defective Joints (DPMO) = ( ∑ x ) / ( ∑

Total no. of Joints) Where X=Total no. of defective Joints and D=Types of defects

Secondary Metric

Time Consumption Ratio (TR) = TA < 1 Ts Where TR is the Time consumption ratio of Actual man-hours consumed (TA) to Scheduled man-hours (Ts). This ratio must always be less than or equal to 1 to make sure problem solution does not delay projects analogous to problem shifting in terms of cost of delay. TR can be measured as an overall factor for a project or can be measured for phases of a project corresponding to actual time consumed TA versus scheduled time Ts, overall or phase wise.

Project Scope

Project scope is to revise Process Flow for Installation & testing of Fire Suppression System Piping.

Project Team

PROJECT TEAM

AREA MANAGER

CHAMPION

PROJECT

MANAGER SIX

SIGMA BB

PROJECT

ENGINEER SIX

SIGMA GB

PLUMBING

SUPERVISOR

PIPE FITTING

SUPERVISOR

MACHINE SHOP

SUPERVISOR

6

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

PROJECT PLAN

Co

mm

un

icati

on

P

lan

- Daily Meeting (Tool Box Talk for Engineer & Supervisors) - Daily Objective vs Implementation Progress Report to Project

manager and Area manager. - Weekly Site Walk involving higher management for conformity

observation. - All meetings and communications to be minuted for future

reference.

PROCESS MAPPING

FLOW DIAGRAM - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION & TESTING PHASES (ACTUAL)

PR

E

CO

MM

IS

SIO

NIN

GIN

ST

AL

LA

TIO

N

PIP

ES

DE

LIV

ER

Y T

O

MA

CH

IN

E S

HO

P

STARTTHREADING OF

PIPES

INSTALLATION

OF PIPES AT

SITE

FLUSHING OF

PIPESINSPECTION

PRESSURE LEAK

TESTINGINSPECTION

END – READY

FOR

COMMISSIONING

PASS PASS

INSPECTION

PASS

FAIL

FAIL FAIL

Fig. I. Flow Diagram

7

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Flow Diagram for Fire Protection System: Process mapping for area under consideration is

shown in Fig. I. and described as follows:

1. End capped pipes are brought to the machine shop and are arranged

according to size and machining category (Threading or Grooving) on wooden

pallets. Pipes are grooved for sizes 2.5” and above, whereas threading is done

for pipes that are equal to or less than 2” in diameter. Threading or grooving

is performed as per material order list (cutting list) sent from site responsible

Installation teams with around 5% joints tightened and aligned in the

machine shop.

2. After machining process, pipes are installed at site as per approved drawings

and are then inspected for quality (Function, specification and aesthetics

aspects), in case of any non-conformities, corrective action followed by Quality

inspection is taken before moving on to the pre-commissioning phase.

3. After Installation phase, pre commissioning phase consists of 2 sub phases,

a. Flushing: Flushing is performed in order to clean installed pipes

internally, water at 2 m/s velocity is flushed through pipes to internally

clean the pipes for rust, debris, mill scale or dust to make sure there is no

blockage inside pipes before installing sprinklers. Flushing is followed by

100% witness inspection.

b. Hydro Pressure Testing: After flushing, installed pipes are subjected to

hydro pressure testing which is usually 200 psi for 4 hours’ time as per

NFPA (National Fire Protection association, the international code

governors for Fire protection systems). Pipes are tested for leaks, failed

joints are fixed and hydro tested again.

Once, hydro testing is cleared successfully, Commissioning phase starts.

8

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

A.2 SIPOC DIAGRAM

SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Team of machinists in Threading Machine Shop.

1. Quantity, 2. Pipe Size, 3. Pipe Length, 4. type of

machining required (threaded / grooved) as per instructions from Installation team

1. Chose Correct Pipe Size

2. Measure & cut required pipe length

3. Thread or groove pipes according to instructions from Installation team

Threaded / Grooved Pipes as required for Installation from Installation Team of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.

Installation teams of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters

Installation teams of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters

Design Drawings and Site Instructions.

Execution of Fire Suppression System as per Design Drawings.

Installed Fire Suppression System.

Pre Commissioning Team of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.

Pre Commissioning Team of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters

SOPs To flush installed system for internal cleaning and then carry out hydro-static pressure testing as per SOPs.

Internally cleaned, Leak free Fire suppression system.

Commissioning team of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.

B. MEASURE PHASE

The measure phase includes data collection, arrangement and statistical description of our

problem. Six sigma tools are deployed for identifying critical factors that influence problem area

significantly. As an intermediate step between define phase and analyze phase, measure phase

holds key to the mathematical foundation and later on implementation of six sigma project

findings. The accuracy and precision of collected data is therefore very important. Data for this

particular project is 1. Discrete for Primary Metric and 2. Continuous for Secondary metric.

