Kurumsal Mükemmellik Yolunda Deneyimler
KALDER
13 Mart 2014
Q.ANT.UM
Z. Erdal Şimşek, TOFAŞ Kalite
20 Novembre, 2010
Internal
1
Endüstriyel Dünya  Problemler
Internal
Klasik Yaklaşım
Proje
Proses
Müşteri
Şikayeti
Diyagnoz
Yan Sanayi
Diğer
KOMPLEKS
PROBLEMELER
BASİT
PROBLEMELR
o
o
o
o
Internal
Birden fazla etkenin birleşmesi ile hatanın oluşması
«Benden değil yaklaşımı»
İleri çözüm yöntemleri ihtiyacı
Her birimde ayrı gözden geçirmeler ve birbiri ile
çelişen kararlar
Yeni Yaklaşım
4
Internal
Q.ant.um
DIŞ GÖSTERGELER
İÇ GÖSTERGELER
VOC
VOM
MÜŞTERİNİN SESİ
ÜRETİMİN SESİ
WC
QT
VQS
NCBS
CPA
Cp-Cpk
FTQ
PROCESS
CONF.
BODY GEO.
MACRO
MGD
TDF
VLO
CTVV
Q.ANT.UM
Internal
Q.Ant.Um Süreci
• Problem Seçimi ve Ekip Belirlenmesi
1. Seviye Diyagnoz
İLİŞKİ
PROBLEM
X
PROJECT
METHOD
ETKİ 1
H
L
H
ETKİ 2
MACHINE
MATERIAL
-
-
M
L
Production
R&D
Purchasing
Technology
Quality
Management
Employee
22
178
37
229
4
19
3
29
13
50
79
505
PPS
EKİP
Internal
Q.Ant.Um Süreci
• Çözüm Metodolojisi-PPS
Leader
Armağan Altınışık
Team
1
Registry No
32211
Kaizen No
Name & Surname
Bora Şefkat
Bünyamin Yakar
2
Topic
Registry No
263 Glove Box Problems
Name & Surname
Tansu Gündü
Hasan Ayral
3
4
Registry No
Name & Surname
Akın Kara
Hakan Tekin
5
6
FOMPAK
7
Management
Product Quality Management
Type
Registry No
FOMPAK
Name & Surname
Gülter Kasapoğlu
Planning
Safety
Cost
Productivity
Quality
2.Step
3.Step
Auto. Main.
Prof. Main.
Human Resource
Enviroment
4.Step
5.Step
6.Step
7.Step
X
1.Step
8
Step1 Problem Definition
Step 3 Target Settings
( QT/WC) (R/100) “0” in October 2010 products
<%5 rework at working station UTE 433
3. Hedef Belirleme
What: 263&152 model Glovebox has handle broken problem
When: During functional usage.
1.Problem Tanımı
Where: Glovebox Broken occurs during customer usage.
How: During normal usage
Which: %0,31 (0-15000 km)
Step 4 Root Cause Analysis
Handle Broken
Who: Independent on customer or operator.
C1
P1
Step 2 - Actual Condition Analysis
Components
P2
4M Analysis
C2
P3
4.Kök Neden Analizi
C3
C4
P4
C5
P5
P6
C6
P7
C7
Step 5 Countermeasures and Planning
Analysis of Claim Parts
P1
5.Karşı Önlemlerin Belirlenmesi
2.Mevcut Durum Analizi
Riveting Hole
deformation seen
on investigated
claim parts
P2
Handle bearing pin deformed on investigated claim parts .
Design check made with 60-70 N and deformation seen.
Handle Mechanism / Benchmark on Fiat Models
Referancing of Handle System
A
Handle Design
P6
0,5 mm
A
Step 6 Results
The Thickness of the handle
flange is weak. ( 0,5 mm)
Deforming during assembly
SEZ A-A
"O"
WC
WC
"O"
"O"
6. Sonuçların Kontrolü
Team Tecnico
Hardness of the Absorbeur
Q
T
QT
"O"
ΔØ 0,5 mm
263 New Doblo
P3
Gain :
940 Guilletta
P4
P5
Assembly angle on
pin design is
wrong
Y referance surface
of the handle is not
enough
Step 7 Standardization
194 Croma
According to design benchmarks on
FIAT models the weakest material conbination
selected on New Doblo
Cost:
P7
Realised Gain
7. Standartlaştırma
During VPCP (Verifica Progetto con Prototypo) and Reliability phase latest leveled parts must be checked
7
Hardness of the absorbeur effecting Molds of Glove box detailed parts came to supplier plant after PS period . Off tool Off process rules according to Procedures must be roadblock on PS Period.
