teck see plastic sdn. bhd

TECK SEE PLASTIC SDN. BHD

Project Number : 01Project Name : To reduce LCD Chopin

Rear Cover Painting DefectGreen Belt Name : Mohd. ZamriChampion : Mr. HM ThamDepartment : QA

Prepared By Checked By Approved By

MOHD. ZAMRI

TSPZAMRIE

QA

TSPRH BOON

S.O.M

TSPHM THAM

GM

RH BOON HM THAM

To reduce cost of poor quality & effects.

To reduce DPPM from 76000 to 19000 ( 75% improvement)

To minimize risk of NG parts skip to customer.

1. Reject rate for Aug/Sept.2005 is 7.6 %2. DPPM = 76,0003. Many complaint from SDMA during LSR

PROJECT MISSIONPROJECT MISSIONPROBLEM STATEMENT

MISSON STATEMENT

1.

2.

3.

-Raw material.-Part of parts-Equipment-Sub store-Tooling

-PP & C-SOP-Specification-Semi Finished Goods-Special requirement

-Outgoing inspection-SDMA

Production outputReject quantityProduction efficiencyPlant efficiency

CustomerSupplier Input OutputProcess

High Level Process Map - SIPOC

Part confirmationSpray

painting

Assembly

Inspection

Packing

Printing

Incoming Material

Drying

Production checker

End

Project Drill Down Tree

PROJECT STATEMENT

TSP Big - Y TSP Mega Project

TSP Q100 Project

TSP Small - Y

Project Name :

To reduce LCD Chopin Rear Cover Painting

Defect

Problem statement

( Data collection period : 15/8/05 until 9/9/05 )( Date source : QC dept )

SECONDARY PROCESS DEFECT TREND

7.95 7.62

17.43

10.79 10.66

5.456.75 6.09

4.01

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

QUAN

TITY

(PCS

)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

DEFE

CT %

Prod. Qty Rej.qty Def.%

DEFECT CATEGORY BREAKDOWN

Painting, 467 pcs = 84%

Handling, 64, 12%Moulding, 8, 1%Assembly, 6, 1%

Others, 10, 2%

Expected COPQ Saving :RM 106,756.67 / Year @ USD 28,093/ Year

Project Justification

Strategic Importance:• Enhance customer satisfaction • Good image – Better business allocation• Profitable business • Maintain market competitiveness

Expected Result :

(Baseline period Aug 05 until Sept 05) Data source PP&C & QC Dept

COPQ Calculation :[ Baseline DPPM – Target DPPM / 1000000 ]x Yearly production quantity x

[ (Average Repair cost per unit + Labour Manhour Cost) x No. of manpower] =

[ 76000 – 19000 / 100000 ]x 1,200,000 x [(RM 2.6077 + RM 15) x 1)= RM 106,756.67 / Year

Measure Baseline Performance BASELINE

COPQ : USD 3153.49 / Month RM 11667.90 / MonthDPPM : 76000Sigma Level : 2.93

IMPROVEMENT

COPQ Saving : USD 2365.11/Month RM 8749.90 / Month

DPPM : 57000Sigma Level : 0.64

TARGET

COPQ : USD 788.38 / Month RM 2918 / MonthDPPM : 19000Sigma Level : 3.57

BASELINE (PERIOD : SEP 2005) TARGET IMPROVEMENT

CHAMPION

Mr. HM Tham

S-Green Belter

Mohd. Zamri

DATA ANALYSIS

Ms. AzahControl of incoming parts quality• Liase with customer & supplier for any quality issue.

•Control of tooling,,machine & manpower• Analysis & improvement on technical matter.

•Process management• Secondary process improvement

MentorMr. Alfizal

Sr. Op. Manager

Mr. RH Boon

•Data collection • Analyze data using statistical tool

TECHNICAL

Mr. AnandPROCESS

Mr. Cheng

SUPPLIER & CUSTOMER

Mr. Kamarudin

Project Team

Measure Baseline Performance BASELINE

COPQ : USD 3153.49 / Month RM 11667.90 / MonthDPPM : 76000Sigma Level : 2.93

IMPROVEMENT

COPQ Saving : USD 2365.11/Month RM 8749.90 / Month

DPPM : 57000Sigma Level : 0.64

TARGET

COPQ : USD 788.38 / Month RM 2918 / MonthDPPM : 19000Sigma Level : 3.57

BASELINE (PERIOD : SEP 2005) TARGET IMPROVEMENT

BASELINE VS TARGET SETTING

RM 2918PER MONTH

RM 11667.9PER MONTH

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

BASELINE TARGET

COPQ

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

DPPM

COPQ DPPM

Problem statementCo

unt

Perc

ent

DEFECT

Count 12 21Percent 24.0 12.6 12.6 12.2 11.3 9.7 7.7

1324.0 2.2 3.8

Cum % 24.0 36.6 49.2 61.4 72.7 82.3

69

90.0 94.0 96.2 100.0

69 67 62 53 42 22

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Pareto Chart of CHOPIN 17 RC DEFECT