9

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

B.1 CAUSE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS

Cause and Effect brainstorming was carried out to identify the causes for defective piping joints

yielding Diagram as given below. Factors as identified in the diagram below were monitored

statistically (discrete data) to find out chief contributor causing maximum leaks for our Primary

metric.

JOINTS

PIPING

DEFECTIVE

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

FOR SADDLE JOINTSOVER-SIZED CORING OF PIPES

UNDER-SCHEDULE PIPES

INSTALLATIONMISALIGNED PIPING

TIGHTENING)LOOSE JOINTS (IMPROPER

DEFECTIVE GROOVING MACHINE

DEFECTIVE THREADING MACHINE

(OVER/UNDER PRESSURIZATION)INACCURACY OF SAFETY VALVE

(OVER/UNDER-PRESSURIZATION)INACCURACY OF GAUGES

MANIFOLDLEAKS IN PRESSURE TESTING

DAMAGED RUBBER SEALS

RUSTED PIPES / FITTINGS

SEALENT / JOINTLESSER QUANTITY OF JOINT

FILLINGINEFFICIENT DRAINAGE /

FOR TESTINGQUICK ADMISSION OF WATER

THE SYSTEMABSENCE OF AIR VENTS IN

UNDER LENGTH PIPES

LESSER SPAN OF THREADS

JOINTS SEALENTSTEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM FOR DEFECTIVE PIPING JOINTS

B.2 DATA COLLECTION FOR MEASUREMENT

To carry out measurement of the most critical factor causing majority of piping joints defects,

data was collected against each of the contributing factor for the number of times a defective

joint was found out to be associated with it, sources were the Inspection records with discrete

data. The data for defective joints is given in the table 1a, and table 1b shows total number of

joints in each Project.

10

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Table 1a

Serial

No. Description of Defects

Number of Defective Joints

CMOR 1010

Project

(2010)

CMOR 1020

Project

(2011)

Parking UN

3500

Project

(2012)

Total

*UN 3450

Building

Project

(2013)

1 Loose Joints (Improper

Tightening) 154 171 414 739 10

2 Misaligned Piping Installation 67 108 226 401 6

3 Under Schedule Pipes 3 4 0 7 2

4 Oversized coring of pipes for

saddle joints 1 5 0 6 1

5 Lesser quantity of sealant / joint 7 9 17 33 5

6 Rusted Pipes / Fittings 3 9 8 20 4

7 Damaged Rubber Seals 10 2 8 20 4

8 Lesser Span of threads 7 7 21 35 8

9 Under length pipes 2 5 7 14 7

10 Temperature effects on joint

sealant 2 1 5 8 2

11 Inefficient drainage / filling 1 0 7 8 2

12 Quick admission of water for

testing 4 3 4 10 1

13 Absence of air vents in the

system 4 5 7 16 3

14 Defective grooving machine 3 1 7 11 5

15 Defective threading machine 9 16 5 30 6

16 Inaccurate safety Valves 0 4 3 7 7

17 Inaccurate Pressure Gauges 2 4 1 7 1

18 Leaks in the Pressure testing

manifold 8 9 15 32 8

*For all of above mentioned Projects, the piping material was galvanized steel ASTM-A

53/Grade A - ERW.

*In Project UN 3450 Building, Piping joints were tightened on machines rather manually as in

other three Projects.

11

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Table 1b

Total No. of

Joints

CMOR 1010

Project

CMOR 1020

Project Parking Project

UN 3450

Building Project

28691 38397 70632 32000

*For threaded piping joints, Permatex® sealant along with Jute was used as joint sealant,

whereas Coupling joining system was used for Grooved piping system. The defect rate for

threaded piping joints was same as in Grooved piping joints, See Fig 1a and 1b.

B. 3 Metrics: Overall *DPMO calculated for all of the above mentioned Projects is as follows:

CMOR 1010 Project: Total Defects = 287, Units = 28691, Opportunities = 18 DPMO = 566

and Sigma level achieved = 4.765

CMOR 1020 Project: Total Defects = 362, Units = 38397, Opportunities = 18 DPMO = 524

and Sigma level achieved = 4.78

UN 3500 Parking Project: Total Defects = 755, Units = 70632, Opportunities = 18 DPMO

= 594 and Sigma level achieved = 4.74

Combined DPMO & Sigma Level for all three Projects: Total Defects = 1404, Units = 137720,

Opportunities = 18 DPMO = 566 and Sigma level achieved = 4.76

UN 3450 Building Project: Total Defects = 108, Units = 32000, Opportunities = 18

DPMO = 188 and Sigma level achieved = 5.06 *Tightening and alignment for piping joints

were done on threading machine.

*DPMO – Defects per Million Opportunities.

4.76 4.78 4.74

5.07

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

Sum of CMOR 1010 Sum of CMOR 1020 Sum of UN 3500Parking

Sum of *UN 3450Building Project

(2013)

Sigm

a Le

vel

Projects

Sigma Level Measure for each Project

Total

12

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Table 1c shows DPMO against each type of defect.

