1. 1

2. 2
Productivity Improvement in
WABCO Production Line

3. 3
(1.0) TEAM
1. D.RADHAKRISHNAN LEADER OPERATION
2. V.TAMARAISELVAN MEMBER QA & TQM
3 . A.PAULRAJ MEMBER PRODUCTION
4. T.SIVARAMAPRASATH MEMBER ENGINEERING
5 D.SANTHANABHARATHI MEMBER PRODUCTION&Quality
6. ANTHONYSAMY MEMBER QUALTIY
7. V.SUSHIL RAJ MEMBER MAINTANANCE
8. A.PALANIVEL MEMBER PRODUCTION
VENUE : CONFERENCE HALL-KKLR
FREQUENCY : EVERY SATURDAY
TIME : 11.00 AM to 12.00 NOON

4.  (1.1 ) - Team Attendance
6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22
D.RADHAKRISHNAN P P P P P P P P P P P P
A.PALANIVEL P P A P P P P P P P P P
A.ANTHONYSAMY P P P P P P P P P A P P
T.SIVARAMPRASATH P P P P P P A P P P P P
D.SANTHANABHARATHIP P P P P P P P P P P P
V.TAMARAISELVAN P P P P P P P P P P P P
A.PAULRAJ P P P P P P P P P P P P
V.SUSHILRAJ P P P P P P P P P P P P
Attendance % 96%
OCT'12 NOV'12 DEC'12
Members

5. 1.1 Reason for improvement, selection and Linkage :
 Improve productivity
 To reduce WIP
 Reduce material handling and fatigue
 Linked in 2012-13 PD
1.1.3. Business Linkage :
Organizational
Capability
To achieve 100%
adherence
to external customer

6. 6
1. To Improve the current productivity ( PMPD ).
2. To meet the increased customer requirement of 550
nos/shift from the current level of 430 nos /shift with
std. manpower
3. To reduce inventory in WIP.
4. To reduce internal Rejection and rework.
Reason for Improvement:

7. 1.1.1 Identification:
•Metal Forming is one of the key supplier for Lucas TVS .
• In the present condition customer is not giving price compensation for
increase in power cost, consumable cost and man power cost. Also customer
is asking for price reduction. To improve the over all company performance,
improve the productivity is essential
• Hence our CFT was assigned to work on this improvement in productivity
through structured approach in line with the company’s objective.
1.1.2.1.Importance
 To sustain the market share and Growth
 Continuous improvement in productivity

8. 8
1.2. OVER ALL PLAN
6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN ACTUAL
6 A
C
T7
Counter Measures
Standardisation
Future Plan
5
4
Current Situtation
Analysis
D
O
CHECK Results
1
2
3
Dec'12
Reason for
Improvement
SL.NO
P
L
A
N
DESCRIPTION
Oct'12 Nov'12

9. 9
1.3.1 Data Collection-Current process flow
Cutting Deburr CNC-1
CNC-2
Milling
De
burr
Gimbin
g-1
Gimbin
g-2
Inspen Leak test Dispatch
CNC-3
Milling
-2
WIP is maintained in Cutting, CNC, Milling and Gimping process.
Total Man Power - 13

10. 10
Opn.no Operation Cycle time
10 Cutting 25
20 De burring 15
30 CNC-1 75
30 CNC-2 75
30 CNC-3 75
40 Milling-1 40
40 Milling-2 40
50 De burring 15
60 Gimbing-1 30
70 Gimbing-2 15
80 Inspection 15
90 Leak test 15
100 Dispatch 15
1.3.2 Data Collection-Current Cycle Time

11. 11
1.3.3 Interpretation of the data
Cycle Time, 25
Cycle Time, 15
Cycle Time, 75
Cycle Time, 40Cycle Time, 15
Cycle Time, 30
Cycle Time, 15
Cycle Time, 25
Cycle
Time, 15
Cycle Time
1 Tube Cutting Soco cutting
2 Deburring Manual
3 CNC Turning CNC Machine
4 Milling Milling Machine
5 Milling Deburring Manual
6 Gimping-1 SPM-1
7 Gimping-2 SPM-2
8 Final Inspection FQA Table
9 Leak Test Tester

12. 12
1.3.4 Data collection
Series1
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
Series1
Series1 80% 72% 72%
Employee Ef f % M/ CEf f % Line Ef f %

13. 13
1.3.5 Data collection - WIP
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
WIP - Actual Days WIP - Plan Days
WIP - Actual Days 1 1.5 2 2 1.5 1.5
WIP - Plan Days 1 1 1 1 1 1
Apr'12 May'12 Jun'12 Jul'12 Aug'12 Sep'12

14. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PMPD-Actual PMPD -Target
PMPD-Actual 40 42 40 42 42 40
PMPD -Target 52 52 52 52 52 52
Apr'12 May'12 Jun'12 Jul'12 Aug'12 Sep'12
1.3.6 Data collection - PMPD

15. 15
1.3.7 problem definition
•Line out put is controlled by CNC Machine ( Current output is
around 430 nos / shift, so line balancing is required to match the
other line output)
• To meet the customer increased demand of 550 nos/shift, the
following machines output is to be improved with std. manpower
1. CNC turning machine
2. Milling machine
3. Gimping machine
•WIP is high due to imbalance output which creates
rejection/rework
•More material handling and unsafe practices due to poor
layout

16. 16
1.3.8. TARGET SETTING:
• To improve the productivity from 40 to 60
PMPD by Jan’13 – by 50%

17. 17
S.no Details Plan Actual (Avg)
1 Line output /day 600 430
2 Total manpower /day 9 13
3 No. of M/cs 9 9
4 Employee productivity 52 42
5 M/C productivity 66 48
6 Line efficiency 90% 72%
7 WIP 0 days 1.5 /2 days
8 Rework /Rejection 5000 PPM 25000 PPM
Period : Apr.2012 to Sep.2012
1.4.1 segregation of data.
Observed Employee and machine productivity is low.
Observed more rework in rusting of yoke and more scrap
in handling damage

18. 18
1.4.2 Brainstorming: ( low productivity)
1.Cycletime high in CNC machine (waiting time)
2.Change overtime more-insert change( Waiting Time)
3. Low hardness material leads to more burr removal ( Waiting Time)
4.Absentism (waiting Time)
5.Availability of skilled manpower ( Defect)
6. Tool down time ( waiting Time)
7. Machine break down ( Waiting Time)
8.Tool life low ( Waiting Time)
9.M/c stoppage due to imbalance output ( Waiting Time)
10.Morematerial in between the stages (Un necessary movement)
11. Rejection in CNC ( Defect)
12. Rework due to improper storage (Defect)
13. Poor handling of materials ( Un necessary movement)

19. 19
1.4.2 Brainstorming: ( low productivity)
•In correct machine / hand tools used ( Low Production)
•Process not operated properly ( Low production)
•Non optimal lay out with wasted movements ( Un necessary movement)
•Working method causes wasted movements ( Un necessary movement)
•Excessive variation /lack of standardization of product ( Low Production)
•In correct quality standards ( Defect)
•No plan for flow of work ( Un necessary movement)
•Improper supply of material /equipment ( Low Production)
•Improper maintenance of plant /equipments /tools (Low Production)
•Improper working condition resulting in interrupted work ( Low Production)
•Failing to observe safety standards ( Un safe)
•Careless workmanship causing rework /rejection ( Defect)

20. 20
1.4.3 Identifying causes and root causes:
Method
Man/supplier
Erractic
Cycle Time
Erractic
Cycle Time
Machine & Tool
Material
More absentizam
Carless workman ship
causes rework / reject
Change over time
No plan for flow of
Work
No safety standard
follow
Cycle time High
CNC chipping issue
Machine Break down
Tool Life Low
In correct m/c or
hand tool
Process not operated
properly
Improper
Maintenance
Improper working
condition
More absentizam
Down time due to
imbalance output
More material
movement
Improper storage
Poor handling of
material
In correct quality
standard
Low hardness
material – More burr
Rejection due to Poor
RM quality
Improper supply of
material

21. 21
1.4.2 Brainstorming: ( Validation &Grouping )
•Validation of causes was carried out in the shop floor by the
team and the causes were grouped under major categories as
per below :
•Over production (Imbalanced cycle time)
•Defects / Rework / Rejection
•Unnecessary movements
•Unnecessary material movement
•Un necessary man movement (inspection)
•Waiting time
•M/c waiting time
•Operator waiting time
•Matl.waiting time

22. 22
1.4.3 Identifying causes and root causes:
Method
Man/supplier
Erractic
Cycle Time
Erractic
Cycle Time
Machine & Tool
Material
Man waiting time / more
movement
Cycle time(high)
More material
movement
Un necessary
Movement
Defect /
Rework/Rejection
Material Waiting time
CNC chipping issue

