REDUCING REJECTION SCORE OF RFIS DURING INSPECTION & TESTING PHASE AT PROJECT SITE

A Project of Six Sigma Green Belt

Prepared by:

Muhammad Imran Haq Khan

Supervised by:

Iftikhar Ahmad (Black Belt/Green Belt)

Submission date:

November 23, 2010

Organized by:

DAS Certification Pakistan

207, Main Street, I-10/3, Main Service Road (East) Industrial Area Islamabad-Pakistan Ph: + 92 51 5829773, + 92 51 5829773, 4430120 Fax + 92 51 4430121, www.das.com.pk

1|P a g e

Table of Contents

Index 1 Introduction

Description

Page 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

1.1 Brief introduction to six sigma methodology 1.2 Introduction to the project 2 Define 2.1 Six Sigma Project charter 2.2 Process Mapping 2.2.1 Voice of Customer 2.3 Affinity Diagram 2.4 SIPOC Diagram 3 Measure 3.1 Six Sigma Level Calculation 3.1.1 Process Capability 3.2 Pareto Analysis diagram 3.3 RFI Table-Process Data 3.3.1 Flaws Identified During Inspection & Testing 4 Analyze 4.1 Cause & Effect Diagram For Rejection of RFI 4.2 RFI Table After Applying Improvement Steps 4.3 Fish Bone Diagram 4.4 Factors Affecting Rejection Of RFI 5 Improve 5.1 Co-Relation Of Different Factors 5.2 Improved Table Of RFI After Applying Improvement Steps 5.2.1 Types Of Defects 5.2.2 Process Capability Verification 5.3 Fish Bone Diagram For Inspection & Testing Flaws 5.4 Inspection & Testing Flaws Affecting Rejection Of RFI 6 Control 6.1 Rejection Chart (Simple Line Graph) 6.2 Process control Plan Summary

2|P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

3|P a g e

1.1 Brief Introduction to six sigma methodology

Six Sigma seeks to improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing
the causes of defects (flaws) and minimizing variability in manufacturing processes. It uses a set of quality management methods, including statistical methods, and creates a special infrastructure of people within the organization ("Black Belts", "Green Belts", etc.) who are experts in these methods. Each Six Sigma project carried out within an organization follows a defined sequence of steps and has quantified financial targets (cost reduction or profit increase). The term six sigma originated from terminology associated with manufacturing, specifically terms associated with statistical modelling of manufacturing processes. The maturity of a manufacturing process can be described by a sigma rating indicating its yield, or the percentage of defect-free products it creates. A six-sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of the products manufactured are statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defects per million).

DMAIC
The DMAIC project methodology has five phases:

Define the problem, the voice of the customer, and the project goals, specifically. Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data. Analyze the data to investigate and verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered. Seek out root cause of the defect under investigation. Improve or optimize the current process based upon data analysis using techniques such as design of experiments, poka yoke or mistake proofing, and standard work to create a new, future state process. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability. Control the future state process to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects. Implement control systems such as statistical process control, production boards, and visual workplaces, and continuously monitor the process.

4|P a g e

1.2 Introduction to project

I have chosen a project to find out the possible reasons for the rejection of the RFI and to
improve level of RFI (Request For Inspection) acceptance by reducing inspection flaws and reduction in cost of quality. I got the data of 5 pressure vessels from the last year, manufactured in two different bays A and B. All of the testing data disclose the real position of failure rate of RFI in the year 2009. In this green belt project I tried my level best to apply the suitable statistical tools to analysis and improve product quality by decreasing the rejection rate. Complete study carried out in the coming phases in order to find out the main causes of the rejection and the best suitable remedy for the cause by using six sigma DMAIC methodologies.