Table 1c

Serial


Factor wise Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO)

CMOR 1010

Project

(2010)

CMOR 1020

Project

(2011)

Parking UN

3500

Project

(2012)

Total

*UN 3450

Building

Project

(2013)


Tightening) 5368 4453 5861 5366 313

2 Misaligned Piping Installation 2335 2813 3200 2912 188

3 Under Schedule Pipes 105 104 0 51 63


saddle joints 35 130 0 44 31

5 Lesser quantity of sealant / joint 244 234 241 240 156

6 Rusted Pipes / Fittings 105 234 113 145 125

7 Damaged Rubber Seals 349 52 113 145 125

8 Lesser Span of threads 244 182 297 254 250

9 Under length pipes 70 130 99 102 63


sealant 70 26 71 58 63

11 Inefficient drainage / filling 35 0 91 58 31


testing 139 78 57 80 94


system 139 130 99 116 156

14 Defective grooving machine 105 26 99 80 188

15 Defective threading machine 314 417 71 218 219

16 Inaccurate safety Valves 0 104 42 51 31

17 Inaccurate Pressure Gauges 70 104 14 51 63


manifold 279 234 212 232 250

13

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Fig. 1a

Fig. 1b

Fig. 2

A typical pressure testing manifold.

14

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

B.4 Measurement of Most Critical Independent Variables (Xs)

Based upon the available data in table 1a, Pareto analysis was done to find out the most critical factors

contributing to piping joints defects.

CMOR 1010 (2010) Project

No. of Defects 4 3 14154 67 10 9 8 7 7 4

Percent 1.4 1.0 4.953.723.3 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.4 1.4

Cum % 94.195.1100.053.777.080.583.686.488.991.392.7

Factors

Other

Defec

t ive

groo

ving

mac

hine

Quick

adm

ission

of w

ater

for t

est in

g

Absen

ce of a

ir ve

nts i

n th

e sy

stem

Less

er S

pan

of th

read

s

Lesser q

uant

it y o

f sea

lant /

joint

Leak

s in t h

e Pres

sure

test

ing

man

ifold

Defec

tive

thre

ading

mac

hine

Damag

ed R

ubbe

r Sea

ls

Misalig

ned

Piping

Installat

ion

Loos

e Jo

int s (I

mprop

er T

ighte

ning)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

No

. o

f D

efe

cts

Perc

en

t

Pareto Chart for Defects Description for CMOR 1010

Pareto Graphical Analysis clearly shows that loose joints because of improper tightening and misaligned

piping installation contribute to a 77% of total defects which are thus critical X factors that if controlled,

would directly impact achieving desired DPMO of 232.

Individual DPMO for loose joints factor is 5368 whereas this number stands out to be 2335 for misaligned

piping installation factor.

The overall DPMO for CMOR 1010 Project is 556.

We shall now check out Pareto Analysis for CMOR 1020, UN 3500 Parking and also see when all data for

these three Projects is Combined which will in turn help in defining the most critical contributing factors in

resulting defective piping joints.

15

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

CMOR 1020 (2011) Project

No. of Defects 5 5 4 15171108 16 9 9 9 7 5

Percent 1.4 1.4 1.1 4.147.129.8 4.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.4

Cum % 93.494.895.9100.047.176.981.383.786.288.790.692.0

Factors

Oth

er

Inac

cura

te P

ress

ure

Gaug

es

Under

leng

th p

ipes

Ove

rsize

d co

ring

of p

ipes f

or sa

ddle

joint

s

Abse

nce

of a

ir ve

nts

in th

e sy

stem

Less

er S

pan

of t

hrea

ds

Rust

ed P

ipes

/ F

it tin

gs

Less

er q

uant

ity o

f sea

lant

/ joi

nt

Leak

s in

the

Pres

sure

test

ing m

anifo

ld

Defec

tive

thre

ading

mac

hine

Misalig

ned

Piping

Inst

allat

ion

Loos

e Jo

ints (

Impr

oper

Tig

hten

ing)

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

No

. o

f D

efec

ts

Per

cen

t

Pareto Chart for Defects Description for CMOR 1020

Graph shows same trend as observed in CMOR 1010 Project, that is, loose joints and Misaligned pipes contribute to

80% of defective joints collectively.

UN 3500 (2012) Parking Project

No. of Defects 7 32414 226 21 17 15 8 8 7

Percent 0.9 4.254.829.9 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.1 1.1 0.9

Cum % 95.8100.054.884.887.589.891.892.893.994.8

Factors

Other

Defec

t ive

groo

ving

mac

hine

Absen

ce o

f air

vent

s in

t he

syst

em

Rust

ed P

ipes /

Fit t

ings

Damag

ed R

ubbe

r Sea

ls

Leak

s in

the

Pres

sure

test

ing

man

ifold

Less

er q

uant

it y o

f sea

lant / j

oint

Less

er S

pan

of t

hrea

ds

Misalig

ned

Piping

Inst

allat

ion

Loos

e Jo

ints (

Impr

oper

Tigh

teni

ng)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

No

. o

f D

efec

ts

Perc

en

t

Pareto Chart for Defects Description for UN3500

UN 3500 Project shows that majority of defects in piping joints (80% DPMO) is a combined result of loose joints and

misaligned joints.