23. 23
1.4.Root cause Analysis :
Cause Why1 Why2 Why3 Why4 Why5 Countermeasure
1.Over
Production in
line
Imbalanced
output
Imbalanced
cycle time
Line balance through cycle
time study through DOE
2.Waiting
Time-Material
Material stock-
rework /
rejection
No control due
to over
production
-do-
Waiting Time-
Man
Skill not
available in
Critical m/c
More
absentizam
Planning for Multi
skilling / In built
inspection- Reduce
inspector movement
3.Unnecessary
man/material
movement
More space
between
machine
Initial layout Re layout
No proper
material
handling device
Method modification in
Line
4.Rejection /
Rework
Material
damage
Damage during
movement
Design suitable material
handling system
Damage during
-storage
Minimize/Avoid storage

24. 24
1.4.1 Why-Why Analysis:
What? When? Who? How?
1.Line Balancing through
Cycle time optimization
in critical machine.
2.Reducing cycle time by
combine operations.
Nov’12 Palanivel /
Tamaraiselvan
A. Through DOE analysis :
1)Selection of critical parameters
2)Conducting trial /analysis
3) Finalizing the optimum parameters
B. Reduce loading and unloading
time.
2.Multiskilling Dec’12 Palanivel /
Anthony
1.Identification of critical machines
2.On the job training
3.Qualification of training /skill
4. Inbuilt inspection cell in the layout
to avoid inspector movement
3.Lay out modification Dec’12 Radha/
Sivaramaprasath/
Palanivel
1.Single piece flow concept is to be
adopted .
2.Cell concept
4.Design of suitable
matl. Handling system
Nov’12 Sushilraj 1.Chute type / conveyor type to be
followed
5. Material storage Dec’12 Anthony / Jothi 1.Plan for critical item only.
2. FG stock

25. 25
1.4.2DOE –Study for Cycle Time Reduction:
M/C selected for trial : CNC
Factors selected : Speed , Feed, Depth of cut
No.of trials planned : 8 trials
Trial combination : as per table below
Code Parameter Current (-setting) Proposed (+ setting)
A Speed 2000 RPM 2500 RPM
B Feed 0.22 mm/sec 0.35 mm /sec
C Depth of Cut 0.50 mm 0.80 mm

26. 26
1.4.3 DOE –Study - Results:
Sl.No Combination Rej
Cycle Time
in sec Rework Insert Life
Chip
Removal Output
1 A+R-(2000,0.22,0.50) No Rej 75 Nil OK Not Ok Low
2 B-R+( 0.22,2000,0.80) N/A N/A N/A
Insert
Broken N/A N/A
3 C+R-(0.80,2000,0.22) N/A N/A N/A
Insert
Broken N/A N/A
4 B+R-(0.35,0.50,2000) No Rej 70 Nil OK Not Ok Low
5 ALL-(2000,0.22,0.50) No Rej 75 Nil OK Not Ok Low
6 ALL+(2000,0.35,0.80) No Rej 60 Nil Ok Ok High
7 A-R+(2000,0.22,0.50) No Rej 75 Nil Ok Not Ok Low
8 C-R+(0.80,2000,0.22) N/A N/A N/A
Insert
Broken N/A N/A
Combination No-6 is optimized for process parameters

27. 27
Sl.No Combination Rej
Cycle Time
in sec Rework Insert Life
Chip
Removal Output
6 ALL+(2000,0.35,0.80) No Rej 60 Nil Ok Ok High
Process validation with new parameters:
Cycle time : Reduced from 75 sec to 65 sec
Output achieved :540 no’s / Shift
Trial results with below combination
Date
11-
Mar'13
12-
Mar'13
13-
Mar'13
14-
Mar'13
15-
Mar'13
16-
Mar'13
Avera
ge
Output 1600 1432 1527 1547 1872 1800 1630
Man Power 24 21 24 24 24 24 24
PMPD 67 68 64 64 78 75 69
Rejection 14 13 15 14 12 12 13
PPM 8750 9078 9823 9050 6410 6667 8296

28. 28
Before After
Collet designed for single time
Loading- Cycle Time 55 sec
( Deskilling )
AFTERBEFORE
Collet designed for two times
Loading- Cycle time- 65 sec
1.4.4 Reduce cycle time in loading /unloading method:
-Collet modification in CNC

29. 29
1.4.5 Combining Operation in cutting & Deburring:
Before After
Deburring by machine
combined with cutting operator
No separate manpower for de burring
AFTERBEFORE
Deburribg the tube by manual-
1 Man power used

30. 30
1.4.6 Cycle Time Reduction through Hydraulic pump speed improvement:
Before After
Cycle time reduced to 20 sec
( Balanced with Gimping-2)
AFTERBEFORE
Cycle Time in Gimping-1
is 35 sec
Low Speed Pump in
Gimping SPM – 10
LBM