Dust Overspray Sanding mark Borderline Rough surface Miss spray

PAINTING DEFECT SAMPLE

START OUTPUTINPUT

V A

Map Actual Process

Bare part check

Assembly

QC Inspection

Packing

Oven drying

V ANV A

V A

V A

V A

• Bare part flashing requires to sanding

Spray painting

Input check

Rework

NV A

End

N V A

NV A• Overall molding part quality Sanding &

treatment• Paint material quality• Spray painting equipment• Spray booth condition• Painting jig• Spray method

• Drying temperature• Drying time

• Inspection method• Judgment criteria

• Inspection method• Judgment criteria

• Incoming POP quality• Assembly method

• Packing material condition• Judgment criteria

Incoming material

• Parts dusty & sanding mark

•After secondary process parts quality

• Good & NG part

• Paint reliability

• Only good parts input to line• Segregate NG part to rework

• Good part for delivery

• Rubber foot assy• Button melting

• Good & NG part

V A

NV A

Map Actual Process

Injection Moulding Bare part Spray Input check

Oven Drying

QC InspectionPacking Incoming Part After Spray

Button Melting

HIGH PAINTI

NGDEFEC

T

DUST/FIBER

BORDERLINE

Improper masking due topoor jig design

Paint miss clogged at masking area

Dust from paint due

Hairline flashingPaint tank not clean

Improper paint filtering

Air hose & gun dirtySpray booth dusty

Drying oven dustyParts have high staticcharges

Dust not properly Clean after sanding

Spray method

OVER SPRAY

Masking condition not fully cover

Jig design

Conveyor dirty

Touch up without jig

support base touch at parting line

Hanger dirty

Excess paint at jigSpray method

SANDING MARK ROUGH

SURFACE

Poor sanding methodPoor touch up

Wrong sand papergrade 1000

Bare part – poorincoming quality

Paint viscosityto thick pressure

Gun setting NG

NozzleadjustmentNG

MISS SPRAY

Poor masking duringtouch upNo proper clean

7.38%160 00100010 Bare part NG

7.38%160 10000010 Hairline flashing

7.38%160 00010010 Poor paint filter

11.07%240 01

0010010 Gun setting NG

11.07%240 1

00010010 Paint clog at jig

11.07%240 1

00010100 Jig design NG

11.07%240 1

00010100 Masking NG

11.44%248 651

00010

NG cleaning after sanding

22.14%480 1

010

10101

010 Spray method

% RankRankAssociation Table

Key ProcessInput Variable

888888CustomerPriorityRank #

Mis spray

Rough surface

Sanding m

ark

Border line

Over spary

Dust

CustomerKey ProcessOutput Variable

7.38%160Part Hairline flashing

7.38%160Poor paint filter8Mis spray11.07%240Gun setting NG8Rough surface11.07%240Paint clog at jig8Sanding mark11.07%240Jig design NG8Border line

11.07%

240Masking NG8Over spary

22.14%480Poor touch up method8Dust

%Rank

Customer Key Process Input

VariableCustomerPriorityRank #

CustomerKey Process Output

Variable

Preliminary Process FMEA

40010QC inspection5Spray method8Cosmetic rejectBorder line NGSpray1

2

80010QC inspection10Jig design8Cosmetic rejectBorder line NGSpray1

1

32010QC inspection4Method8Cosmetic rejectDustSpray1

0

5049Service gun7Spray gun8Cosmetic rejectDustSpray9

3848Paint filter6Paint material8Cosmetic rejectDustSpray8

2807Standardize grade5Sanding material grade8Cosmetic rejectSanding markSpray7

2005Ionizer5High static charge8Cosmetic rejectDustSpray6

2568QC inspection4Spray method8Cosmetic rejectSanding markSpray5

2886QC inspection6Spray method8Cosmetic rejectMiss spraySpray4

2005QC inspection5Spray method8Cosmetic rejectRough surfaceSpray3

1926QC inspection4Adjustment8Dust fiberParting line highIncoming quality2

48010Trimming6Mold wear8Dust fiberFlashing (Hairline)Incoming quality1

RPN

DET

Current Process Controls

OCC

Potential Causes of Failure (KPIVs)