16

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Combined Analysis for all three Project

No. of Defects 16 14 64739 401 35 33 32 30 20 20

Percent 1.1 1.0 4.652.628.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.4 1.4

Cum % 94.495.4100.052.681.283.786.088.390.591.993.3

Factors

Other

Unde

r len

gth pipe

s

Abse

nce

of a

ir ve

nts in

the

system

Rusted

Pipe

s / F

it tings

Damag

ed R

ubbe

r Sea

ls

Defe

ctive

thre

ading

mac

hine

Leak

s in

t he

Pres

sure

t esting

man

ifold

Less

er q

uant

it y o

f sea

lant / j

oint

Lesser

Spa

n of

thr

eads

Misalig

ned

Piping

Installat

ion

Loos

e Jo

ints (

Improp

er T

ighte

ning

)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

No

. o

f D

efe

cts

Perc

en

t

Pareto Chart for Defects Description for Combined Projects

When data for CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020 and UN 3500 Projects is combined and tested with Pareto analysis tool, it

is vividly understood from graphical representation that two factors, that are, loose joints and misaligned joints

contribute 80% defects whereas the remaining 16 defect types contribute 20 % to the overall DPMO.

Conclusion: From the above graphical summaries, it is concluded that two factors as named below:

a) Loose Joints (Improper Tightening) and b) Misaligned Piping Installation

Contribute to 81.28% of defective joints collectively which is a trend as detected when all three Projects are

measured separately as well.

Considering Secondary metric, data collected for actual time (in man-hours) consumed to perform the

job and scheduled man-hours is tabulated followed by narration. Data collection was done for the following

three projects:

1. CMOR 1010 Project phases [Fabrication (machine) shop, Installation & testing]

2. CMOR 1020 Project phases same as above

3. UN 3500 Project phases same as above

4. UN 3450 Project phases same as above

Data collection was done through available schedule records from planning department.

17

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Table 1d

Phase Scheduled Man-hours (Ts)

CMOR 1010

CMOR 1020

UN 3500

UN 3450

Machine Shop 13056 17376 23285 17405

Installation 26113 34752 46569 21098

Testing 13056 17376 23285 14242

Overall Project 52225 69504 93139 52745 Shows scheduled man-hours (Ts) for each project, phase wise and overall.

Table 1e

Phase Actual Man-hours Consumed (Ta)

CMOR 1010

CMOR 1020

UN 3500

UN 3450

Machine Shop 11070 15386 22512 15135

Installation 25303 34269 45963 20639

Testing 16341 20281 25327 10091

Overall Project 52714 69937 93802 45866 Shows actual man-hours (Ta) for accomplishing each project, phase wise and overall

Table 1f

Phase Time ratio Tr= Ta/Ts

CMOR 1010

CMOR 1020

UN 3500

UN 3450

Machine Shop 0.848 0.885 0.967 0.87

Installation 0.969 0.986 0.987 0.978

Testing 1.252 1.167 1.088 0.709

Overall Project 1.009 1.006 1.007 0.87 Shows Time Consumption Ratio (TR) = TA for each project, phase wise and overall.

Ts

From data shown in table 1f, we can see that CMOR 1010 Project is delayed by 0.9% as TR

exceeds 1, similarly CMOR 1020 and UN 3500 Projects are also delayed by 0.6% and 0.7%

respectively. However, UN 3450, where piping joints were tightened and aligned on threading

and grooving machines, is well within scheduled time limits, in fact, there is an early finish to

the project due to time being saved during installation phase as joints are tightened in machine

shop. Moreover, for UN 3450 project, time ratio for testing phase is 0.709 which is again an

indication that a significantly lesser no. of joints failed during testing as compared to other

projects where pipes were manually tightened and aligned.

18

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

We can see from graph that TR values for UN 3450 project are well below 1 when measured phase wise and

when measured for overall project. That means when joints are tightened and aligned using threading and

grooving machines, there is no impact on completion time, which as an ideal condition, in actual, is saving

time.

