Human Error Prevention Ppt W201 Part Mix Up

5/28/2018 Human Error Prevention Ppt W201 Part Mix Up

1/15

Problem Definition: Part Mixup

Supplier Name : Sigma Vibracoustic V. Code : Location: Mohali

M&M SQA Managers Name : M&M SQA Officers Name:


2/15

2

Problem Definition

Brief description of Problem

What : Parts Got Mix up

When: Internal During Packaging/Pre Despatch Inspection

Who: Inspector

Where: At Supplier End

Why: Due to operator negligiency

How: Problem noticed during pre despatch inspection/2 part

reported

Part Name : Bush Toe Bar Frame Model : W201

Part got mixed up

during packaging


3/15

3

Guideline for 5W 1H ( For Reference Only )

Brief description of Problem

It should include details of what, where, when, present level and target .

What:What is troubling to the customer/organization, What is theissue? It can include which part/product/family/process as appropriate.

Where: Where problem is produced? Where it is detected? Whichlocation on the part (geographically or within the company) asappropriate.

When:When problem was first observed?

Who : Who has reported the Problem / Who is suffering?

Why:Why the Problem occurred?

How: How the Problem get noticed / How many Parts reported?Specify Current level based on the average data of last 4 to 6 months.


4/15

4

Human Error PreventionPart Name Bush Toe Bar Frame

Part Number - 0402BA3000N

Model : W201

Process Stage : Packaging

Part got Mixed Up during packaging

because of same profile parts it was not

easy to detect the parts visually

FMEA Detection level Before : 7

Team members

1. Team leader : Mr. Parmod Makhija

2. Member 1 : Mr. Manil gogia

3. Member 2 : Mr. Jetesh Devgun

4. Stage Operator(Must) : Mr. Ram Bali

BEFORE :

Avg( PPMeq):

Training Date : Project Start Date : Project Completion Date :

Profile gauge for part inspection

During packaging

Inspection of part with

profile gauge


5/15

5

Analysis of the Problem :Why Problem is Generated

Part Mix Up

Negligiency of operator

Lack of training

Inspection method not capable enough(only visual check during packaging)

WHY

Key Word :


6/15

6

Human Error Prevention Check Sheet# Principles Question to be asked to the process Solution E C I SPN

1 Can we eliminate the error-prone process?Yes, by means of profile gauge for parts we can avoid mixup during

packaging2 3 2 12

2 Can we eliminate harmful objects? No such harmful object identified 1 1 1 1

3 Can we automate the process? No automation is there because of process & cost constraint 3 1 1 3

4Can we provide supporting tools like

checklists/gages/samples?Profile gauge provided 3 3 2 18

5Can we simplify changes/differences in the operations?

(standardization, code matching, etc)packaging specification available 2 3 2 12

6Can we distinct changes/differences in t he operations?

(color coding, unique shape, etc.)All processes have there own specific number 3 3 3 27

7 Can We adjust the properties of the operations which suitshuman beings?

All processes have established by considering HSE requirements 3 3 2 18

8Can we record the motion of the earlier operation and verify

it before starting the next operationYes, oiling done can be verified visually 3 3 2 18

9Can we restrict the motion in such way that it will notice

the abnormality?Yes, profile gauge can check the other profile part if any mixup is there 3 3 3 27

10

Can we verify the results before starting the next operation

?

(sensing shape/state/quality of work)

profile can be checked by means of profile gauge 2 3 2 12

11Can we make function parellel (Redundant)?(Additional

Control)Profile gauge can be implemented for other W201 parts also 3 2 2 12

12Can we incorporate some shock absorbing

materail/equipment?(Like Fuse)PPE's available 3 3 3 27

13Can we make unsafe conditions more safer so as to not to

produce the defects?(Protection)

Training can be provided to operators & inspectors for use of profile

gauge while packaging3 2 2 12

Mitigation

Facilitatation

Detection

Replacement

Elimination


7/157

Improvement Photograph

BEFORE AFTER

Solution Implemented:

100% Visual Inspection

Inspection with profile gauge


8/158

Sustenance Plan

S.N. Activity Resp Frequency Remarks

1

Through Process

Audits & Product

Audits

QA/Prod

A per

process/pro

duct audit

plan

Horizontal Deployment

S.N. Activity Resp Target Date Status

1 All W201 Bushes Prod/QA In process Open


9/159

Movie - NA


10/1510

Result ( Improvement in RPN)

PFMEA Details Before After Actions taken

Severity Rating(S) 5 5

Occurance

Rating(O)

3 3

Detection Rating(D) 7 6 Profile gauge provided in process

during packaging

RPN(S x O X D) 105 90


11/1511

Result

4

8

10 0 0

0

123456789

10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Quantity

Trend Chart : PPMeq, R/1000, InternalRejection

Kaizen

Implemented

1stTime Problem Reported on : DD\MM\YY Solution Implemented on : DD\MM\YY


12/1512

Thanks


13/1513

Back up Documents - MUST


14/1514

MISQ ( Mahindra Inspection Standard for

Quality)Refer guideline if you are not aware


15/1515

Control Plan, PFMEA, PFC,SOP ( Ifchanged)