SEV

Potential Failure Effects (KPOVs)

Potential Failure Modes (process defects)

Process Function

(Step)#

Cause & Effect Diagram Function Deployment Matrix

KPIV & KPOV

• For Convergence Dimension : Cp = 0.53, Cpk = 0.14 (short term)• Convergence Adjustment Process is CAPABLE

Measure Process Capability

151050-5

USLLSL

Process Capability Analysis for DAY

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

PpkPPL

PPUPp

Cpm

CpkCPLCPUCp

StDev (Overall)StDev (Within)

Sample NMeanLSLTarget

USL

400078.73

361691.09 38387.64

129659.98

129659.97 0.01

333333.33

333333.33 0.00

0.120.59

0.120.35

*

0.381.880.381.13

2.825320.88652

950*

6

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Ov erall

The Potential Factors are :• Factor 1, x1 : Jig design NG• Factor 2, x2 : Spray gun condition• Factor 3, x3 : Incoming part flashing • Factor 4, x4 : Spray method• Factor 5, x5 : Paint filter NG• Factor 6, x6 : Dust from spray method• Factor 7, x7 : Miss spray from spray method• Factor 8, x8 : Sanding material grade

Determination of Vital Few X’s

• Y (Painting defect) = f (x1,x2,x3, … x8)

To determine the Vital Few

X’s

Theory : The Painting (over paint) defect is caused by X1 jig design Analysis Tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p1 401 500 0.8020002 778 800 0.972500

Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.170595% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.207221, -0.133779)Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -9.10 P-Value = 0.000

Ho : Over paint have a difference with jig design. Ha : Over paint is have no difference with jig design.

P-Value =0.00< 0.05 Fail to Reject Ho

Conclusion : The over paint HAVE DIFFERENCE with jig design. Thus, the X1 is the Vital X.

overspray

Miss spray

borderlineMasking jig design

Test of Theory 1

P-Value > 0.05 Reject HoP-Value < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho

Conclusion : The painting dust is NOT independent on spray gun condition. Thus, the X1 is the Vital X.

Ho : Painting defect is independent on spray gun filter.H1 : Painting defect is not independent on spray gun filter.

P-Value =0.01 > 0.05 Fail to reject Ho

Spray gunDust

Chi-Square Test: NO FILTERS, FILTERExpected counts are printed below observed countsNO FILTE FILTER Total 1 800 1200 2000 815.63 1184.37

2 56 43 99 40.37 58.63Total 856 1243 2099Chi-Sq = 0.299 + 0.206 + 6.048 + 4.165 = 10.719DF = 1, P-Value = 0.001

Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X2 spray gun conditionAnalysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST


Test of Theory 2

Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X3 incoming part flashingAnalysis Tool : 2 PROPROTION TEST

Ho : Painting defect have difference with part flashing. Ha : Painting defect have no difference with part flashing.

P-Value =0.000 < 0.05 Fail to reject Ho



Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.22795% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.265489, -0.188511)Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -11.56 P-Value = 0.000

Conclusion : The painting defect HAVE DIFFERENCE with part flashing. Thus, the X3 is the Vital X.

Dust

Part hairline flashing


Test of Theory 3

Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method. Thus, the X3 is NOT the vital X.

Expected counts are printed below observed counts SPRAY METHOD SPRAY METHOD NG OK TotalOK 17 20 37 18.50 18.50NG 3 0 3 1.50 1.50Total 20 20 40Chi-Sq = 0.122 + 0.122 +1.500 + 1.500 = 3.243DF = 1, P-Value = 0.072

Ho : Painting defect is independent on spray methodH1 : Painting defect is not independent on spray method

P-Value =0.072>0.05 Reject Ho

Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X4 from spray methodAnalysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST

DustSpray method


Test of Theory 4

Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X5 paint filter sizeAnalysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TESTHo : Dust is independent on paint filter size . H1 : Dust is not independent on paint filter size.

P-Value =0.000<0.05 Fail to reject Ho

Chi-Square Test: FILTER SIZE 200 MICRON, 120 MICRONExpected counts are printed below observed counts OK NG Total 200 Mic 972 28 1000 937.50 62.50 100 Mic 903 97 1000 937.50 62.50 Total 1875 125 2000 Chi-Sq = 1.270 + 19.044 + 1.270 + 19.044 = 40.627 DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000

Conclusion : The painting defect is NOT INDEPENDENT on part flashing. Thus, the X3 is the Vital X.