00.5

11.5

Fabrication

Installation

Overall

Testing

Time Ratio: Actual manhours taken for a phase / Planned manhours

Ph

ase

Phase wise Time Ratio (Actual/Planned) Graph

Sum of UN3450

Sum of UN3500

Sum of CMOR1020

Sum of CMOR1010

19

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

C. ANALYZE PHASE

As we move on to the Analyze phase, the data collected and measured in previous phase will be analyzed for

mathematical validation for improve phase, before moving on to statistical tools in this phase we shall first

perform why why descriptive analysis as follows for our problem under consideration:

PROJECTS 1- CMOR 1010 (YEAR 2010) 2- CMOR 1020 (YEAR 2011) 3- UN3500 (YEAR

2012)

WHY

1. Cost of Extra man-hours for fixing piping joint defects (Leakage repairs).

2. Cost of Damaged civil works.

3. Cost of man-hours spent for fixing civil works.

WHY

-High Defects per Million Opportunities (DPMO) for Piping joints (Average DPMO

for CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020 and UN 3500 Projects is 566)causing leaks and

consequently resulting in man-hours costing for fixing and damages to civil works.

WHY

1. Pipes are improperly tightened (Loose) and 2. Pipes are misaligned - are the two

major reasons for high DPMO and therefore, truncated profits.

WHY

Pipes are manually tightened and aligned by the Plumbers and Pipe fitters

respectively. WHY

As per current, In-practice approved Process Flow for Fire Suppression System.

SOLUTION

1. Revise current Process Flow. 2. Use threaded machine for tightening / aligning

threaded joints and grooving machine & vice for tightening and aligning grooved

joints. 3. Apply this technique to max. number of joints except those which cannot

be machine tightened.

20

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Null Hypothesis

A hypothesis test for DPMO was conducted using null hypothesis for p1<p2. The alternate hypothesis was

taken as p1>p2 with 95% confidence level with 250 target mean, for combined results from CMOR 1010,

CMOR 1020 and UN 3500 parking Building against UN 3450 Building where pipes were tightened and

aligned using threading and grooving machines. Data is tabulated in table 1d given below:

Table 1d

Serial


DPMO

Total

*UN 3450

Building

Project

(2013)


Tightening) 5366 313

2 Misaligned Piping Installation 2912 188

3 Under Schedule Pipes 51 63


saddle joints 44 31

5 Lesser quantity of sealant / joint 240 156

6 Rusted Pipes / Fittings 145 125

7 Damaged Rubber Seals 145 125

8 Lesser Span of threads 254 250

9 Under length pipes 102 63


sealant 58 63

11 Inefficient drainage / filling 58 31


testing 80 94


system 116 156

14 Defective grooving machine 80 188

15 Defective threading machine 218 219

16 Inaccurate safety Valves 51 31

17 Inaccurate Pressure Gauges 51 63


manifold 232 250

21

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

Paired T test was carried out using Minitab, yielding following results:

Paired T-Test and CI: Combined Projects, UN 3450 Paired T for Combined Projects - UN 3450

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Combined Projects 18 567 1368 322

UN 3450 18 143 87 20

Difference 18 424 1323 312

95% upper bound for mean difference: 967

T-Test of mean difference = 250 (vs < 250): T-Value = 0.56 P-Value = 0.708

P being greater than 0.05, null hypothesis was correct, thus the use of threading machine for tightening and aligning piping joints shall yield desired results by reducing DPMO to a significant 250 figure. Moreover, the regression analysis shows that there is a moderate positive trend between DPMO when pipes are tightened and aligned on a machine compared to when these are tightened manually, see trend line below:

6000500040003000200010000

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

DPMO for manual tightening

DP

MO

fo

r m

ach

ine

tig

hte

nin

g/

alig

nin

g

S 75.0000

R-Sq 29.5%

R-Sq(adj) 25.1%

Regression Line PlotDPMO for machine tightening/aligning = 123.0 + 0.0344 DPMO for manual tightening

Correlations: DPMO for manual tightening/aligning vs DPMO for machine tightening/aligning Pearson correlation of DPMO for manual tightening / aligning vs DPMO for machine

Tightening /aligning = 0.581

We can thus conclude that KPIV for our whole piping installation process that controls

reduction of defects (KPOV) is the tightening and aligning phase of installation.

22

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

For Secondary Metric as defined and described in Define Phase and measured in previous measure phase, we shall now find out the correlation as part of analyze phase to establish correlation between time ratio for each phase for three of the combined projects (that are UN 3500, CMOR 1010 and CMOR 1020) where only 5% of the joints are tightened using grooving and threading machines for corresponding types of joints respectively, against UN 3450 Project where 80% of the joints are tightened and aligned using threading and grooving machines.