5|P a g e

2. DEFINE

6|P a g e

2.1 Six Sigma Project Charter

Date: Project Name: Process owner: Supervisor: Project Author: Team Members: Mr. Qazi Muhammad Furqan (QA Engineer) Mr. Ramzan Nadeem (QC Engineer) Muhammad Imran Haq Khan Mr. Abdul Rauf (QC Engineer) October 10, 2010 Reducing rejection score of RFIs during Inspection & testing phase at project site. QA/QC Manager Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, Black Belt / Green Belt M. Imran Haq Khan

Purpose (primary reason for this project): To improve level of RFI (Request For Inspection) acceptance by reducing inspection flaws and reduction in cost of quality. Problem Statement In manufacturing works our customer has serious concern about RFIs rejection percentage, inspection and testing flaws and inspection cycle time. On weekly basis, collective rejection percentage of RFI activities (inspection and testing) goes beyond 16% which causes delay in delivery/completion and handover of equipment to our customer. RFI rejections affects on cost of quality of the project which shows poor manufacturing process. Business Case: The successful completion of this project will help the company to minimize the cost of quality. Improvement in process will be helpful to reduce the manufacturing activity cycle time of our product.

Goal: (expected outcome, deliverables, and or results) The project goal is to study 100% acceptance of RFI in our manufacturing process to determine the ability through process improvement. Furthermore to minimize the rejection percentage up to 3%. Scope of Project The scope of the project is to cover the RFI cycle at both locations Project site fabrication shop Workshop facility (for the manufacturing of pressure equipments)

7|P a g e

Timeline (Define, Measure, Analyze Improve and Control): The following gate review dates are recommended for this project. Define/Measure Analyze/Improve Control Compilation and report submission October 18, 2010 October 30, 2010 November 13, 2010 November 23, 2010

Measurable Metrics Primary metric: RFI rejection rates Secondary Metric: (1) Quality cost of project raised (2) Decrease in Customer satisfaction level

Benefits Increase in inspection effectiveness, product time, cycle time and reduce in penalties on the project. Enhance customer satisfaction. Quality cost reduction. Overall improvement of RFI and manufacturing process.

8|P a g e

2.2 Process Mapping: Detailed Process Flowchart

Start

Material Receiving Inspections

Acceptanc e through RFI

No NCR

In / Out put from execution team Delay Yes Preparation for fitups Preparation for reinspection

Verify as per Dwg. through RFI

No

Yes Non Destructive Examination (NDE)

3rd party reports

No

Repair of NDE work

Yes 3rd party reports No

Final visual inspection

Yes Release for hydrostatic test

End / Finish

Transportation

Marking & identification

Yes

Surface preparation & paining verification

Surface preparation and painting work

No

9|P a g e

Voice of Customer
Customer Satisfaction (Voice of the Customer) The impact of cost of poor quality on the customer the customer being the external customer who receives product or service that is directly impacted by the process that is the focus of your Six Sigma project. Description, how the VOC was validated is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inspection notification (RFI) 12 hour notice prior to inspection. Prior internal inspection with sufficient inspection data and quality record. Timely attending the RFI by internal QC inspector. Availability of resources. RFI rejection %age should not increase more than 3%.

Financial Benefits Assessment The financial benefits realized as a result of your project is the time & schedule of project. The method in which these benefits were calculated, and if finance resources were used to calculate as we as confirm the financial benefit. Tools Application The analytical tools (t-Test) were employed, then the results of the analysis and the conclusions we will be able to make as a result of the test.

Example:
Tool: Sample Variance F-test Conclusion/Key Learning: A sample of parts was taken from the Equipment inspection A and then repeated sampling using other equipment B, while holding all other factors constant. The sample size was 500 inspections an alpha of 0.05. The Fcalc based on the actual sample measurements was 553 inspections. Since the Fcalc was greater than Fcrit, I was able to reject the null hypothesis that there was no difference due to the type of Equipment to be inspected. The resulting p-value confirms that the result is outside of my established 95% confidence for accepting the null hypothesis. This test result supported managements assumption that the equipment inspections were contributing to changes in the process variation, and allowed the project team to pursue this part of the investigation further.