openning force. Nominal : 46 N Material selection for handle mechanism must be controled by Desing Checklist on Design Phase
Benefit / Cost
Internal
Verification1
Verification2
Manager Approval
App.Date
Reaktive – Preventive - Proactive
Tepkisel
Etkili tanı koyma ve reaksiyon
Önleyici
Ortaya çıkabilecek
olası hatalara karşı
önlemlerin alınması
Koruyucu
0 hata koşullarının
sağlanması
8
Internal
Q.ant.um Süreci
• Gözden Geçirme Toplantıları
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Leader
08:30
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
-
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:15
Armağan Altınışık
Team
1
Registry No
32211
Kaizen No
Name & Surname
Bora Şefkat
Bünyamin Yakar
2
Topic
Registry No
3
4
263 Glove Box Problems
Name & Surname
Tansu Gündü
Hasan Ayral
Registry No
5
6
FOMPAK
Name & Surname
Akın Kara
Hakan Tekin
7
Management
Product Quality Management
Type
Registry No
FOMPAK
Name & Surname
Gülter Kasapoğlu
Planning
Safety
Cost
Productivity
Quality
2.Step
3.Step
Auto. Main.
Prof. Main.
Human Resource
Enviroment
4.Step
5.Step
6.Step
7.Step
X
1.Step
8
Step1 Problem Definition
Step 3 Target Settings
( QT/WC) (R/100) “0” in October 2010 products
<%5 rework at working station UTE 433
What: 263&152 model Glovebox has handle broken problem
When: During functional usage.
Where: Glovebox Broken occurs during customer usage.
Step 4 Root Cause Analysis
How: During normal usage
Which: %0,31 (0-15000 km)
Handle Broken
Who: Independent on customer or operator.
C1
P1
Step 2 - Actual Condition Analysis
Components
P2
4M Analysis
C2
P3
C3
C4
P4
C5
P5
P6
C6
P7
C7
Step 5 Countermeasures and Planning
Analysis of Claim Parts
P1
Riveting Hole
deformation seen
on investigated
claim parts
P2
Handle bearing pin deformed on investigated claim parts .
Design check made with 60-70 N and deformation seen.
Handle Mechanism / Benchmark on Fiat Models
Referancing of Handle System
A
Handle Design
P6
0,5 mm
A
Step 6 Results
The Thickness of the handle
flange is weak. ( 0,5 mm)
Deforming during assembly
SEZ A-A
Team Tecnico
Hardness of the Absorbeur
"O"
Q
T
QT
WC
WC
"O"
"O"
"O"
ΔØ 0,5 mm
P4
263 New Doblo
P3
Gain :
940 Guilletta
P5
Step 7 Standardization
194 Croma
According to design benchmarks on
FIAT models the weakest material conbination
selected on New Doblo
Cost:
Assembly angle on Y referance surface
of the handle is not
pin design is
enough
wrong
P7
Realised Gain
During VPCP (Verifica Progetto con Prototypo) and Reliability phase latest leveled parts must be checked
Hardness of the absorbeur effecting Molds of Glove box detailed parts came to supplier plant after PS period . Off tool Off process rules according to Procedures must be roadblock on PS Period.
openning force. Nominal : 46 N Material selection for handle mechanism must be controled by Desing Checklist on Design Phase
Benefit / Cost
Verification1
Verification2
Manager Approval
App.Date
HAFTALIK-1/2 GÜN
9
Internal
Q.ant.um Süreci
• Gözden Geçirme ve Sonuçlar
132
131
79
581
505
10
Internal
Kalite Sonuçları
Müşteri Gözü ile Değerlendirme
73%
Devam
Eden
Başlangıç
(07/2010)
Müşteri Anketi
Bugün
Garanti Maliyetleri
92%
70 %
Devam
Eden
Devam
Eden
Başlangıç
(07/2010)
Bugün
Başlangıç
(07/2010)
Internal
Bugün
12
Internal
Download

Q. ANT. UM REVİEW