Table

Phase Combined UN 3450

Machine Shop 0.9 0.87

Installation 0.981 0.978

Testing 1.169 0.709

Overall 1.0077 0.87

Correlations: Combined Projects (CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020 & UN 3500 versus UN 3450 Project) Pearson correlation of Combined and UN 3450 = -0.760

P-Value = 0.240

As the joints are tightened / aligned using threading or grooving machines for corresponding joint type, there exists a relation that time ratio between actual man-hours consumed versus scheduled man-hours decreases, implying to the fact that at analysis level, the new addition of an activity, that is to tighten and align piping joints using threading and grooving machines does not affect time schedule of the project either phase wise or as an overall analysis. Moreover Scatter Plot below shows that there is a strong negative relation between time ration when joints are machine tightened and aligned and when these are not:

1.000.950.900.850.800.750.70

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

UN 3450

Co

mb

ine

d

Scatterplot of Combined vs UN 3450

23

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

D. IMPROVE PHASE

As determined the Critical KPIVs that affect the required output results from Analyze phase, we shall now design experiments on Minitab to refine and determine authenticity of these factors. So, to begin with, there are 3 factors that are critical to bring DPMO figure in required range. Normally, all projects involve 5% of piping joints being tightened and aligned on machine for joining fittings, for UN 3450 Project, however, 80% of the joints were tightened on machine that reduced DPMO significantly. To begin with DOE to mathematically validate our findings, see table below: There are three major factors contributing to the overall DPMO of the Projects as mentioned in the table below, each having two levels:

Table 2a

Levels Machine

Tightened Machine Aligned Other

factors

Minimum 5 5 5

maximum 80 80 80 Design, Replication, Randomization and Run yielded following experimental data (Table 2b)

Table 2b

Std Order Run

Order Center Pt Blocks

machine

tight

manual

tight

other

factors response PSEFit1 CLimLo1 CLimHi1

2 1 1 1 80 5 5 1211 0 1211 1211

6 2 1 1 80 5 5 1211 0 1211 1211

4 3 1 1 80 80 80 146 0 146 146

5 4 1 1 5 5 80 3358 0 3358 3358

7 5 1 1 5 80 5 2195 0 2195 2195

3 6 1 1 5 80 5 2195 0 2195 2195

1 7 1 1 5 5 80 3358 0 3358 3358

8 8 1 1 80 80 80 146 0 146 146

R-Sq(adj) = 100.00% for this experiment with following predicted response:

Point Fit SE Fit 95% CI 95% PI

1 1211.00 0.00 (1211.00, 1211.00) (1211.00, 1211.00)

2 1211.00 0.00 (1211.00, 1211.00) (1211.00, 1211.00)

3 146.00 0.00 ( 146.00, 146.00) ( 146.00, 146.00)

4 3358.00 0.00 (3358.00, 3358.00) (3358.00, 3358.00)

5 2195.00 0.00 (2195.00, 2195.00) (2195.00, 2195.00)

6 2195.00 0.00 (2195.00, 2195.00) (2195.00, 2195.00)

7 3358.00 0.00 (3358.00, 3358.00) (3358.00, 3358.00)

8 146.00 0.00 ( 146.00, 146.00) ( 146.00, 146.00)

Note: The threading and grooving machines that are used for tightening and aligning of joints are mandatory requirements for all Fire Suppression Installation Projects thus there will be no cost added for solution implementation.

24

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

I. Pareto Chart below shows significance of Machine tight joints and machine aligned joints compared to the other factors.

other factors

machine align

machine tight

2000150010005000

Te

rm

Effect

Pareto Chart of the Effects(response is response, Alpha = 0.05)

II. Pareto Chart of Standardized effects showing validated machine tight and machine align significance

machine align

machine tight

100806040200

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.6

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is response, Alpha = 0.05)

25

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

III. Half Normal Plot of Standardized Effects shows two critical factors below:

100806040200

98

95

90

85

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Absolute Standardized Effect

Pe

rce

nt

Not Significant

Significant

Effect Type

machine align

machine tight

Half Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects(response is response, Alpha = 0.05)

IV. Main Effects Plot for Responses (DPMO is the response), DPMO reduces as more

joints are tightened and aligned using machines.

805

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

805

805

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

machine tight

Me

an

manual tight

other factors

Main Effects Plot for responses (DPMO)Data Means

26

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

V. Interaction Plot for Response (DPMO) shows how significantly DPMO drops for machine tightened / aligned joints as compared to when these are otherwise.

805 805

3000

1500

0

3000

1500

0

machine tight

machine align

other factors

5

80

tight

machine

5

80

tight

machine

5

80

tight

manual

Interaction Plot for ResponseData Means

VI. Cube Plot depiction of our experimental data is as follows:

80

5

80

5

805

other factors

manual tight

machine tight

Cube Plot

27

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

D.1 Conclusions: From Improve phase we can now conclude that DPMO rate which was very

high for piping joints that were falling in the defect category of 1. Loose and 2. Misaligned whereas

the other factors in the defects category were readily within the required process capability range.

Therefore, by using threading and grooving machines for tightening and aligning of pipes adding to

their normal function of threading and grooving shall impart reduction of overall DPMO figure of

our projects, tightening and aligning of pipes using machines follows up normal machining process in

sequence for practical transformation.