10 | P a g e

11 | P a g e

2.4 SIPOC DIAGRAM - High Level RFI Process Integrity Project

Supplier Input Process Output Customer

Store / Warehouse / Vendors Layout Supervisor / Contractor officer Area Supervisor / Welding foreman Area Engineer / Supervisor Area Engineer / Supervisor Field Engineer

Generation RFI For Inspection Generation RFI & Identify Dwg. Requirement Generation RFI & verify Support Docs. RFI Raised For Testing

Receiving Material

Accept / Reject Report

Production Manager & Team Production Manager & Team QC System Operation

Marking/Layout & Cutting Fit-up & Welding Activity NED Testing

Accept / Reject Report

Accept / Reject Report

3rd Party Report RFI Raised For Internal & External Inspection Supporting Documents Presentation Test Packages prep. & Field Verification RFI Raised For Painting Inspection Work Done As Per SOW Shop Dossier Prep & Verification Preservation, Marking & Labeling Verification Final Inspection PL / Release Note Enter Time Sheets & Job Progress Pressure Testing Productivity / Project Cost Report Accept / Reject Report

QC Manager/QC System Operation QC Engineer / Production Manager Production Manager & Team Production Manager & Team Production Manager & Team

Area Supervisor

Painting Supervisor

Release For Painting

Accept / Reject Report

Commercial / Planning Engineer QC Engineer / Inspector Planning / Commercial Engineer

Enter Vendor Invoices

Contraction Cost Report Shop dossier /Customer Review/Acceptance Equipment Release Note From Customer

Production Manager & Team Field Engineer / Customer QA/QC Manager Planning Engineer / Process Plant Supervisor

Final Quality Documentation Transportation To Process Plant

12 | P a g e

3. MEASURE

13 | P a g e

3.1 SIX SIGMA LEVEL CALCULATIONS

Calculate the sigma level and DPMO of 5-nos. pressure vessels, 100 RFI raised for inspection and testing activities fabricated in ASME workshop. The manufacturer wants to address the functionality and sigma level of the pressure vessel manufacturing process in 9-weeks time.

Sigma Measurements Table Sigma Defects numbers per million 1.5s 500,000 2.0s 308,300 2.5s 158,650 3.0s 67,000 3.5s 22,700 4.0s 6,220 4.5s 1,350 5.0s 233 5.5s 32 6.0s 3.4 Project sigma is 3 because the DPMO level 74,000 which is near the 3 sigma level. Yield Calculation of the Process 500 RFIs has 53 rejected then, Yield is Yield= (500 53)*100/500= 89.4% Variable data output is frequency Mean of the data = 110.6 Minimum and maximum of the data = 109 112 Data range= 100 Variance= 1.92 Standard deviation= 3.84 Z-Score Evaluation For Z-score measurement specification limit is USL (102) LSL (106) Z-score= (USL-mean)/standard deviation Z-score= (106-110.6)/3.84= -1.19 Z-score value is -1.19

14 | P a g e

3.1.1
Pressure Vessel PV-1 PV-2 PV-3 PV-4 PV-5 RFI Offered
112 109 110 112 110

Process Capability
RFI Rejected
10 12 11 10 10

Interpretation of the Process Capability Diagram

Process Capability PPK = z-score/3 PPK=-1.19 /3= -0.399 (Process is poor capable and improvement is required)

(Note: if PPK value is grater then 1 process is capable if PPK value is less then 1 then process is not capable.)

15 | P a g e

3.2 PARETO ANALYSIS DIAGRAM

Defects Mech. Damages Wrong Marking/Cutting Fit-up Visual Testing (Welding) RT Pneumatic Testing Hydro Test Surface Preparation Painting Final Inspection Lack of supervision Total

Counts 1 2 5 22 2 1 0 7 4 1 8 53

Basic Steps for Pareto Chart: 1. Quantify the Impact of Each Defect 2. Rank in Descending Order NOTE: We should have at least three types of defects. If we have too many, then we may want to group them together.