DustFilter mesh size


Test of Theory 5

Theory : The Painting defect (dust) is caused by X6 spray methodAnalysis tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST

Ho : Dust is independent on spray method. H1 : Dust is not independent on spray method.

P-Value =0.172 >0.05 Reject Ho



Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.03695% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.0876802, 0.0156802)Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -1.37 P-Value = 0.172

Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method.Thus, the X6 is NOT the vital X.

DustSpray method

Test of Theory 6


Theory : The Painting defect (miss spray) is caused by X7 spray methodAnalysis tool : 2 PROPORTION TEST

Ho : Miss spray is independent on spray method. H1 : Miss spray is not independent on spray method.

P-Value =0.115 >0.05 Reject Ho



Estimate for p(1) - p(2): 0.0212595% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.00514461, 0.0476446)Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 1.58 P-Value = 0.115

Conclusion : Test reject is independent on spray method. Thus, the X7 is NOT the vital X.

Miss spraySpray method

Test of Theory 7

Theory :The Painting defect (sanding mark & r.surface) is caused by X8 sanding gradeAnalysis Tool : CHI SQUARE TEST

Ho : Test reject is independent on sanding material grade. H1 : Test reject is not independent on sanding material grade.

P-Value =0.00 >0.05 Fail reject Ho

Test of Theory 8

Conclusion : Test reject is Not independent on sanding material grade. Thus, the X8 is the vital X.

Chi-Square Test: SAND PAPER GRADE G 1000, G 1200Expected counts are printed below observed counts G 1000 G 1200 Total OK 750 1008 1758 771.26 986.74 NG 84 59 143 62.74 80.26Total 834 1067 1901Chi-Sq = 0.586 + 0.458 + 7.207 + 5.633 = 13.885DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000 Sanding mark


Test of Theory 8


Vital Few X’sVital Few X’s• Y (Painting defects) = f (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x7)

The Vital Few Xs are: Vital Factor 1, x1 : Jig design Vital Factor 2, x2 : Spray gun condition Vital Factor 3, x3 : Part flashing Vital Factor 5, x5 : Paint material Vital Factor 8, x8 : Sanding material grade

Improvement #1 By Using Non-DOE

Before AfterImprovement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Over spray):

Ventilation hole area not cover causing the paint mistStick to part surface

Modify jig design – cover the ventilation hole area to prevent paint mist from sticking to part surface

Improvement #2 By Using Non-DOEImprovement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Over paint):

Modify the jig–Redesign of part holder area not to touch parting line area to eliminate painting defect.

The part holder area touching the parting line area & causing to paint residue to stick at part.

Before After


Before After

Failure rate : 1.9% Failure rate : 0.7%


Before After

Improvement of Factor, X1 Jig design NG ( Borderline)

The paint filling borderline

Masking jig cover shorter

Paint mist

PartThe extended paint jig cover prevent the paint from Filling the borderline

Masking jig cover longer

Paint mist

Part

Modify the jig–Redesign of parting line area coverage to ensure paint can’t penetrate during spray process.

The jig design NG–Parting line not fully cover causing the paint able to penetrate causing to borderline NG.

Change spray gun that have filter to ensure paint application is fully filtered before spraying to the part.

The spray gun type have no filter to prevent the dust from sprayed to the part surface.

Improvement of Factor, X2 Spray Gun Type


Before After


Before After

Failure rate : 0.7%Failure rate : 1.9%

Change filter mesh to smaller type ( 200mic) to ensure rough particle in the paint is properly filtered

Paint material contain rough particle that turn into spray dust & filter mesh 120mic can’t properly filter

Improvement of Factor, X5 paint filter size

Improvement of Factor, X3 part flashing

Repair the mold & ensure the part running is free from any hairline flashing

Part have hairline flashing that will turn fiber after attack by thinner in the paint during spray process.