For Secondary metric which is TR (Time consumption ratio between actual time taken for

completion of a phase versus the scheduled time for that phase and overall project), it had been

conditioned that the ratio must not exceed 1, which would suggest that when threaded or grooved

joints are tightened on corresponding genre of machines, the induction of new process must not

cause delay, in case time ratio exceeds 1, it means, the project is delayed and vice versa. As a part of

improve phase, see below time ratio plot for CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020, UN 3500 and UN 3450

Projects phase wise and overall to mathematically find out the validated result based upon the data

given as follows:

Table

Phase Time ratio Tr= Ta/Ts

CMOR 1010

CMOR 1020

UN 3500

UN 3450

Machine Shop 0.848 0.885 0.967 0.87

Installation 0.969 0.986 0.987 0.978

Testing 1.252 1.167 1.088 0.709

Overall Project 1.009 1.006 1.007 0.87 Shows Time Consumption Ratio (TR) = TA for each project, phase wise and overall.

Ts

Conclusion:

The plot below shows that when joints are tightened and aligned using threading and grooving

machines, there is a significant time saving which is an ideal condition as far as secondary metric

validation of the primary metric is concerned, however, due to the inclusion of new process in flow

diagram as indicated in the Project charter goal, secondary metric must have to be kept in check.

See plot below:

28

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

OverallTestingInstallationFabrication

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

PhaseTim

e R

ati

o (

Actu

al m

an

ho

urs

/ s

ch

ed

ule

d m

an

ho

urs

)CMOR 1010

CMOR 1020

UN 3500

UN 3450

Variable

Time Ratio Plot of CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020, UN 3500 & UN 3450

Time ratio plot of CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020, UN 3500 and UN 3450, phase wise and overall.

29

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

E. CONTROL PHASE

As our problem is defined, measured, analyzed and improved using descriptive and statistical 6 Sigma

strategy tools, we shall now make sure that the validated solution is implemented in such a way that problem

is controlled by the use of effective tools that ensure reliability first time and every time when implemented.

E. 1 Solution Implementation and Monitoring

Implementation of validated solutions will be done step wise to ensure its reliability and sustainability for all

future and ongoing projects. Solution implementation strategy as a part of control phase shall constitute

following major areas:

1. Process Control Plan

2. Revised Flow Diagram

3. Training

4. Communication Plan

5. Control Charts

E.2 Solution Implementation Schedule

The solution implementation schedule is given as follows where duration is in week counts:

Schedule Gantt chart

E.2.1 Process Control Plan

Process control plan describes requirements for controlling process area which significantly functions for

causing problem which in our case is the defects per million opportunities for joints in Fire suppression

piping system. Below is the Control Plan for project under observation:

30

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

CONTROL PLAN

I. PROJECT CODE: 8457B-UN3450 II. CONTROL PLAN CODE:

MS-FF-INST-01

III. PHASE: PRE INSTALLATION

IV. OPERATION:

TIGHTENING/ALIGNING/

INSTALLATION

V. CONTACT PERSON:

PROJECT ENGINEER

03158873732

VI. APPROVAL AUTHORITY:

AREA MANAGER

VII. CORE TEAM:

1. AREA MANAGER

2. PROJECT MANAGER

3. QA/QC MANGER

4. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER

VIII. OBSERVATION DATE:

18.12.2013

IX. REVISION: 00

XI. Machine & Other Equipment: 1. Threading Machine 2. Grooving Machine 3. Levellers 4. Measuring Tapes

5. Pipe Wrenches 6. Torque Wrenches 7. Vice

X. OPERATION DESCRIPTION:

1. Threading / grooving of pipes in the

machine shop.

2. Tightening/aligning of pipes in

machine shop.

3. Progress vs. Time Monitoring

XII. Product Job Performed Characteristics: 1. Tighten to max. 60Nm Torque. 2. Clockwise Tightening

3. Whitworth threads 4. Threading must be consistent (pitch, span etc.)

XIII. Process Characteristics: 1. Machine rotation setting 2. Torque range setting on machine 3. Use of proper cutting oil for

threading. 4.Machine chattering control. 5. Project Progress scheduled vs. actual ratio for monitoring

XIV. Special Characteristics Class: 1. Sch. 40 ERWASTM/A 53 Grade A Pipes. 2. Scratch Protection of Galvanized pipes

(0.025 mm or deeper) for galvanic coat.

XV. Specification Tolerances: 1. DPMO must be

250 or lower. 2. Ratio of actual

time for project vs. schedule time must always be <1.

XVI. Evaluation

Measurement

Technique 1. Calibrated

torque wrenches.

2. Calibrated

laser levellers

for alignment.

3. Measuring

tapes.

4. Calibrated

gauges, safety

valves and

tested manifold.

5. Primavera

Project tracker.

XVII. Sample

Size and

Frequency.

1. Total no. of

defective joints against

total number of joints

in the project.

2. Time taken for

tightening/ aligning,

installation and

testing vs. schedule

time in man-hours.

XVIII. Control

Method.

a) 100 % Witness

Inspections.

b) C Control Charts.

c) Training,

implementation and

continuous monitoring of

revised process flow chart.

d) Monitor all activities

against allotted time,

follow schedule.

