You are on page 1of 29

Description of Problem

Objectives of this workshop

The rejections of paper manufactured by a company


exceeds 30%. The magnitude of the problem has
increased recently. Problem is observed at the end
of the paper production process where the entire
paper produced is tested for its quality.
Scope the problem

Black Spots

Thin
Highest
Others Spots contribution
Accepted
to rejections
product

Most
serious

Product Holes
Rejection “A”
36% 50%
Rs18 crore
per annum
Drawn to scale
1% rejection corresponds HOLES ARE THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO REJECTION.
to a revenue loss of Rs 50 PROBLEM IS SCOPED TO: REJECTION OF PAPER CAUSED DUE
TO PRESENCE OF HOLES
lakh pa
e pet theory of the personnel in the plant was:
“Roller Number 1 is root cause”
picks up fibre or something and leaves a hole”
Capex of Rs.2 crore would be required
to replace the roller with a larger one.
We take a systematic problem
solving approach, that uses:
• only data and no opinion
• strict logical analysis
• experimental confirmation

THE DATA OF %DEFECTS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME INDICATED


THAT THE PROBLEM IS OF VARIATION TYPE.
Is/Is-Not Matrix: Data Collection Format

Problem Is Present in Is Absent in


Problem Problem
1. What

2. Where

3. When

4.
Quantity
Data Obtained on “What”

Problem Present Absent


What is the unit with defectPaper Not applicable

What is the defect on the Holes Not applicable


unit (this is the defect
under study)
What other defects are None Not applicable
present on the defective
unit
What other defects are Not Profile, Thickness,
absent on the defective applicable GSM, Porosity,
unit Yellow is where etc..
data is available in this case
The Holes in the Paper

Hole
Hole

The paper with holes does


not have any other
problems
Data Obtained on “Where”

Problem Present Absent


Where – on which part of defective Anywhere across Not present at any
unit machine profile specific location

Hole
Detector

Roller Hole

M/C width
Number
1
View across
width of machine

Red: Medium size hole


Blue: Large size hole
WIDTH OF MACHINE
The Holes in the Paper
Where is present?
Problem Present Absent
Where – on which part of defective Anywhere across Not present at any
piece machine profile specific location

Absence of specific location, and


presence of random spread suggests
that the holes are not machine related,
but related to something that contacts
machine anywhere randomly

Roller Hole

M/C width
Number
1
Data Obtained on “Where”:

Problem Present Absent


Where - on which part of defective piece Anywhere across Not present at any
machine profile specific location
Where – on which product variety Imported RM, Indian RM,
More hardwood. Less hardwood.
Where – after which operation, and not Cannot measure Cannot measure
before which operation
Where – on which machine or line Only one m/c Only one m/c
available available
Where – in which plant/ area Not checked Not checked
Input feed to the
process is
randomly
distributed

Data obtained in “where” indicates that:


oles do not appear to be correlated with machine
and
Holes appear to be correlated with somethingCorroboration:
randomly distributed across the process. Holes are
correlated with
type of input
into process
Detailed Problem Specs Sheet
for “When”

Problem Present Absent

When – draw time line


and show occurrences of
defect
When – in which shift and
which part of the shift
(hr/min)
When – in which month; in
which season
When – in which year Yellow is where data is available in this case
Detailed Problem Specs Sheet
for “When”

Problem Present Absent

When – draw time line No clear pattern,


and show occurrences of trend or
defect periodicity
When – in which shift and No pattern visible
which part of the shift
(hr/min)
When – in which month; in
which season
Yellow is where data is available in this case
When – in which year
Data on “When” – Time line
TREND TR- 5000 ULMA % REJ EC TION

1
60
55
50
45
40
35
1 .50
30 1 .00
Ser i es1
25 0.50
0.00
20
1
15
10
5
0

60
55
50 2
No clear pattern
T RE ND T R-5000 ULMA % RE J E C T I ON

no build ups,
45
40
35
30
25
20

no periodicity
15
10
5
0

TREND TR- 5000 ULMA % REJ EC TION

60
55
50
3
45
40
35

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Today
None of the recorded machine
parameters and none of the
recorded input parameters correlate
with the ups and downs in the
rejection percentage on the time
line, when compared for the same
grade of material.
Detailed Problem Specs Sheet
for “Quantity”

Problem Present Absent

Quantity – How much (how


deep/wide…) are the defects

Quantity – How many


defective pieces in the batch

Quantity – How many defects


on defective piece Yellow is where data is available in this case
Data Obtained for “Quantity”

Problem Present Absent


Quantity – How much (how Approx circular Not steaks,
deep/wide…) are the holes, which are tears,
most common
defects
Quantity – How many Many Not zero
defective pieces in the
batch (roll)
Quantity – How many
defects on defective piece
Physically search for
“mura”
(inconsistency) in
input material
Found foreign
Found no
bodies in fresh
contamination in
water!
input raw Found no
materials contamination in
recycle water!

Found foreign Found no


bodies in head contamination in
box input! chemicals and
other streams
Hypothesis:
Foreign bodies from
fresh water
lead to holes
Testing of Hypothesis

Experimental confirmation:
• Experiment : Stop fresh water: Rejections should reduce
Experimental Testing of Hypothesis

Roll No Grade Meters Holes smallHoles Holes large Dark Sp Dark sp Dark sp Thin sp Thin sp Thin sp Bobbinsrej % bobbins
medium small medium large small medium large ect reject

234 TR 3 21111 2 70 57 0 0 0 335 142 29 56 With fresh


water

235 TR 3 26251 2 30 41 2 0 0 114 67 14 39 With fresh


water

236 TR 3 28214 1 33 30 0 0 2 137 78 19 49 With fresh


water

244 TR 3 21,676 3 28 15 0 0 0 66 34 4 14 5% No fresh


water
Conclusion

Foreign particles from fresh water are


primary chronic causes of holes,
resulting in rejections

Machine parts, including “roller number 1”


aggravate the problem, and are causes of
instability problem (cyclic trend), resulting
in rejections.
Countermeasures

•Reduce contamination in fresh water


This is a sporadic problem
of holes in shape of cracks

This is a instability problem.


Not to be confused with chronic problem.
Cause for this is different, and known.
Difference between Sporadic and Shift

Sporad
ic

Shift

We are
solving this
Now the real challenge is on!

1. Completing the countermeasures


2. Sustaining the gains
3. Preventing and immediately correcting
sporadic problems
Can you
meet it?

Should become redundant


Learning’s

8D approach makes no assumptions.


It starts with data, from scratch on blank slate.
uses logic to narrow down the area of search for the root cause.

It does not require only technical expertise.


It also requires reliable data.
It obtains data by asking a series of questions.
The questions are in strict sequence.

You might also like