31. 31
1.4.7 Cycle Time reduction in milling machine – Loading time reduction
through fixture improvement
Before After
Loading Time reduced – 5 sec
Deskilling by introducing
sensor and V block.
AFTERBEFORE Loading Time-15 sec
No V Block in Milling
Wise

32. 32
1.4.8 Layout Modification:
Before After
Cell Type Layout – 1500 Sq. FeetAFTERBEFORE
Linear Layout- ( Cris cross material
flow, stage wise WIP,
Indirect man power used
for material movement

33. 33
1.4.9 Layout Modification :
Before After
One operator running
two machines
AFTERBEFORE
Two operators running
two CNC machines

34. 34
1.4.10 Layout Modification :
Before After
Length – 30 mtrs
Width – 5 mtrs
Area – 150 SQ.Mtrs
Length – 16 mtrs
Width – 5 mtrs
Area – 80 SQ.Mtrs

35. 35
1.4.11 Modified Process flow:
Cutting Deburr
CNC-2
Millin
g
De
burr
Gimbing-
1
Gi
mb
ing
-2
Inspen
Leak
test
Dispatch
CNC-1
Cutting Deburr CNC-1
CNC-2
Milling
De
burr
Gimbin
g-1
Gimbin
g-2
Inspen Leak test Dispatch
CNC-3
Milling
-2
x x
8 Man Power used currently
13 Man Power used Earlier

36. 36
1.4.12 .Material Handling Improvement:
Before After
Conveyor provided from CNC to
Milling Machine
AFTERBEFORE No conveyor from CNC to Milling
No Conveyor. Parts
loaded and moved
by trays

37. 37
1.4.14. Material Handling Improvement:
Before After
Material Automatically moved
through chute.
No man power used
AFTERBEFORE
Parts batched in Bins.
In direct people moves materials
to next station

38. 38
1.4.15.WIP Control and material storage :
Before After
No WIP .
In process material only
In chute
AFTERBEFORE WIP at every stage in Bins

39. 39
1.4.16 Material Handling Reduction
Before After
Near to cutting machine staking
stand provided
AFTERBEFORE
No staking stand near cutting
machine

40. 40
2.1.7. REVIEW OF WORKS AS PER PLAN:
S.no Activity Resp
Implemented
from
Vendor Status
1 Cutting deburring by M/C Sushil
Nov-12
Ravi tools Implemented
2
Conveyor provided for material
movement
Santhana Bharathi Nov-12 Hari Fabrication Implemented
3 Staking stand near cutting M/C Paulraj Nov-12
Hari Fabrication
Implemented.
4 CNC L-type location Palanivel Nov-12 Inhouse Implemented

41. 41
2.1.7. REVIEW OF WORKS AS PER PLAN:
S.no Activity Resp
Implemented
from
Vendor Status
5 Conveyor from CNC to milling Jothilingam
Dec-12
Inhouse Implemented
6
Guage Provided near wabco
CNC
Antony Dec-12 Revathi Engg Implemented
7 Collet design for Wabco Devendran/Palanivel Dec-12
Revathi Engg
Implemented.
8 V-Block provided in milling M/c Palanivel Dec-12 Inhouse Implemented

42. 42
2.1.7. REVIEW OF WORKS AS PER PLAN:
S.no Activity Resp
Implemented
from
Vendor Status
9
ON/OFF sensor Provided in
Milling M/c
Palanivel
Dec-12
Inhouse Implemented
10
Speed Increased in
Gimping M/c-II
Sushil/Jothi Dec-12 Inhouse Implemented
11 Linear to cell type layout Santhana bharathi Dec-12
Revathi Engg
Implemented.
4 V-Block provided in milling M/c Palanivel Dec-12 Inhouse Implemented

43. 43
3.1.4. OVER ALL PLAN Plan Vs Actual
6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN
ACTUAL
PLAN ACTUAL
6 A
C
T7
Counter Measures
Standardisation
Future Plan
5
4
Current Situtation
Analysis
D
O
CHECK Results
1
2
3
Dec'12
Reason for
Improvement
SL.NO
P
L
A
N
DESCRIPTION
Oct'12 Nov'12

44. 44
3.1.1. RESULTS ACHIEVED
 Cycle Time reduction Achieved
 PMPD Improved
 Cost Saving Achieved
 Inventory (WIP ) Reduced
 Accident Reduced
3. RESULTS :