XIX Location

Reference:

Mention location as

per approved drawing,

pipe size, type of

joint, type of defect

and time taken for

corrective action in

case of a non-

conforming (leaking)

joint in the pre

commissioning phase.

XX Reaction Plan: 1. Check for type of defect in the joint in case of failure. 2. Check alignment and thread formation of failed

joint. 3. Record the Information. 4. Drain the System. 5. Fix leaking joint. 6. Re-test. 7. Float information to all concerned. 8. Hold

job in the machine shop if DPMO touches 250 for a sample and inform Project Engineer to attend. 9. Proactive arrangements for

protecting civil works. 10. If a machine tightened / aligned joint persists leakage, re-tight and re-align it on machine.

31

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

E.2.2 Revised Flow Diagram

Revised flow diagram as shown below has a major change in lane ‘Pipes delivery to Machine Shop’ where a

new process has been added, with this new process, pipes shall be tightened and aligned by using threading

and grooving machines for corresponding genre of joints for precision of alignment and strength of joints that

plumbers cannot achieve and impart while executing this job manually. It will save time for installation and

testing significantly as described in the Improve phase. This new process however limits the length of joined

pipes to 6 meters maximum for ease of movement which is well covered in 20% of the joints that are

manually tightened at site.

E.2.3 TRAINING

Training is an essential part of a successful six sigma project as it ensures everybody knows his part to play for

a win win outcome. Following schematic shows training method as target area:

32

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR TRAINING

E.2.4 COMMUNICATION PLAN

- Daily Meeting (Tool Box Talk for Engineer, Supervisors and Operators)

- Daily Objective vs Implementation Progress Report to Project manager and Area

manager.

- Weekly Site Walk involving higher management for conformity observation.

- All meetings and communications to be minuted for future reference.

Communication Flow Diagram

1. Training Classes 2. Brochures 3. Notice Board 4. Evaluation and Feedback

5. Practical training sessions 6. Every 1 year Training Refresher

Higher

management &

Trainers

Plumbers and

Pipe Fitters

Site Operators

Machine Shop

Operators

QA/QC

Department

Site

Responsible

Supervisors

1. Implementation of Six Sigma Project Findings

2. Achieve Targets

33

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

E.3 CONTROL CHARTS

For attribute data with defects and constant population size for each project, C charts will be used to

monitor the process DPMO for references and record. Sample C charts for Combined DPMO against types

of defects for three projects is plotted as in Chart a and UN 3450 is plotted for same statistics in plot b as

shown below for Primary Metric:

Chart a

1715131197531

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Defects Type

DPM

O F

requ

ency

_C=250UB=250

LCL=203

111111111111

1

1

C Chart for Combined DPMO for CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020 & UN 3500

C Chart for combined DPMO for CMOR 1010, CMOR 1020 and UN 3500 Projects where factor no. 1 – Loose joints

and factor no. 2 – Misaligned joints can be seen fluctuating significantly from our mean, target of 250 DPMO or less.

Chart b

C Chart shows DPMO under control for all processes with a combined DPMO lesser than 250.

1715131197531

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Defect Types

DP

MO

_C=250UB=250

Mean attained=202.6

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

11

1

1

1

1

1

C Chart for DPMO UN 3450 Project

34

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

For Secondary Metric the control chart to be used is I chart for Continuous data. The phases Fabrication,

Installation and Testing are marked by 1, 2 and 3 digits in phase axis whereas 4 implies to the overall project

while, time ratio is drawn along Y axis.

Chart c

I chart shows testing phase exceeds man-hours as DPMO is high for manually tightened joints.

Chart d

I chart shows that machined tightened / aligned joints technique does not let Project time exceed.

35

RE

DU

CTIO

N O

F P

IPIN

G J

OIN

T D

EF

EC

TS

FO

R F

IRE

SU

PP

RE

SS

ION

SY

STE

M B

Y I

MP

LE

ME

NTIN

G S

IX S

IGM

A S

TR

ATE

GY

|

1/2

5/2

01

4

E. 4 CONCLUSIONS

As a result of sorting out the most critical factors for bringing down DPMO from 566 to 250 or even below

of our project phase and implementing a validated solution for these, the cost in savings will be 1/6th of the

expected profits that were constantly truncated due to problem unattended, moreover, there are no side

effects or implications of implemented solution in the form of process addition in the process flow as time

study for actual man-hours versus scheduled man hours show on time finish of project phase wise and overall

as well.

These findings and solution strategies will be shared amongst all stake-holders as a part of knowledge sharing

and will be available online on Company’s website.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING

WITHIN

COMPANY CONSULTANT

PEERS PORT FOLOIO

MANAGEMENT

CLIENT

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT

six sigma green belt project reportsixsigmagb.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/6/1/26613590/six_sigma... ·...

Documents