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

4. ANALYZE

19 | P a g e

20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

4.3 Fish Bone Diagram

It is also called ISHI KAWA diagram or Cause and Affect diagram which shows the real situation about the problem and helps us to find out the root cause of the problem.

22 | P a g e

23 | P a g e

5. IMPROVE

24 | P a g e

5.1

CO-RELATION OF DIFFERENT FACTORS IDENTIFIED IN CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM

During in depth study, after cause and effect diagram definition, improvement points have been identified to reduce the rejection of RFI and sustain the improvement. The following steps have been taken with the serious consideration: 1. Within the fabrication team, control frequency would be increased. If it is 1 to 2 times, it should increase to 3 to 4 times to minimize RFI rejections. 2. Re-alignment of resources, from payroll list has been acquired to see the proper allocation of skilled man power. During this, it was observed that fabricators, welders and painters have been not allocated according to t heir skill and experience. As a result, re-alignment of resource has been managed. 3. Purposely in those areas, where the inspection flaws rate was very high. Skill enhancement, training program has been delivered according to written procedure. 4. Poor quality of food has been identified as a cause of rejection during fabrication process. Good quality of food has been provided by replacement with the prequalified vendor.

25 | P a g e

26 | P a g e

27 | P a g e

5.2.2.
PV-1 PV-2 PV-3 PV-4 PV-5

Process Capability
RFI Offered
103 102 102 101 101

Pressure Vessel

RFI Rejected
3 2 2 1 1

Interpretation of the Process Capability Diagram

Process Capability PPK = z-score/3 PPK=0.81 (Process is still poor capable and more improvement is required, but improved from the past)

(Note: if PPK value is grater then 1 process is capable if PPK value is less then 1 then process is not capable.)

28 | P a g e

29 | P a g e

30 | P a g e

6. CONTROL

31 | P a g e

STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

The points addressed in the improve phase will be monitored through the control charts in the statistical process control. The abnormalities will be observed through the tendency of the data plots for special causes and corrective action will be taken accordingly.

6.1 REJECTION CHART (SIMPLE LINE GRAPH)

Date
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9

Sample Size n 23 45 72 78 97 90 60 30 14

Rejected RFI 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 1

Comments:
To Conclude, Control Plan would be considered and then the rejections are improved and sustain the

improvement like;

1. Re-Alignment of resource - Taking relevant people in relevant place 2. Provided good food by changing pre-qualified sub-contractor 3. In-situ relevant training has been arranged to all group of vessel fabrication yard 4. Flawless Startup Initiative (FSI) system has been launched for in depth identification of checkpoints for smooth & in time completion of product with maximum customer satisfaction

32 | P a g e

33 | P a g e

Summary
Our fabrication shop situated near project site has not achieved Six Sigma quality levels for all five pressure vessels as requested by their customers. Basically it is required to apply Six Sigma problem solving methodology to establish an improvement strategy that minimizes rework costs, yet achieves the desired quality objective.

Problem statement
To bring the key process output variables within Six Sigma quality level of < 3.4 DPM. Cp 2.0 and Cpk 1.67

Analysis & Control

RFI control frequency should be increased. If it is 1 to 2 times, internal checks should increase upto 3 to 4 times to minimize RFI rejections.
Re-alignment of resources, to see the proper allocation of skilled man power. Purposely in those areas, where the flaw rate was very high. Skill enhancement, training program should be delivered. Food quality should be checked frequently and ensure good quality of food for the staff.

Recommended Control
Implement Flawless Startup Initiative (FSI) system for in depth identification of checkpoints for smooth & in time completion of product with maximum customer satisfaction. Establish control plan for ongoing monitoring of every 10 RFI raised. ****************

34 | P a g e