45. 45
Opn.no Operation Before After Remarks
10 Cutting 25 25 One man
operating both
m/c
20 De burring 15 05
30 CNC-1 75 65 Machine
Removed
30 CNC-2 75 65 One man
operating both
m/c
30 CNC-3 75 0
40 Milling-1 40 0 M/C Removed
40 Milling-2 40 40 One man
operating both
m/c
50 De burring 15 15
60 Gimbing-1 30 15
70 Gimbing-2 15 15
80 Inspection 15 15
90 Leak test 15 15
100 Dispatch 15 15
3.1.Result : Cycle Time reduction

46. 46
S.no Details Before After
1 Line output /day 430 540
2 Total manpower /day 13 8
3 No. of M/cs 10 8
4 Employee productivity 33 67
5 M/C productivity 43 67
6 Line efficiency 72% 90%
7 WIP 1.5 /2 days 0 days
8 Rework /Rejection 25000 PPM 8500 PPM
3.1.2 Results :

47. 3.1.3 Results:
• Saving through man power
• Before – 13 for 430 no’s/ Shift
• After – 8 for 540 no’s / Shift
• Man power reduction / Shift - 5
• Man Power reduction/ day – 15
• Average CTC / person- Rs.6000/-(Rs.250/Day)
• Man Power cost / Part – Rs.7.50( Before)-(=250*13/430)
• Man Power Cost / Part ( After) – Rs.3.70 ( =250*8/540)
• Man Power Cost Saving/ Part – Rs.3.80
• Savings ( Jan’13-Mar’13 ) – Rs.3.99 Lakhs ( 1.05 Lakhs
Production)
• Estimated saving / Year – Rs.20 Lakhs
( estimated dispatch2013-14- 5 Lakhs number)

48. 3.1.4 Results – Power Saving
• Power saving ( 1 CNC
and 1 Milling m/c) – Rs
2.0 Lakhs per annum
Machine KVA KW
Load
Factor Units/ Hr Unit/Mon Unit Cost
Power cost /
Annum
in L
ACE CNC 16 14 25% 3 1700 12 2

49. 3.1.5 Results – In House Rejection
• Saving due to reduction in house rejection and
rework-Rs17000/ month (rework cost and
rejected part cost)
( When 25000 PPM the part reject is 750 no’s
(out of that 250 no’s scrap) s and now with 8500
PPM the rejection is 255 no’s( 102 no’s scraped)
Cost saving= (250XRs114.08) – ( 102XRs114.08)
= Rs.16883 / Month

50. 3.1.6 Results – Capital equipment released:
• CNC turning machine – released for Swift Desire
yoke production and Bajaj yoke Production –
Rs.10 Lakhs approx
• Milling machine released for New Light weight
Wabco Yoke – Rs.1.0 Lakhs approx

51. 3.1.7 Results – WIP reduction:
WIP Inventory reduced from 2 days to Zero days
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
WIP - Actual Days WIP - Plan Days
WIP - Actual Days 0 0 0
WIP - Plan Days 1 1 1
Jan'13 Feb'13 Mar'13

52. 52
3.1.1. RESULTS ACHIEVED
3.1.8. RESULTS :
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
PMPD-Actual PMPD -Target
PMPD-Actual 62 65 65 67
PMPD -Target 52 52 52 52
Dec'12 Jan'13 Feb'13 Mar'13

53. 53
4.1.1 – Documentation &
Standardization
 Work instruction changed.
 Updated in Control Plan FMEA and Process Flow

54. 4.1.2 – Preventive measures4.1.2 – Preventive measures
 Safety Guards provided in Cutting machine to avoid accident
 5’S improvement taken care
 Visual control displayed

55. 55
4.1.3 - Replication
 85 mm Frame Line

56. 56
 Productivity improvement in 125 Transfer Press
Line
 Linked with PD 12-13
Resource conservation
 Cost reduction in terms of minimize in man
power and increase in productivity.
5.0 - FUTURE PLAN
TEAMS NEXT PROJECT
REASON

57. 57
6.1.0. METHODS USED TO IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVITY:
Category Description
CNC TURNING Combined operation
Overall Layout Cell type concept – Single piece flow

58. 58
6.2.1 - To the Customer6.2.1 - To the Customer
 Satisfaction & requirement fulfilled
6.2.2 - To the Company6.2.2 - To the Company
 Cell concept introduced to reduce the movement
 Continuous improvement
 WIP Reduced from 2 days to 0 day
 Time saving
6.2.3 - To the Individual6.2.3 - To the Individual
 Team work
 Commitment
 Process knowledge
6.2 – Intangible Benefits

59. .1 –Tangible benefits (OSP) from Feb’13-Mar’13
SLNO Description Total in Lacs
1
Man Power Cost From Feb’13- Mar’13 –
2 months 1.8
TOTAL 1.8

60. 60