Before AfterFailure rate : 1.02%

Failure rate : 0.03%

Sanding mark & rough surface reduce after using sand paper

grade 1500

Part have many sanding mark & rough surface when using sand

paper grade 1000

Improvement #7 By Using Non-DOEImprovement of Factor, X5 sand paper grade

Summary of ImprovementSummary of Improvement

BEFORE AFTER1 Painting defect jig design Done

2 Painting defect Spray gun type Done

3 Painting defect Part hairline flashing Done

4 Painting defect Paint filter size Donedust

5 Painting defect Sanding material grade DoneRough surface

sanding mark

Grade 1500Grade 1000

Eliminate flashingBare part flashing

120 micron 200 micron

Modify jig coverageJig coverage NG

No filter type Filter type

REMARKNO PROBLEM, Y VITAL FEW X IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Improve Phase Control Plan

No Control Subject Subject Target Unit Tools Sample Size

Frequency of Measurement

Control Criteria / Action / Method

Location / Process

1 Painting defect Reduce defect N.A J ig maintenance N.A Beginning lot Work Instruction Assembly& service

2 Painting defect Reduce defect N.A Filter changing N.A Beginning lot Work Instruction Assemblyservicing

3 Painting defect Reduce defect N.A Mold and machine Each Daily Work Instruction Assemblyparameter setting machine

4 Painting defect Reduce defect N.A Service N.A Beginning lot Work Instruction Assembly

5 Painting defect Reduce defect N.A Control of sand Grade Beginning lot Work Instruction Assemblypaper grade 1500supply

Process Function

(Step)

Potential Failure Modes (process defects)

Potential Failure Effects (KPOVs) SEV Potential Causes of

Failure (KPIVs)OCC

Current Process Controls

DET

RPN

Incoming quality Flashing (Hairline) Dust fiber 8 Mold wear 2 Repair mold 3 48

Incoming quality Parting line high Dust fiber 8 Adjustment 3 QC inspection 3 72

Spray Rough surface Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 3 Use 1500sandpaper 3 72

Spray Miss spray Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 1 QC inspection 5 40

Spray Sanding mark Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 2 Use 1500sandpaper 2 32

Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 High static charge 2 Ionizer 2 32

Spray Sanding mark Cosmetic reject 8 Sanding material grade 2 Standardize

grade 2 32

Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Paint material 3 Paint filter 5 120

Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Spray gun 4 Change filter 4 128

Spray Dust Cosmetic reject 8 Method 4 QC inspection 2 64

Spray Border line NG Cosmetic reject 8 Jig design 3 Modify jig 4 96

Spray Border line NG Cosmetic reject 8 Spray method 2 QC inspection 4 64

UPDATE FMEA

COMPARISON BETWEEN BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENT

514947454341393735

Target USLLSL

G-GAIN (NEW)

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USLPPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPUPp

Cpm

CpkCPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample NMean

LSL

TargetUSL

6.16

2.024.13

6.16

2.024.13

0.00

0.000.00

1.49

1.49

1.541.51

1.51

1.491.49

1.54

1.51

1.65429

1.65429

10042.375

35.000

42.50050.000

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability


Process Data

Within

Overall

Items Before After% 7.60 1.70

DPPM 76000 17000

Improvement : Improve from 76,000 dppm to 17000 dppm

Conclusion :

Result of Control

-5 0 5 10 15

LSL USL

Process Capability Analysis for DAY

USL

TargetLSLMeanSample NStDev (Within)StDev (Overall)

CpCPUCPLCpk

Cpm

PpPPUPPLPpk

PPM < LSLPPM > USLPPM Total



6

*059

0.886522.82532

1.130.381.880.38

*

0.350.120.590.12

0.00333333.33333333.33

0.01129659.97129659.98

38387.64361691.09400078.73

Process Data


Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance

Within

Overall

The project carried out is on the rightTrack.

PROJECT ACHIEVEMENT STATUS

CHOPIN REAR COVER MONITORING CHART

7.6 7.9

5.54.6

5.2

2.4 1.9 1.8 1.71.81.8

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

WK 33 WK 34 WK 35 WK 36 WK 37 WK 38 WK 39 WK 40 WK 41 WK 42 WK 43

PRO

D. O

UTP

UT

0123456789

REJ

ECT

%

PROD. OUTPUT REJ ECT %

6 σ Activity Duration

M A I CD

TARGET :DPPM 19000ACTUAL : 170000

PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTBASELINE TARGET ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENT IMPROVEMENT

COPQ : USD 2341.08 /Month RM 8896.03/MonthDPPM : 76000Sigma Level : 2.93

COPQ : USD 788.38 /Month RM 2918 / MonthDPPM : 19000Sigma Level : 3.57

COPQ : USD 985.75 RM 3745.85DPPM : 17000Sigma Level : 3.62

COPQ Saving : USD 1355.33 / Month RM 5150.25 / MonthDPPM : 57000Sigma Level : 0.69

teck see plastic sdn. bhd

Documents